Hematology News

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Patients with heart failure who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at high risk for complications, with nearly 1 in 4 dying during hospitalization, according to a large database analysis that included more than 8,000 patients who had heart failure and COVID-19.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In-hospital mortality was 24.2% for patients who had a history of heart failure and were hospitalized with COVID-19, as compared with 14.2% for individuals without heart failure who were hospitalized with COVID-19.

For perspective, the researchers compared the patients with heart failure and COVID-19 with patients who had a history of heart failure and were hospitalized for an acute worsening episode: the risk for death was about 10-fold higher with COVID-19.

“These patients really face remarkably high risk, and when we compare that to the risk of in-hospital death with something we are a lot more familiar with – acute heart failure – we see that the risk was about 10-fold greater,” said first author Ankeet S. Bhatt, MD, MBA, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

In an article published online in JACC Heart Failure on Dec. 28, a group led by Dr. Bhatt and senior author Scott D. Solomon, MD, reported an analysis of administrative data on a total of 2,041,855 incident hospitalizations logged in the Premier Healthcare Database between April 1, 2020, and Sept. 30, 2020.

The Premier Healthcare Database comprises data from more than 1 billion patient encounters, which equates to approximately 1 in every 5 of all inpatient discharges in the United States.

Of 132,312 hospitalizations of patients with a history of heart failure, 23,843 (18.0%) were hospitalized with acute heart failure, 8,383 patients (6.4%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 100,068 (75.6%) were hospitalized for other reasons.

Outcomes and resource utilization were compared with 141,895 COVID-19 hospitalizations of patients who did not have heart failure.

Patients were deemed to have a history of heart failure if they were hospitalized at least once for heart failure from Jan. 1, 2019, to March 21, 2020, or had at least two heart failure outpatient visits during that period.

In a comment, Dr. Solomon noted some of the pros and cons of the data used in this study.

“Premier is a huge database, encompassing about one-quarter of all the health care facilities in the United States and one-fifth of all inpatient visits, so for that reason we’re able to look at things that are very difficult to look at in smaller hospital systems, but the data are also limited in that you don’t have as much granular detail as you might in smaller datasets,” said Dr. Solomon.

“One thing to recognize is that our data start at the point of hospital admission, so were looking only at individuals who have crossed the threshold in terms of their illness and been admitted,” he added.

Use of in-hospital resources was significantly greater for patients with heart failure hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with patients hospitalized for acute heart failure or for other reasons. This included “multifold” higher rates of ICU care (29% vs. 15%), mechanical ventilation (17% vs. 6%), and central venous catheter insertion (19% vs. 7%; P < .001 for all).

The proportion of patients who required mechanical ventilation and care in the ICU in the group with COVID-19 but who did not have no heart failure was similar to those who had both conditions.

The greater odds of in-hospital mortality among patients with both heart failure and COVID-19, compared with individuals with heart failure hospitalized for other reasons, was strongest in April, with an adjusted odds ratio of 14.48, compared with subsequent months (adjusted OR for May-September, 10.11; P for interaction < .001).

“We’re obviously not able to say with certainty what was happening in April, but I think that maybe the patients who were most vulnerable to COVID-19 may be more represented in that population, so the patients with comorbidities or who are immunosuppressed or otherwise,” said Dr. Bhatt in an interview.

“The other thing we think is that there may be a learning curve in terms of how to care for patients with acute severe respiratory illness. That includes increased institutional knowledge – like the use of prone ventilation – but also therapies that were subsequently shown to have benefit in randomized clinical trials, such as dexamethasone,” he added.

“These results should remind us to be innovative and thoughtful in our management of patients with heart failure while trying to maintain equity and good health for all,” wrote Nasrien E. Ibrahim, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Ersilia DeFillipis, MD, Columbia University, New York; and Mitchel Psotka, MD, PhD, Innova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., in an editorial accompanying the study.

The data emphasize the importance of ensuring equal access to services such as telemedicine, virtual visits, home nursing visits, and remote monitoring, they noted.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on and disproportionately ravages socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, we should focus our efforts on strategies that minimize these inequities,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Solomon noted that, although Black and Hispanic patients were overrepresented in the population of heart failure patients hospitalized with COVID-19, once in the hospital, race was not a predictor of in-hospital mortality or the need for mechanical ventilation.

Dr. Bhatt has received speaker fees from Sanofi Pasteur and is supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute postdoctoral training grant. Dr. Solomon has received grant support and/or speaking fees from a number of companies and from the NIH/NHLBI. The editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with heart failure who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at high risk for complications, with nearly 1 in 4 dying during hospitalization, according to a large database analysis that included more than 8,000 patients who had heart failure and COVID-19.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In-hospital mortality was 24.2% for patients who had a history of heart failure and were hospitalized with COVID-19, as compared with 14.2% for individuals without heart failure who were hospitalized with COVID-19.

For perspective, the researchers compared the patients with heart failure and COVID-19 with patients who had a history of heart failure and were hospitalized for an acute worsening episode: the risk for death was about 10-fold higher with COVID-19.

“These patients really face remarkably high risk, and when we compare that to the risk of in-hospital death with something we are a lot more familiar with – acute heart failure – we see that the risk was about 10-fold greater,” said first author Ankeet S. Bhatt, MD, MBA, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

In an article published online in JACC Heart Failure on Dec. 28, a group led by Dr. Bhatt and senior author Scott D. Solomon, MD, reported an analysis of administrative data on a total of 2,041,855 incident hospitalizations logged in the Premier Healthcare Database between April 1, 2020, and Sept. 30, 2020.

The Premier Healthcare Database comprises data from more than 1 billion patient encounters, which equates to approximately 1 in every 5 of all inpatient discharges in the United States.

Of 132,312 hospitalizations of patients with a history of heart failure, 23,843 (18.0%) were hospitalized with acute heart failure, 8,383 patients (6.4%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 100,068 (75.6%) were hospitalized for other reasons.

Outcomes and resource utilization were compared with 141,895 COVID-19 hospitalizations of patients who did not have heart failure.

Patients were deemed to have a history of heart failure if they were hospitalized at least once for heart failure from Jan. 1, 2019, to March 21, 2020, or had at least two heart failure outpatient visits during that period.

In a comment, Dr. Solomon noted some of the pros and cons of the data used in this study.

“Premier is a huge database, encompassing about one-quarter of all the health care facilities in the United States and one-fifth of all inpatient visits, so for that reason we’re able to look at things that are very difficult to look at in smaller hospital systems, but the data are also limited in that you don’t have as much granular detail as you might in smaller datasets,” said Dr. Solomon.

“One thing to recognize is that our data start at the point of hospital admission, so were looking only at individuals who have crossed the threshold in terms of their illness and been admitted,” he added.

Use of in-hospital resources was significantly greater for patients with heart failure hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with patients hospitalized for acute heart failure or for other reasons. This included “multifold” higher rates of ICU care (29% vs. 15%), mechanical ventilation (17% vs. 6%), and central venous catheter insertion (19% vs. 7%; P < .001 for all).

The proportion of patients who required mechanical ventilation and care in the ICU in the group with COVID-19 but who did not have no heart failure was similar to those who had both conditions.

The greater odds of in-hospital mortality among patients with both heart failure and COVID-19, compared with individuals with heart failure hospitalized for other reasons, was strongest in April, with an adjusted odds ratio of 14.48, compared with subsequent months (adjusted OR for May-September, 10.11; P for interaction < .001).

“We’re obviously not able to say with certainty what was happening in April, but I think that maybe the patients who were most vulnerable to COVID-19 may be more represented in that population, so the patients with comorbidities or who are immunosuppressed or otherwise,” said Dr. Bhatt in an interview.

“The other thing we think is that there may be a learning curve in terms of how to care for patients with acute severe respiratory illness. That includes increased institutional knowledge – like the use of prone ventilation – but also therapies that were subsequently shown to have benefit in randomized clinical trials, such as dexamethasone,” he added.

“These results should remind us to be innovative and thoughtful in our management of patients with heart failure while trying to maintain equity and good health for all,” wrote Nasrien E. Ibrahim, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Ersilia DeFillipis, MD, Columbia University, New York; and Mitchel Psotka, MD, PhD, Innova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., in an editorial accompanying the study.

The data emphasize the importance of ensuring equal access to services such as telemedicine, virtual visits, home nursing visits, and remote monitoring, they noted.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on and disproportionately ravages socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, we should focus our efforts on strategies that minimize these inequities,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Solomon noted that, although Black and Hispanic patients were overrepresented in the population of heart failure patients hospitalized with COVID-19, once in the hospital, race was not a predictor of in-hospital mortality or the need for mechanical ventilation.

Dr. Bhatt has received speaker fees from Sanofi Pasteur and is supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute postdoctoral training grant. Dr. Solomon has received grant support and/or speaking fees from a number of companies and from the NIH/NHLBI. The editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with heart failure who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at high risk for complications, with nearly 1 in 4 dying during hospitalization, according to a large database analysis that included more than 8,000 patients who had heart failure and COVID-19.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In-hospital mortality was 24.2% for patients who had a history of heart failure and were hospitalized with COVID-19, as compared with 14.2% for individuals without heart failure who were hospitalized with COVID-19.

For perspective, the researchers compared the patients with heart failure and COVID-19 with patients who had a history of heart failure and were hospitalized for an acute worsening episode: the risk for death was about 10-fold higher with COVID-19.

“These patients really face remarkably high risk, and when we compare that to the risk of in-hospital death with something we are a lot more familiar with – acute heart failure – we see that the risk was about 10-fold greater,” said first author Ankeet S. Bhatt, MD, MBA, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

In an article published online in JACC Heart Failure on Dec. 28, a group led by Dr. Bhatt and senior author Scott D. Solomon, MD, reported an analysis of administrative data on a total of 2,041,855 incident hospitalizations logged in the Premier Healthcare Database between April 1, 2020, and Sept. 30, 2020.

The Premier Healthcare Database comprises data from more than 1 billion patient encounters, which equates to approximately 1 in every 5 of all inpatient discharges in the United States.

Of 132,312 hospitalizations of patients with a history of heart failure, 23,843 (18.0%) were hospitalized with acute heart failure, 8,383 patients (6.4%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 100,068 (75.6%) were hospitalized for other reasons.

Outcomes and resource utilization were compared with 141,895 COVID-19 hospitalizations of patients who did not have heart failure.

Patients were deemed to have a history of heart failure if they were hospitalized at least once for heart failure from Jan. 1, 2019, to March 21, 2020, or had at least two heart failure outpatient visits during that period.

In a comment, Dr. Solomon noted some of the pros and cons of the data used in this study.

“Premier is a huge database, encompassing about one-quarter of all the health care facilities in the United States and one-fifth of all inpatient visits, so for that reason we’re able to look at things that are very difficult to look at in smaller hospital systems, but the data are also limited in that you don’t have as much granular detail as you might in smaller datasets,” said Dr. Solomon.

“One thing to recognize is that our data start at the point of hospital admission, so were looking only at individuals who have crossed the threshold in terms of their illness and been admitted,” he added.

Use of in-hospital resources was significantly greater for patients with heart failure hospitalized for COVID-19, compared with patients hospitalized for acute heart failure or for other reasons. This included “multifold” higher rates of ICU care (29% vs. 15%), mechanical ventilation (17% vs. 6%), and central venous catheter insertion (19% vs. 7%; P < .001 for all).

The proportion of patients who required mechanical ventilation and care in the ICU in the group with COVID-19 but who did not have no heart failure was similar to those who had both conditions.

The greater odds of in-hospital mortality among patients with both heart failure and COVID-19, compared with individuals with heart failure hospitalized for other reasons, was strongest in April, with an adjusted odds ratio of 14.48, compared with subsequent months (adjusted OR for May-September, 10.11; P for interaction < .001).

“We’re obviously not able to say with certainty what was happening in April, but I think that maybe the patients who were most vulnerable to COVID-19 may be more represented in that population, so the patients with comorbidities or who are immunosuppressed or otherwise,” said Dr. Bhatt in an interview.

“The other thing we think is that there may be a learning curve in terms of how to care for patients with acute severe respiratory illness. That includes increased institutional knowledge – like the use of prone ventilation – but also therapies that were subsequently shown to have benefit in randomized clinical trials, such as dexamethasone,” he added.

“These results should remind us to be innovative and thoughtful in our management of patients with heart failure while trying to maintain equity and good health for all,” wrote Nasrien E. Ibrahim, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Ersilia DeFillipis, MD, Columbia University, New York; and Mitchel Psotka, MD, PhD, Innova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., in an editorial accompanying the study.

The data emphasize the importance of ensuring equal access to services such as telemedicine, virtual visits, home nursing visits, and remote monitoring, they noted.

“As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on and disproportionately ravages socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, we should focus our efforts on strategies that minimize these inequities,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Solomon noted that, although Black and Hispanic patients were overrepresented in the population of heart failure patients hospitalized with COVID-19, once in the hospital, race was not a predictor of in-hospital mortality or the need for mechanical ventilation.

Dr. Bhatt has received speaker fees from Sanofi Pasteur and is supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute postdoctoral training grant. Dr. Solomon has received grant support and/or speaking fees from a number of companies and from the NIH/NHLBI. The editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), elective endoscopy procedures carry a risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events similar to that seen in those receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), according to a multicenter, prospective observational study conducted at 12 Spanish academic and community centers.

DOACs have several advantages over VKAs, including more predictable pharmacokinetic profiles and fewer food and drug interactions, but they have not been well studied in the elective endoscopy setting. Some previous studies suggested a lower risk with DOACs than with VKAs, but they were retrospective or based on administrative databases.

It also remains unclear when anticoagulant therapy should be resumed following high-risk procedures. The new study, which was led by Enrique Rodríguez de Santiago of Universidad de Alcalá (Spain) and published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, suggested that early resumption may be safe. “It certainly showed there was an acceptable rate of clinically significant rate of bleeding for patients on anticoagulants, and the thing I appreciated the most was that there was no statistically significant difference in terms of bleeding depending on when you resumed the anticoagulant,” said Robert Jay Sealock, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. Dr. Sealock was not involved in the study.

The researchers examined data from 1,623 patients who underwent 1,874 endoscopic procedures. Among these patients, 62.7% were taking VKAs, and 37.3% were taking DOACs; 58.9% were men, and the mean age was 74.2 years. Overall, 75.5% were on anticoagulant therapy for atrial fibrillation.

The most common procedures were colonoscopy (68.3%) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (27.3%).

Within 30 days, The risk of bleeding was similar between patients taking VKAs (6.2%; 95% confidence interval, 4.8-7.8%) and DOACs (6.7%; 95% CI, 4.9-9%). This was true regardless of intervention and site. Overall, 1.4% of subjects experienced a thromboembolic event (95% CI, 0.9-2.1%), and there was no significant difference between the VKA group (1.3%; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2%) and the DOAC group (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.8-2.8%).

Clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 6.4% of subjects (95% CI, 5.3-7.7%); 2.7% of clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding events were intraprocedural and 4.1% were delayed. The lowest risk of bleeding occurred with diagnostic endoscopy (1.1%) and biopsy (2.2%). The risk of bleeding for high-risk procedures was 11.5% (95% CI, 9.4-14%).

The overall mortality was 1.4%, with two deaths related to thromboembolic events, both in the DOAC group. The other deaths were considered to be unrelated to the procedure or periprocedural interruption of anticoagulants.

The researchers also examined the timing of anticoagulant resumption. Overall, 59.2% of subjects received bridging therapy, including 85% of the VKA group and 16% of the DOAC group (P < .001). This was not associated with increased endoscopy-related bleeding in either the VKA (3.3% with bridging therapy vs. 6.4% without; P = .14) or the DOAC group (8.3% vs. 6.4%; P = .48).

A total of 747 patients underwent a high-risk procedure, 46.3% of patients resumed anticoagulant therapy within 24 hours of the procedure, and 46.2% between 24 and 48 hours. After inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment, a delay in anticoagulant resumption was not associated with a reduction in the frequency of postprocedural clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding.

Still, the research left some questions unanswered. Most of the high-risk procedures were hot (41.8%) or cold snare polypectomies (39.8%). There weren’t enough data in the study to evaluate risk in patients undergoing other high-risk procedures such as balloon dilation for strictures, endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration, and sphincterotomy. “That’s one group that we still don’t really have enough data about, particularly those patients who are on DOACs,” said Dr. Sealock.

The study also found a high number of patients on bridging therapy. “It highlighted the fact that we probably use bridging therapy too much in patients undergoing endoscopy,” said Dr. Sealock. He recommended using tools that generate recommendations for bridging therapy and timing for withholding and resuming anticoagulants based on procedure and patient characteristics.

SOURCE: de Santiago ER et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Dec 03. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.11.037.

Among patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), elective endoscopy procedures carry a risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events similar to that seen in those receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), according to a multicenter, prospective observational study conducted at 12 Spanish academic and community centers.

DOACs have several advantages over VKAs, including more predictable pharmacokinetic profiles and fewer food and drug interactions, but they have not been well studied in the elective endoscopy setting. Some previous studies suggested a lower risk with DOACs than with VKAs, but they were retrospective or based on administrative databases.

It also remains unclear when anticoagulant therapy should be resumed following high-risk procedures. The new study, which was led by Enrique Rodríguez de Santiago of Universidad de Alcalá (Spain) and published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, suggested that early resumption may be safe. “It certainly showed there was an acceptable rate of clinically significant rate of bleeding for patients on anticoagulants, and the thing I appreciated the most was that there was no statistically significant difference in terms of bleeding depending on when you resumed the anticoagulant,” said Robert Jay Sealock, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. Dr. Sealock was not involved in the study.

The researchers examined data from 1,623 patients who underwent 1,874 endoscopic procedures. Among these patients, 62.7% were taking VKAs, and 37.3% were taking DOACs; 58.9% were men, and the mean age was 74.2 years. Overall, 75.5% were on anticoagulant therapy for atrial fibrillation.

The most common procedures were colonoscopy (68.3%) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (27.3%).

Within 30 days, The risk of bleeding was similar between patients taking VKAs (6.2%; 95% confidence interval, 4.8-7.8%) and DOACs (6.7%; 95% CI, 4.9-9%). This was true regardless of intervention and site. Overall, 1.4% of subjects experienced a thromboembolic event (95% CI, 0.9-2.1%), and there was no significant difference between the VKA group (1.3%; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2%) and the DOAC group (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.8-2.8%).

Clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 6.4% of subjects (95% CI, 5.3-7.7%); 2.7% of clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding events were intraprocedural and 4.1% were delayed. The lowest risk of bleeding occurred with diagnostic endoscopy (1.1%) and biopsy (2.2%). The risk of bleeding for high-risk procedures was 11.5% (95% CI, 9.4-14%).

The overall mortality was 1.4%, with two deaths related to thromboembolic events, both in the DOAC group. The other deaths were considered to be unrelated to the procedure or periprocedural interruption of anticoagulants.

The researchers also examined the timing of anticoagulant resumption. Overall, 59.2% of subjects received bridging therapy, including 85% of the VKA group and 16% of the DOAC group (P < .001). This was not associated with increased endoscopy-related bleeding in either the VKA (3.3% with bridging therapy vs. 6.4% without; P = .14) or the DOAC group (8.3% vs. 6.4%; P = .48).

A total of 747 patients underwent a high-risk procedure, 46.3% of patients resumed anticoagulant therapy within 24 hours of the procedure, and 46.2% between 24 and 48 hours. After inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment, a delay in anticoagulant resumption was not associated with a reduction in the frequency of postprocedural clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding.

Still, the research left some questions unanswered. Most of the high-risk procedures were hot (41.8%) or cold snare polypectomies (39.8%). There weren’t enough data in the study to evaluate risk in patients undergoing other high-risk procedures such as balloon dilation for strictures, endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration, and sphincterotomy. “That’s one group that we still don’t really have enough data about, particularly those patients who are on DOACs,” said Dr. Sealock.

The study also found a high number of patients on bridging therapy. “It highlighted the fact that we probably use bridging therapy too much in patients undergoing endoscopy,” said Dr. Sealock. He recommended using tools that generate recommendations for bridging therapy and timing for withholding and resuming anticoagulants based on procedure and patient characteristics.

SOURCE: de Santiago ER et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Dec 03. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.11.037.

Among patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), elective endoscopy procedures carry a risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events similar to that seen in those receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), according to a multicenter, prospective observational study conducted at 12 Spanish academic and community centers.

DOACs have several advantages over VKAs, including more predictable pharmacokinetic profiles and fewer food and drug interactions, but they have not been well studied in the elective endoscopy setting. Some previous studies suggested a lower risk with DOACs than with VKAs, but they were retrospective or based on administrative databases.

It also remains unclear when anticoagulant therapy should be resumed following high-risk procedures. The new study, which was led by Enrique Rodríguez de Santiago of Universidad de Alcalá (Spain) and published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, suggested that early resumption may be safe. “It certainly showed there was an acceptable rate of clinically significant rate of bleeding for patients on anticoagulants, and the thing I appreciated the most was that there was no statistically significant difference in terms of bleeding depending on when you resumed the anticoagulant,” said Robert Jay Sealock, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. Dr. Sealock was not involved in the study.

The researchers examined data from 1,623 patients who underwent 1,874 endoscopic procedures. Among these patients, 62.7% were taking VKAs, and 37.3% were taking DOACs; 58.9% were men, and the mean age was 74.2 years. Overall, 75.5% were on anticoagulant therapy for atrial fibrillation.

The most common procedures were colonoscopy (68.3%) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (27.3%).

Within 30 days, The risk of bleeding was similar between patients taking VKAs (6.2%; 95% confidence interval, 4.8-7.8%) and DOACs (6.7%; 95% CI, 4.9-9%). This was true regardless of intervention and site. Overall, 1.4% of subjects experienced a thromboembolic event (95% CI, 0.9-2.1%), and there was no significant difference between the VKA group (1.3%; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2%) and the DOAC group (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.8-2.8%).

Clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 6.4% of subjects (95% CI, 5.3-7.7%); 2.7% of clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding events were intraprocedural and 4.1% were delayed. The lowest risk of bleeding occurred with diagnostic endoscopy (1.1%) and biopsy (2.2%). The risk of bleeding for high-risk procedures was 11.5% (95% CI, 9.4-14%).

The overall mortality was 1.4%, with two deaths related to thromboembolic events, both in the DOAC group. The other deaths were considered to be unrelated to the procedure or periprocedural interruption of anticoagulants.

The researchers also examined the timing of anticoagulant resumption. Overall, 59.2% of subjects received bridging therapy, including 85% of the VKA group and 16% of the DOAC group (P < .001). This was not associated with increased endoscopy-related bleeding in either the VKA (3.3% with bridging therapy vs. 6.4% without; P = .14) or the DOAC group (8.3% vs. 6.4%; P = .48).

A total of 747 patients underwent a high-risk procedure, 46.3% of patients resumed anticoagulant therapy within 24 hours of the procedure, and 46.2% between 24 and 48 hours. After inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment, a delay in anticoagulant resumption was not associated with a reduction in the frequency of postprocedural clinically significant gastrointestinal bleeding.

Still, the research left some questions unanswered. Most of the high-risk procedures were hot (41.8%) or cold snare polypectomies (39.8%). There weren’t enough data in the study to evaluate risk in patients undergoing other high-risk procedures such as balloon dilation for strictures, endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration, and sphincterotomy. “That’s one group that we still don’t really have enough data about, particularly those patients who are on DOACs,” said Dr. Sealock.

The study also found a high number of patients on bridging therapy. “It highlighted the fact that we probably use bridging therapy too much in patients undergoing endoscopy,” said Dr. Sealock. He recommended using tools that generate recommendations for bridging therapy and timing for withholding and resuming anticoagulants based on procedure and patient characteristics.

SOURCE: de Santiago ER et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Dec 03. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.11.037.

Researchers in Madrid may have found a clue to the pathogenesis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with COVID-19; it might also offer a therapeutic target to counter the hypercoagulability seen with COVID-19.

In a case series of five patients with COVID-19 who had an STEMI, neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) were detected in coronary thrombi of all five patients. The median density was 66%, which is significantly higher than that seen in a historical series of patients with STEMI. In that series, NETs were found in only two-thirds of patients; in that series, the median density was 19%.

In the patients with COVID-19 and STEMI and in the patients reported in the prepandemic historical series from 2015, intracoronary aspirates were obtained during percutaneous coronary intervention using a thrombus aspiration device.

Histologically, findings in the patients from 2015 differed from those of patients with COVID-19. In the patients with COVID, thrombi were composed mostly of fibrin and polymorphonuclear cells. None showed fragments of atherosclerotic plaque or iron deposits indicative of previous episodes of plaque rupture. In contrast, 65% of thrombi from the 2015 series contained plaque fragments.

Ana Blasco, MD, PhD, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, and colleagues report their findings in an article published online Dec. 29 in JAMA Cardiology.

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Irene Lang, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna said, “This is really a very small series, purely observational, and suffering from the problem that acute STEMI is uncommon in COVID-19, but it does serve to demonstrate once more the abundance of NETs in acute myocardial infarction.”

“NETs are very much at the cutting edge of thrombosis research, and NET formation provides yet another link between inflammation and clot formation,” added Peter Libby, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“Multiple observations have shown thrombosis of arteries large and small, microvessels, and veins in COVID-19. The observations of Blasco et al. add to the growing literature about NETs as contributors to the havoc wrought in multiple organs in advanced COVID-19,” he added in an email exchange with this news organization.

Neither Dr. Lang nor Dr. Libby were involved in this research; both have been actively studying NETs and their contribution to cardiothrombotic disease in recent years.

NETs are newly recognized contributors to venous and arterial thrombosis. These weblike DNA strands are extruded by activated or dying neutrophils and have protein mediators that ensnare pathogens while minimizing damage to the host cell.

First described in 2004, exaggerated NET formation has also been linked to the initiation and accretion of inflammation and thrombosis.

“NETs thus furnish a previously unsuspected link between inflammation, innate immunity, thrombosis, oxidative stress, and cardiovascular diseases,” Dr. Libby and his coauthors wrote in an article on the topic published in Circulation Research earlier this year.

Limiting NET formation or “dissolving” existing NETs could provide a therapeutic avenue not just for patients with COVID-19 but for all patients with thrombotic disease.

“The concept of NETs as a therapeutic target is appealing, in and out of COVID times,” said Dr. Lang.

“I personally believe that the work helps to raise awareness for the potential use of deoxyribonuclease (DNase), an enzyme that acts to clear NETs by dissolving the DNA strands, in the acute treatment of STEMI. Rapid injection of engineered recombinant DNases could potentially wipe away coronary obstructions, ideally before they may cause damage to the myocardium,” she added.

Dr. Blasco and colleagues and Dr. Lang have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Libby is an unpaid consultant or member of the advisory board for a number of companies.

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

Researchers in Madrid may have found a clue to the pathogenesis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with COVID-19; it might also offer a therapeutic target to counter the hypercoagulability seen with COVID-19.

In a case series of five patients with COVID-19 who had an STEMI, neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) were detected in coronary thrombi of all five patients. The median density was 66%, which is significantly higher than that seen in a historical series of patients with STEMI. In that series, NETs were found in only two-thirds of patients; in that series, the median density was 19%.

In the patients with COVID-19 and STEMI and in the patients reported in the prepandemic historical series from 2015, intracoronary aspirates were obtained during percutaneous coronary intervention using a thrombus aspiration device.

Histologically, findings in the patients from 2015 differed from those of patients with COVID-19. In the patients with COVID, thrombi were composed mostly of fibrin and polymorphonuclear cells. None showed fragments of atherosclerotic plaque or iron deposits indicative of previous episodes of plaque rupture. In contrast, 65% of thrombi from the 2015 series contained plaque fragments.

Ana Blasco, MD, PhD, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, and colleagues report their findings in an article published online Dec. 29 in JAMA Cardiology.

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Irene Lang, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna said, “This is really a very small series, purely observational, and suffering from the problem that acute STEMI is uncommon in COVID-19, but it does serve to demonstrate once more the abundance of NETs in acute myocardial infarction.”

“NETs are very much at the cutting edge of thrombosis research, and NET formation provides yet another link between inflammation and clot formation,” added Peter Libby, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“Multiple observations have shown thrombosis of arteries large and small, microvessels, and veins in COVID-19. The observations of Blasco et al. add to the growing literature about NETs as contributors to the havoc wrought in multiple organs in advanced COVID-19,” he added in an email exchange with this news organization.

Neither Dr. Lang nor Dr. Libby were involved in this research; both have been actively studying NETs and their contribution to cardiothrombotic disease in recent years.

NETs are newly recognized contributors to venous and arterial thrombosis. These weblike DNA strands are extruded by activated or dying neutrophils and have protein mediators that ensnare pathogens while minimizing damage to the host cell.

First described in 2004, exaggerated NET formation has also been linked to the initiation and accretion of inflammation and thrombosis.

“NETs thus furnish a previously unsuspected link between inflammation, innate immunity, thrombosis, oxidative stress, and cardiovascular diseases,” Dr. Libby and his coauthors wrote in an article on the topic published in Circulation Research earlier this year.

Limiting NET formation or “dissolving” existing NETs could provide a therapeutic avenue not just for patients with COVID-19 but for all patients with thrombotic disease.

“The concept of NETs as a therapeutic target is appealing, in and out of COVID times,” said Dr. Lang.

“I personally believe that the work helps to raise awareness for the potential use of deoxyribonuclease (DNase), an enzyme that acts to clear NETs by dissolving the DNA strands, in the acute treatment of STEMI. Rapid injection of engineered recombinant DNases could potentially wipe away coronary obstructions, ideally before they may cause damage to the myocardium,” she added.

Dr. Blasco and colleagues and Dr. Lang have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Libby is an unpaid consultant or member of the advisory board for a number of companies.

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

Researchers in Madrid may have found a clue to the pathogenesis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with COVID-19; it might also offer a therapeutic target to counter the hypercoagulability seen with COVID-19.

In a case series of five patients with COVID-19 who had an STEMI, neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) were detected in coronary thrombi of all five patients. The median density was 66%, which is significantly higher than that seen in a historical series of patients with STEMI. In that series, NETs were found in only two-thirds of patients; in that series, the median density was 19%.

In the patients with COVID-19 and STEMI and in the patients reported in the prepandemic historical series from 2015, intracoronary aspirates were obtained during percutaneous coronary intervention using a thrombus aspiration device.

Histologically, findings in the patients from 2015 differed from those of patients with COVID-19. In the patients with COVID, thrombi were composed mostly of fibrin and polymorphonuclear cells. None showed fragments of atherosclerotic plaque or iron deposits indicative of previous episodes of plaque rupture. In contrast, 65% of thrombi from the 2015 series contained plaque fragments.

Ana Blasco, MD, PhD, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda, Madrid, and colleagues report their findings in an article published online Dec. 29 in JAMA Cardiology.

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Irene Lang, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna said, “This is really a very small series, purely observational, and suffering from the problem that acute STEMI is uncommon in COVID-19, but it does serve to demonstrate once more the abundance of NETs in acute myocardial infarction.”

“NETs are very much at the cutting edge of thrombosis research, and NET formation provides yet another link between inflammation and clot formation,” added Peter Libby, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“Multiple observations have shown thrombosis of arteries large and small, microvessels, and veins in COVID-19. The observations of Blasco et al. add to the growing literature about NETs as contributors to the havoc wrought in multiple organs in advanced COVID-19,” he added in an email exchange with this news organization.

Neither Dr. Lang nor Dr. Libby were involved in this research; both have been actively studying NETs and their contribution to cardiothrombotic disease in recent years.

NETs are newly recognized contributors to venous and arterial thrombosis. These weblike DNA strands are extruded by activated or dying neutrophils and have protein mediators that ensnare pathogens while minimizing damage to the host cell.

First described in 2004, exaggerated NET formation has also been linked to the initiation and accretion of inflammation and thrombosis.

“NETs thus furnish a previously unsuspected link between inflammation, innate immunity, thrombosis, oxidative stress, and cardiovascular diseases,” Dr. Libby and his coauthors wrote in an article on the topic published in Circulation Research earlier this year.

Limiting NET formation or “dissolving” existing NETs could provide a therapeutic avenue not just for patients with COVID-19 but for all patients with thrombotic disease.

“The concept of NETs as a therapeutic target is appealing, in and out of COVID times,” said Dr. Lang.

“I personally believe that the work helps to raise awareness for the potential use of deoxyribonuclease (DNase), an enzyme that acts to clear NETs by dissolving the DNA strands, in the acute treatment of STEMI. Rapid injection of engineered recombinant DNases could potentially wipe away coronary obstructions, ideally before they may cause damage to the myocardium,” she added.

Dr. Blasco and colleagues and Dr. Lang have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Libby is an unpaid consultant or member of the advisory board for a number of companies.

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

The COVID-19 vaccine distribution process in the United States is moving more slowly than anticipated, falling short of Operation Warp Speed’s goal to vaccinate 20 million Americans by the end of the year.

If the current pace of vaccination continues, “it’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people,” President-elect Joe Biden said during a briefing Dec. 29.

In fact, at the current rate, it would take nearly 10 years to vaccinate enough Americans to bring the pandemic under control, according to NBC News. To reach 80% of the country by late June, 3 million people would need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine each day.

“As I long feared and warned, the effort to distribute and administer the vaccine is not progressing as it should,” Mr. Biden said, reemphasizing his pledge to get 100 million doses to Americans during his first 100 days as president.

So far, 11.4 million doses have been distributed and 2.1 million people have received a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most states have administered a fraction of the doses they’ve received, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

Federal officials have said there’s an “expected lag” between delivery of doses, shots going into arms, and the data being reported to the CDC, according to CNN. The Food and Drug Administration must assess each shipment for quality control, which has slowed down distribution, and the CDC data are just now beginning to include the Moderna vaccine, which the FDA authorized for emergency use on Dec. 18.

The 2.1 million number is “an underestimate,” Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, told NBC News Dec. 29. At the same time, the U.S. won’t meet the goal of vaccinating 20 million people in the next few days, he said.

Another 30 million doses will go out in January, Dr. Giroir said, followed by 50 million in February.

Some vaccine experts have said they’re not surprised by the speed of vaccine distribution.

“It had to go this way,” Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told STAT. “We had to trip and fall and stumble and figure this out.”

To speed up distribution in 2021, the federal government will need to help states, Mr. Biden said Dec. 29. He plans to use the Defense Authorization Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies. Even still, the process will take months, he said.

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

The COVID-19 vaccine distribution process in the United States is moving more slowly than anticipated, falling short of Operation Warp Speed’s goal to vaccinate 20 million Americans by the end of the year.

If the current pace of vaccination continues, “it’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people,” President-elect Joe Biden said during a briefing Dec. 29.

In fact, at the current rate, it would take nearly 10 years to vaccinate enough Americans to bring the pandemic under control, according to NBC News. To reach 80% of the country by late June, 3 million people would need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine each day.

“As I long feared and warned, the effort to distribute and administer the vaccine is not progressing as it should,” Mr. Biden said, reemphasizing his pledge to get 100 million doses to Americans during his first 100 days as president.

So far, 11.4 million doses have been distributed and 2.1 million people have received a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most states have administered a fraction of the doses they’ve received, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

Federal officials have said there’s an “expected lag” between delivery of doses, shots going into arms, and the data being reported to the CDC, according to CNN. The Food and Drug Administration must assess each shipment for quality control, which has slowed down distribution, and the CDC data are just now beginning to include the Moderna vaccine, which the FDA authorized for emergency use on Dec. 18.

The 2.1 million number is “an underestimate,” Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, told NBC News Dec. 29. At the same time, the U.S. won’t meet the goal of vaccinating 20 million people in the next few days, he said.

Another 30 million doses will go out in January, Dr. Giroir said, followed by 50 million in February.

Some vaccine experts have said they’re not surprised by the speed of vaccine distribution.

“It had to go this way,” Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told STAT. “We had to trip and fall and stumble and figure this out.”

To speed up distribution in 2021, the federal government will need to help states, Mr. Biden said Dec. 29. He plans to use the Defense Authorization Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies. Even still, the process will take months, he said.

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

The COVID-19 vaccine distribution process in the United States is moving more slowly than anticipated, falling short of Operation Warp Speed’s goal to vaccinate 20 million Americans by the end of the year.

If the current pace of vaccination continues, “it’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people,” President-elect Joe Biden said during a briefing Dec. 29.

In fact, at the current rate, it would take nearly 10 years to vaccinate enough Americans to bring the pandemic under control, according to NBC News. To reach 80% of the country by late June, 3 million people would need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine each day.

“As I long feared and warned, the effort to distribute and administer the vaccine is not progressing as it should,” Mr. Biden said, reemphasizing his pledge to get 100 million doses to Americans during his first 100 days as president.

So far, 11.4 million doses have been distributed and 2.1 million people have received a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most states have administered a fraction of the doses they’ve received, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

Federal officials have said there’s an “expected lag” between delivery of doses, shots going into arms, and the data being reported to the CDC, according to CNN. The Food and Drug Administration must assess each shipment for quality control, which has slowed down distribution, and the CDC data are just now beginning to include the Moderna vaccine, which the FDA authorized for emergency use on Dec. 18.

The 2.1 million number is “an underestimate,” Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, told NBC News Dec. 29. At the same time, the U.S. won’t meet the goal of vaccinating 20 million people in the next few days, he said.

Another 30 million doses will go out in January, Dr. Giroir said, followed by 50 million in February.

Some vaccine experts have said they’re not surprised by the speed of vaccine distribution.

“It had to go this way,” Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told STAT. “We had to trip and fall and stumble and figure this out.”

To speed up distribution in 2021, the federal government will need to help states, Mr. Biden said Dec. 29. He plans to use the Defense Authorization Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies. Even still, the process will take months, he said.

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

A scoring system based on 10 parameters in a complete blood count with differential within 3 days of hospital presentation predict those with COVID-19 who are most likely to progress to critical illness, new evidence shows.

Advantages include prognosis based on a common and inexpensive clinical measure, as well as automatic generation of the score along with CBC results, noted investigators in the observational study conducted throughout 11 European hospitals.

“COVID-19 comes along with specific alterations in circulating blood cells that can be detected by a routine hematology analyzer, especially when that hematology analyzer is also capable to recognize activated immune cells and early circulating blood cells, such as erythroblast and immature granulocytes,” senior author Andre van der Ven, MD, PhD, infectious diseases specialist and professor of international health at Radboud University Medical Center’s Center for Infectious Diseases in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

Furthermore, Dr. van der Ven said, “these specific changes are also seen in the early course of COVID-19 disease, and more in those that will develop serious disease compared to those with mild disease.”

The study was published online Dec. 21 in the journal eLife.

The study is “almost instinctively correct. It’s basically what clinicians do informally with complete blood count … looking at a combination of results to get the gestalt of what patients are going through,” Samuel Reichberg, MD, PhD, associate medical director of the Northwell Health Core Laboratory in Lake Success, N.Y., said in an interview.

“This is something that begs to be done for COVID-19. I’m surprised no one has done this before,” he added.

Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues created an algorithm based on 1,587 CBC assays from 923 adults. They also validated the scoring system in a second cohort of 217 CBC measurements in 202 people. The findings were concordant – the score accurately predicted the need for critical care within 14 days in 70.5% of the development cohort and 72% of the validation group.

The scoring system was superior to any of the 10 parameters alone. Over 14 days, the majority of those classified as noncritical within the first 3 days remained clinically stable, whereas the “clinical illness” group progressed. Clinical severity peaked on day 6.

Most previous COVID-19 prognosis research was geographically limited, carried a high risk for bias and/or did not validate the findings, Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues noted.
 

Early identification, early intervention

The aim of the score is “to assist with objective risk stratification to support patient management decision-making early on, and thus facilitate timely interventions, such as need for ICU or not, before symptoms of severe illness become clinically overt, with the intention to improve patient outcomes, and not to predict mortality,” the investigators noted.

Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues developed the score based on adults presenting from Feb. 21 to April 6, with outcomes followed until June 9. Median age of the 982 patients was 71 years and approximately two-thirds were men. They used a Sysmex Europe XN-1000 (Hamburg, Germany) hemocytometric analyzer in the study.

Only 7% of this cohort was not admitted to a hospital. Another 74% were admitted to a general ward and the remaining 19% were transferred directly to the ICU.

The scoring system includes parameters for neutrophils, monocytes, red blood cells and immature granulocytes, and when available, reticulocyte and iron bioavailability measures.

The researchers report significant differences over time in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio between the critical illness and noncritical groups (P < .001), for example. They also found significant differences in hemoglobin levels between cohorts after day 5.

The system generates a score from 0 to 28. Sensitivity for correctly predicting the need for critical care increased from 62% on day 1 to 93% on day 6. 
 

A more objective assessment of risk

The study demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 infection is characterized by hemocytometric changes over time. These changes, reflected together in the prognostic score, could aid in the early identification of patients whose clinical course is more likely to deteriorate over time.

The findings also support other work that shows men are more likely to present to the hospital with COVID-19, and that older age and presence of comorbidities add to overall risk. “However,” the researchers noted, “not all young patients had a mild course, and not all old patients with comorbidities were critical.”

Therefore, the prognostic score can help identify patients at risk for severe progression outside other risk factors and “support individualized treatment decisions with objective data,” they added.

Dr. Reichberg called the concept of combining CBC parameters into one score “very valuable.” However, he added that incorporating an index into clinical practice “has historically been tricky.”

The results “probably have to be replicated,” Dr. Reichberg said.

He added that it is likely a CBC-based score will be combined with other measures. “I would like to see an index that combines all the tests we do [for COVID-19], including complete blood count.”

Dr. Van der Ven shared the next step in his research. “The algorithm should be installed on the hematology analyzers so the prognostic score will be automatically generated if a full blood count is asked for in a COVID-19 patient,” he said. “So implementation of score is the main focus now.”

Dr. van der Ven disclosed an ad hoc consultancy agreement with Sysmex Europe. Sysmex Europe provided the reagents in the study free of charge; no other funders were involved. Dr. Reichberg has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A scoring system based on 10 parameters in a complete blood count with differential within 3 days of hospital presentation predict those with COVID-19 who are most likely to progress to critical illness, new evidence shows.

Advantages include prognosis based on a common and inexpensive clinical measure, as well as automatic generation of the score along with CBC results, noted investigators in the observational study conducted throughout 11 European hospitals.

“COVID-19 comes along with specific alterations in circulating blood cells that can be detected by a routine hematology analyzer, especially when that hematology analyzer is also capable to recognize activated immune cells and early circulating blood cells, such as erythroblast and immature granulocytes,” senior author Andre van der Ven, MD, PhD, infectious diseases specialist and professor of international health at Radboud University Medical Center’s Center for Infectious Diseases in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

Furthermore, Dr. van der Ven said, “these specific changes are also seen in the early course of COVID-19 disease, and more in those that will develop serious disease compared to those with mild disease.”

The study was published online Dec. 21 in the journal eLife.

The study is “almost instinctively correct. It’s basically what clinicians do informally with complete blood count … looking at a combination of results to get the gestalt of what patients are going through,” Samuel Reichberg, MD, PhD, associate medical director of the Northwell Health Core Laboratory in Lake Success, N.Y., said in an interview.

“This is something that begs to be done for COVID-19. I’m surprised no one has done this before,” he added.

Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues created an algorithm based on 1,587 CBC assays from 923 adults. They also validated the scoring system in a second cohort of 217 CBC measurements in 202 people. The findings were concordant – the score accurately predicted the need for critical care within 14 days in 70.5% of the development cohort and 72% of the validation group.

The scoring system was superior to any of the 10 parameters alone. Over 14 days, the majority of those classified as noncritical within the first 3 days remained clinically stable, whereas the “clinical illness” group progressed. Clinical severity peaked on day 6.

Most previous COVID-19 prognosis research was geographically limited, carried a high risk for bias and/or did not validate the findings, Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues noted.
 

Early identification, early intervention

The aim of the score is “to assist with objective risk stratification to support patient management decision-making early on, and thus facilitate timely interventions, such as need for ICU or not, before symptoms of severe illness become clinically overt, with the intention to improve patient outcomes, and not to predict mortality,” the investigators noted.

Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues developed the score based on adults presenting from Feb. 21 to April 6, with outcomes followed until June 9. Median age of the 982 patients was 71 years and approximately two-thirds were men. They used a Sysmex Europe XN-1000 (Hamburg, Germany) hemocytometric analyzer in the study.

Only 7% of this cohort was not admitted to a hospital. Another 74% were admitted to a general ward and the remaining 19% were transferred directly to the ICU.

The scoring system includes parameters for neutrophils, monocytes, red blood cells and immature granulocytes, and when available, reticulocyte and iron bioavailability measures.

The researchers report significant differences over time in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio between the critical illness and noncritical groups (P < .001), for example. They also found significant differences in hemoglobin levels between cohorts after day 5.

The system generates a score from 0 to 28. Sensitivity for correctly predicting the need for critical care increased from 62% on day 1 to 93% on day 6. 
 

A more objective assessment of risk

The study demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 infection is characterized by hemocytometric changes over time. These changes, reflected together in the prognostic score, could aid in the early identification of patients whose clinical course is more likely to deteriorate over time.

The findings also support other work that shows men are more likely to present to the hospital with COVID-19, and that older age and presence of comorbidities add to overall risk. “However,” the researchers noted, “not all young patients had a mild course, and not all old patients with comorbidities were critical.”

Therefore, the prognostic score can help identify patients at risk for severe progression outside other risk factors and “support individualized treatment decisions with objective data,” they added.

Dr. Reichberg called the concept of combining CBC parameters into one score “very valuable.” However, he added that incorporating an index into clinical practice “has historically been tricky.”

The results “probably have to be replicated,” Dr. Reichberg said.

He added that it is likely a CBC-based score will be combined with other measures. “I would like to see an index that combines all the tests we do [for COVID-19], including complete blood count.”

Dr. Van der Ven shared the next step in his research. “The algorithm should be installed on the hematology analyzers so the prognostic score will be automatically generated if a full blood count is asked for in a COVID-19 patient,” he said. “So implementation of score is the main focus now.”

Dr. van der Ven disclosed an ad hoc consultancy agreement with Sysmex Europe. Sysmex Europe provided the reagents in the study free of charge; no other funders were involved. Dr. Reichberg has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A scoring system based on 10 parameters in a complete blood count with differential within 3 days of hospital presentation predict those with COVID-19 who are most likely to progress to critical illness, new evidence shows.

Advantages include prognosis based on a common and inexpensive clinical measure, as well as automatic generation of the score along with CBC results, noted investigators in the observational study conducted throughout 11 European hospitals.

“COVID-19 comes along with specific alterations in circulating blood cells that can be detected by a routine hematology analyzer, especially when that hematology analyzer is also capable to recognize activated immune cells and early circulating blood cells, such as erythroblast and immature granulocytes,” senior author Andre van der Ven, MD, PhD, infectious diseases specialist and professor of international health at Radboud University Medical Center’s Center for Infectious Diseases in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

Furthermore, Dr. van der Ven said, “these specific changes are also seen in the early course of COVID-19 disease, and more in those that will develop serious disease compared to those with mild disease.”

The study was published online Dec. 21 in the journal eLife.

The study is “almost instinctively correct. It’s basically what clinicians do informally with complete blood count … looking at a combination of results to get the gestalt of what patients are going through,” Samuel Reichberg, MD, PhD, associate medical director of the Northwell Health Core Laboratory in Lake Success, N.Y., said in an interview.

“This is something that begs to be done for COVID-19. I’m surprised no one has done this before,” he added.

Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues created an algorithm based on 1,587 CBC assays from 923 adults. They also validated the scoring system in a second cohort of 217 CBC measurements in 202 people. The findings were concordant – the score accurately predicted the need for critical care within 14 days in 70.5% of the development cohort and 72% of the validation group.

The scoring system was superior to any of the 10 parameters alone. Over 14 days, the majority of those classified as noncritical within the first 3 days remained clinically stable, whereas the “clinical illness” group progressed. Clinical severity peaked on day 6.

Most previous COVID-19 prognosis research was geographically limited, carried a high risk for bias and/or did not validate the findings, Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues noted.
 

Early identification, early intervention

The aim of the score is “to assist with objective risk stratification to support patient management decision-making early on, and thus facilitate timely interventions, such as need for ICU or not, before symptoms of severe illness become clinically overt, with the intention to improve patient outcomes, and not to predict mortality,” the investigators noted.

Dr. Van der Ven and colleagues developed the score based on adults presenting from Feb. 21 to April 6, with outcomes followed until June 9. Median age of the 982 patients was 71 years and approximately two-thirds were men. They used a Sysmex Europe XN-1000 (Hamburg, Germany) hemocytometric analyzer in the study.

Only 7% of this cohort was not admitted to a hospital. Another 74% were admitted to a general ward and the remaining 19% were transferred directly to the ICU.

The scoring system includes parameters for neutrophils, monocytes, red blood cells and immature granulocytes, and when available, reticulocyte and iron bioavailability measures.

The researchers report significant differences over time in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio between the critical illness and noncritical groups (P < .001), for example. They also found significant differences in hemoglobin levels between cohorts after day 5.

The system generates a score from 0 to 28. Sensitivity for correctly predicting the need for critical care increased from 62% on day 1 to 93% on day 6. 
 

A more objective assessment of risk

The study demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 infection is characterized by hemocytometric changes over time. These changes, reflected together in the prognostic score, could aid in the early identification of patients whose clinical course is more likely to deteriorate over time.

The findings also support other work that shows men are more likely to present to the hospital with COVID-19, and that older age and presence of comorbidities add to overall risk. “However,” the researchers noted, “not all young patients had a mild course, and not all old patients with comorbidities were critical.”

Therefore, the prognostic score can help identify patients at risk for severe progression outside other risk factors and “support individualized treatment decisions with objective data,” they added.

Dr. Reichberg called the concept of combining CBC parameters into one score “very valuable.” However, he added that incorporating an index into clinical practice “has historically been tricky.”

The results “probably have to be replicated,” Dr. Reichberg said.

He added that it is likely a CBC-based score will be combined with other measures. “I would like to see an index that combines all the tests we do [for COVID-19], including complete blood count.”

Dr. Van der Ven shared the next step in his research. “The algorithm should be installed on the hematology analyzers so the prognostic score will be automatically generated if a full blood count is asked for in a COVID-19 patient,” he said. “So implementation of score is the main focus now.”

Dr. van der Ven disclosed an ad hoc consultancy agreement with Sysmex Europe. Sysmex Europe provided the reagents in the study free of charge; no other funders were involved. Dr. Reichberg has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Now that COVID-19 vaccines are being distributed, the American Association for Cancer Research has called for people with cancer to be considered as a high-priority group.

“The available evidence supports the conclusion that patients with cancer, in particular with hematologic malignancies, should be considered among the high-risk groups for priority COVID-19 vaccination,” according to the AACR’s COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force.

A review of literature suggested that COVID-19 fatality rates for patients with cancer were double that of individuals without cancer, the team noted. The higher mortality rates still trended upward, even after adjusting for confounders including age, sex, and comorbidities, indicating that there is a greater risk for severe disease and COVID-19–related mortality.

The new AACR position paper was published online Dec. 19 in Cancer Discovery.

“We conclude that patients with an active cancer should be considered for priority access to COVID-19 vaccination, along other particularly vulnerable populations with risk factors for adverse outcomes with COVID-19,” the team wrote.

However, the authors noted that “it is unclear whether this recommendation should be applicable to patients with a past diagnosis of cancer, as cancer survivors can be considered having the same risk as other persons with matched age and other risk factors. 

“Given that there are nearly 17 million people living with a history of cancer in the United States alone, it is critical to understand whether these individuals are at a higher risk to contract SARS-COV-2 and to experience severe outcomes from COVID-19,” they added.
 

Allocation of initial doses

There has already been much discussion on the allocation of the initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines that have become available in the United States. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that the first wave of vaccinations, described as phase 1a, should be administered to health care workers (about 21 million people) and residents of long-term care facilities (about 3 million).

The next priority group, phase 1b, should consist of frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years or older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Finally, phase 1c, the third priority group, would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million people.

The AACR task force, led by Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted in their position paper that their recommendation is consistent with ACIP’s guidelines. Those guidelines concluded that patients with cancer are at a higher risk for severe COVID-19, and should be one of the groups considered for early COVID-19 vaccination.
 

Questions remain

Approached for independent comment, Cardinale Smith, MD, PhD, chief quality officer for cancer services for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, agreed with the AACR task force. “I share that they should be high priority,” she said, “But we don’t know that the efficacy will the same.”

Dr. Smith noted that the impact of cancer therapy on patient immune systems is more related to the type of treatment they’re receiving, and B- and T-cell responses. “But regardless, they should be getting the vaccine, and we just need to follow the guidelines.”

The AACR task force noted that information thus far is quite limited as to the effects of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer. In the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID vaccine trial, of 43,540 participants, only 3.7% were reported to have cancer. Other large COVID-19 vaccine trials will provide further follow-up information on the effectiveness of the vaccines in patients receiving different cancer treatments, they wrote, but for now, there is “currently not enough data to evaluate the interactions between active oncologic therapy with the ability to induce protective immunity” to COVID-19 with vaccination.

In a recent interview, Nora Disis, MD, a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, also discussed vaccinating cancer patients.

She pointed out that even though there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, “they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group.”

“For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse,” said Dr. Disis, who is also editor in chief of JAMA Oncology. “There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.”

She also pointed out the likelihood that individualized risk factors, including the type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities, “will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.”

It is also reasonable to expect that patients with cancer will respond to the vaccines, even though historically some believed that they would be unable to mount an immune response. “Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise,” said Dr. Disis. “For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection.”

Several of the authors of the AACR position paper, including Dr. Ribas, reported relationships with industry as detailed in the paper. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Now that COVID-19 vaccines are being distributed, the American Association for Cancer Research has called for people with cancer to be considered as a high-priority group.

“The available evidence supports the conclusion that patients with cancer, in particular with hematologic malignancies, should be considered among the high-risk groups for priority COVID-19 vaccination,” according to the AACR’s COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force.

A review of literature suggested that COVID-19 fatality rates for patients with cancer were double that of individuals without cancer, the team noted. The higher mortality rates still trended upward, even after adjusting for confounders including age, sex, and comorbidities, indicating that there is a greater risk for severe disease and COVID-19–related mortality.

The new AACR position paper was published online Dec. 19 in Cancer Discovery.

“We conclude that patients with an active cancer should be considered for priority access to COVID-19 vaccination, along other particularly vulnerable populations with risk factors for adverse outcomes with COVID-19,” the team wrote.

However, the authors noted that “it is unclear whether this recommendation should be applicable to patients with a past diagnosis of cancer, as cancer survivors can be considered having the same risk as other persons with matched age and other risk factors. 

“Given that there are nearly 17 million people living with a history of cancer in the United States alone, it is critical to understand whether these individuals are at a higher risk to contract SARS-COV-2 and to experience severe outcomes from COVID-19,” they added.
 

Allocation of initial doses

There has already been much discussion on the allocation of the initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines that have become available in the United States. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that the first wave of vaccinations, described as phase 1a, should be administered to health care workers (about 21 million people) and residents of long-term care facilities (about 3 million).

The next priority group, phase 1b, should consist of frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years or older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Finally, phase 1c, the third priority group, would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million people.

The AACR task force, led by Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted in their position paper that their recommendation is consistent with ACIP’s guidelines. Those guidelines concluded that patients with cancer are at a higher risk for severe COVID-19, and should be one of the groups considered for early COVID-19 vaccination.
 

Questions remain

Approached for independent comment, Cardinale Smith, MD, PhD, chief quality officer for cancer services for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, agreed with the AACR task force. “I share that they should be high priority,” she said, “But we don’t know that the efficacy will the same.”

Dr. Smith noted that the impact of cancer therapy on patient immune systems is more related to the type of treatment they’re receiving, and B- and T-cell responses. “But regardless, they should be getting the vaccine, and we just need to follow the guidelines.”

The AACR task force noted that information thus far is quite limited as to the effects of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer. In the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID vaccine trial, of 43,540 participants, only 3.7% were reported to have cancer. Other large COVID-19 vaccine trials will provide further follow-up information on the effectiveness of the vaccines in patients receiving different cancer treatments, they wrote, but for now, there is “currently not enough data to evaluate the interactions between active oncologic therapy with the ability to induce protective immunity” to COVID-19 with vaccination.

In a recent interview, Nora Disis, MD, a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, also discussed vaccinating cancer patients.

She pointed out that even though there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, “they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group.”

“For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse,” said Dr. Disis, who is also editor in chief of JAMA Oncology. “There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.”

She also pointed out the likelihood that individualized risk factors, including the type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities, “will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.”

It is also reasonable to expect that patients with cancer will respond to the vaccines, even though historically some believed that they would be unable to mount an immune response. “Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise,” said Dr. Disis. “For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection.”

Several of the authors of the AACR position paper, including Dr. Ribas, reported relationships with industry as detailed in the paper. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Now that COVID-19 vaccines are being distributed, the American Association for Cancer Research has called for people with cancer to be considered as a high-priority group.

“The available evidence supports the conclusion that patients with cancer, in particular with hematologic malignancies, should be considered among the high-risk groups for priority COVID-19 vaccination,” according to the AACR’s COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force.

A review of literature suggested that COVID-19 fatality rates for patients with cancer were double that of individuals without cancer, the team noted. The higher mortality rates still trended upward, even after adjusting for confounders including age, sex, and comorbidities, indicating that there is a greater risk for severe disease and COVID-19–related mortality.

The new AACR position paper was published online Dec. 19 in Cancer Discovery.

“We conclude that patients with an active cancer should be considered for priority access to COVID-19 vaccination, along other particularly vulnerable populations with risk factors for adverse outcomes with COVID-19,” the team wrote.

However, the authors noted that “it is unclear whether this recommendation should be applicable to patients with a past diagnosis of cancer, as cancer survivors can be considered having the same risk as other persons with matched age and other risk factors. 

“Given that there are nearly 17 million people living with a history of cancer in the United States alone, it is critical to understand whether these individuals are at a higher risk to contract SARS-COV-2 and to experience severe outcomes from COVID-19,” they added.
 

Allocation of initial doses

There has already been much discussion on the allocation of the initial doses of COVID-19 vaccines that have become available in the United States. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that the first wave of vaccinations, described as phase 1a, should be administered to health care workers (about 21 million people) and residents of long-term care facilities (about 3 million).

The next priority group, phase 1b, should consist of frontline essential workers, a group of about 30 million, and adults aged 75 years or older, a group of about 21 million. When overlap between the groups is taken into account, phase 1b covers about 49 million people, according to the CDC.

Finally, phase 1c, the third priority group, would include adults aged 65-74 years (a group of about 32 million), adults aged 16-64 years with high-risk medical conditions (a group of about 110 million), and essential workers who did not qualify for inclusion in phase 1b (a group of about 57 million). With the overlap, Phase 1c would cover about 129 million people.

The AACR task force, led by Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, of the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted in their position paper that their recommendation is consistent with ACIP’s guidelines. Those guidelines concluded that patients with cancer are at a higher risk for severe COVID-19, and should be one of the groups considered for early COVID-19 vaccination.
 

Questions remain

Approached for independent comment, Cardinale Smith, MD, PhD, chief quality officer for cancer services for the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, agreed with the AACR task force. “I share that they should be high priority,” she said, “But we don’t know that the efficacy will the same.”

Dr. Smith noted that the impact of cancer therapy on patient immune systems is more related to the type of treatment they’re receiving, and B- and T-cell responses. “But regardless, they should be getting the vaccine, and we just need to follow the guidelines.”

The AACR task force noted that information thus far is quite limited as to the effects of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer. In the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID vaccine trial, of 43,540 participants, only 3.7% were reported to have cancer. Other large COVID-19 vaccine trials will provide further follow-up information on the effectiveness of the vaccines in patients receiving different cancer treatments, they wrote, but for now, there is “currently not enough data to evaluate the interactions between active oncologic therapy with the ability to induce protective immunity” to COVID-19 with vaccination.

In a recent interview, Nora Disis, MD, a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, also discussed vaccinating cancer patients.

She pointed out that even though there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, “they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group.”

“For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse,” said Dr. Disis, who is also editor in chief of JAMA Oncology. “There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.”

She also pointed out the likelihood that individualized risk factors, including the type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities, “will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.”

It is also reasonable to expect that patients with cancer will respond to the vaccines, even though historically some believed that they would be unable to mount an immune response. “Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise,” said Dr. Disis. “For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection.”

Several of the authors of the AACR position paper, including Dr. Ribas, reported relationships with industry as detailed in the paper. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. has distributed more than 11.4 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, and more than 2.1 million of those had been given to people as of December 28, according to the CDC.

The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker showed the updated numbers as of 9 a.m. on that day. The distribution total is based on the CDC’s Vaccine Tracking System, and the administered total is based on reports from state and local public health departments, as well as updates from five federal agencies: the Bureau of Prisons, Veterans Administration, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Indian Health Services.

Health care providers report to public health agencies up to 72 hours after the vaccine is given, and public health agencies report to the CDC after that, so there may be a lag in the data. The CDC’s numbers will be updated on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

“A large difference between the number of doses distributed and the number of doses administered is expected at this point in the COVID vaccination program due to several factors,” the CDC says.

Delays could occur due to the reporting of doses given, how states and local vaccine sites are managing vaccines, and the pending launch of vaccination through the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program.

“Numbers reported on other websites may differ from what is posted on CDC’s website because CDC’s overall numbers are validated through a data submission process with each jurisdiction,” the CDC says.

On Dec. 26, the agency’s tally showed that 9.5 million doses had been distributed and 1.9 million had been given, according to Reuters.

Public health officials and health care workers have begun to voice their concerns about the delay in giving the vaccines.

“We certainly are not at the numbers that we wanted to be at the end of December,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNNDec. 29.

Operation Warp Speed had planned for 20 million people to be vaccinated by the end of the year. Fauci said he hopes that number will be achieved next month.

“I believe that as we get into January, we are going to see an increase in the momentum,” he said.

Shipment delays have affected other priority groups as well. The New York Police Department anticipated a rollout Dec. 29, but it’s now been delayed since the department hasn’t received enough Moderna doses to start giving the shots, according to the New York Daily News.

“We’ve made numerous attempts to get updated information, and when we get further word on its availability, we will immediately keep our members appraised of the new date and the method of distribution,” Paul DiGiacomo, president of the Detectives’ Endowment Association, wrote in a memo to members on Dec. 28.

“Every detective squad has been crushed with [COVID-19],” he told the newspaper. “Within the last couple of weeks, we’ve had at least two detectives hospitalized.”

President-elect Joe Biden will receive a briefing from his COVID-19 advisory team, provide a general update on the pandemic, and describe his own plan for vaccinating people quickly during an address Dec. 29, a transition official told Axios. Biden has pledged to administer 100 million vaccine doses in his first 100 days in office.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMd.

The U.S. has distributed more than 11.4 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, and more than 2.1 million of those had been given to people as of December 28, according to the CDC.

The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker showed the updated numbers as of 9 a.m. on that day. The distribution total is based on the CDC’s Vaccine Tracking System, and the administered total is based on reports from state and local public health departments, as well as updates from five federal agencies: the Bureau of Prisons, Veterans Administration, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Indian Health Services.

Health care providers report to public health agencies up to 72 hours after the vaccine is given, and public health agencies report to the CDC after that, so there may be a lag in the data. The CDC’s numbers will be updated on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

“A large difference between the number of doses distributed and the number of doses administered is expected at this point in the COVID vaccination program due to several factors,” the CDC says.

Delays could occur due to the reporting of doses given, how states and local vaccine sites are managing vaccines, and the pending launch of vaccination through the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program.

“Numbers reported on other websites may differ from what is posted on CDC’s website because CDC’s overall numbers are validated through a data submission process with each jurisdiction,” the CDC says.

On Dec. 26, the agency’s tally showed that 9.5 million doses had been distributed and 1.9 million had been given, according to Reuters.

Public health officials and health care workers have begun to voice their concerns about the delay in giving the vaccines.

“We certainly are not at the numbers that we wanted to be at the end of December,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNNDec. 29.

Operation Warp Speed had planned for 20 million people to be vaccinated by the end of the year. Fauci said he hopes that number will be achieved next month.

“I believe that as we get into January, we are going to see an increase in the momentum,” he said.

Shipment delays have affected other priority groups as well. The New York Police Department anticipated a rollout Dec. 29, but it’s now been delayed since the department hasn’t received enough Moderna doses to start giving the shots, according to the New York Daily News.

“We’ve made numerous attempts to get updated information, and when we get further word on its availability, we will immediately keep our members appraised of the new date and the method of distribution,” Paul DiGiacomo, president of the Detectives’ Endowment Association, wrote in a memo to members on Dec. 28.

“Every detective squad has been crushed with [COVID-19],” he told the newspaper. “Within the last couple of weeks, we’ve had at least two detectives hospitalized.”

President-elect Joe Biden will receive a briefing from his COVID-19 advisory team, provide a general update on the pandemic, and describe his own plan for vaccinating people quickly during an address Dec. 29, a transition official told Axios. Biden has pledged to administer 100 million vaccine doses in his first 100 days in office.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMd.

The U.S. has distributed more than 11.4 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, and more than 2.1 million of those had been given to people as of December 28, according to the CDC.

The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker showed the updated numbers as of 9 a.m. on that day. The distribution total is based on the CDC’s Vaccine Tracking System, and the administered total is based on reports from state and local public health departments, as well as updates from five federal agencies: the Bureau of Prisons, Veterans Administration, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Indian Health Services.

Health care providers report to public health agencies up to 72 hours after the vaccine is given, and public health agencies report to the CDC after that, so there may be a lag in the data. The CDC’s numbers will be updated on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

“A large difference between the number of doses distributed and the number of doses administered is expected at this point in the COVID vaccination program due to several factors,” the CDC says.

Delays could occur due to the reporting of doses given, how states and local vaccine sites are managing vaccines, and the pending launch of vaccination through the federal Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program.

“Numbers reported on other websites may differ from what is posted on CDC’s website because CDC’s overall numbers are validated through a data submission process with each jurisdiction,” the CDC says.

On Dec. 26, the agency’s tally showed that 9.5 million doses had been distributed and 1.9 million had been given, according to Reuters.

Public health officials and health care workers have begun to voice their concerns about the delay in giving the vaccines.

“We certainly are not at the numbers that we wanted to be at the end of December,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNNDec. 29.

Operation Warp Speed had planned for 20 million people to be vaccinated by the end of the year. Fauci said he hopes that number will be achieved next month.

“I believe that as we get into January, we are going to see an increase in the momentum,” he said.

Shipment delays have affected other priority groups as well. The New York Police Department anticipated a rollout Dec. 29, but it’s now been delayed since the department hasn’t received enough Moderna doses to start giving the shots, according to the New York Daily News.

“We’ve made numerous attempts to get updated information, and when we get further word on its availability, we will immediately keep our members appraised of the new date and the method of distribution,” Paul DiGiacomo, president of the Detectives’ Endowment Association, wrote in a memo to members on Dec. 28.

“Every detective squad has been crushed with [COVID-19],” he told the newspaper. “Within the last couple of weeks, we’ve had at least two detectives hospitalized.”

President-elect Joe Biden will receive a briefing from his COVID-19 advisory team, provide a general update on the pandemic, and describe his own plan for vaccinating people quickly during an address Dec. 29, a transition official told Axios. Biden has pledged to administer 100 million vaccine doses in his first 100 days in office.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMd.

Dermatopathologist Michi M. Shinohara, MD, is often asked why it takes so long to diagnose mycosis fungoides. Her reply: Early histopathologic findings in mycosis fungoides (MF) can be subtle, and accurate diagnosis is aided by taking multiple skin biopsies from different sites sequentially over time when there’s diagnostic uncertainty.

“Take multiple biopsies. There is clear literature that taking multiple biopsies from different areas of the body can really increase the sensitivity and specificity of TCR/PCR [T-cell receptor gene PCR clonality studies],” she said at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by the Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

Patients with MF carry multiple subclones, and by taking multiple skin biopsies, different expression patterns may be revealed.

“MF is incredibly mutationally complex, and that has implications for therapy. There is certainly no single, nor even a few, targetable mutations. There are over 50 driver mutations known in CTCL [cutaneous T-cell lymphoma] involving more than a dozen signaling pathways,” said Dr. Shinohara, codirector of the cutaneous lymphoma clinic at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and director of dermatopathology at the University of Washington, Seattle.

MF is a lymphoma of skin-resident memory T-cells, the same T-cells involved in the pathogenesis of fixed drug eruption. MF accounts for about half of primary CTCLs. Traditionally, the average time from appearance of skin lesions to definitive diagnosis of MF is 3-6 years.

The International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas diagnostic algorithm emphasizes that accurate diagnosis of MF requires clinical and histopathologic correlation supported by immunohistochemistry and TCR/PCR or other molecular studies. In an independent validation study, the algorithm demonstrated a sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 60% for diagnosis of MF.

Using this algorithm, a diagnosis of MF requires 4 points or more. A maximum of 2 points is available for the key clinical findings of variably sized persistent patches and/or plaques on non–sun-exposed areas, with poikiloderma. Another maximum of 2 points is awarded for the classic histopathologic findings consistent with MF and other forms of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma – namely, a superficial lymphoid infiltrate with epidermotropic but not spongiotic atypia. A positive immunohistochemical study is worth 1 point, and another point is granted for a positive result from a molecular study; both the immunohistochemical and molecular studies should “almost always” be done in patients with suspected MF, whereas a bone marrow biopsy is almost never appropriate.

The challenge for dermatopathologists in making an early diagnosis of MF is that, in patch-stage disease, many of the patient’s own cytotoxic CD8+ T-cells are present in the biopsy specimen battling the malignancy. These tumor-fighting cells often mask the malignant T-cells, clouding the picture under the microscope and putting the 2-point maximum for histopathologic findings out of reach. However, as the patient progresses to plaques, tumors, and erythroderma, the proportion of malignant T-cells increases and the diagnosis becomes easier, Dr. Shinohara explained.

In cases where histopathologic uncertainty exists, the immunohistochemistry and molecular studies become particularly important because, when positive, they can raise a patient’s score up to the 4-point diagnostic threshold. Dr. Shinohara focused on recent advances in molecular studies because that’s where the action is of late in the field of MF diagnostics.
 

High-throughput sequencing and other molecular studies

Three molecular study options are available for the diagnosis of MF: TCR/PCR, which is the traditional clonality study; next-generation high-throughput DNA sequencing; and flow cytometry.

A TCR/PCR study showing a monoclonal T-cell clone on a more subdued polyclonal background is highly suggestive of MF, as opposed to other inflammatory dermatoses. Early in the disease, however, the pattern can be oligoclonal, an inconclusive result. This point is where taking multiple biopsies from different skin sites becomes extremely helpful to amplify TCR/PCR’s sensitivity and specificity. Indeed, investigators at Stanford (Calif.) University have reported that TCR/PCR analysis showing an identical T-cell clone in biopsy specimens from two different skin sites had 82.6% sensitivity and 95.7% specificity for unequivocal MF.

High-throughput sequencing of the T-cell receptor gene has greater specificity for diagnosis of MF than TCR/PCR, and with similar sensitivity.

“The sensitivity of high-throughput sequencing is okay, but really we want it to be helpful in those wishy washy cases where we get an oligoclonal result on TCR/PCR; that’s, I think, an ideal use for it,” Dr. Shinohara said.

In addition to its role in establishing the diagnosis of MF, high-throughput sequencing shows promise for two other potential applications: detection of residual disease following stem cell transplantation and risk stratification in patients with early-stage disease.

Citing a landmark Stanford retrospective cohort analysis of actuarial disease-specific survival in 525 patients with MF and Sezary syndrome, she noted that the majority of patients had stage IA or IB disease – meaning patches and/or plaques on less than or more than 10% of their body surface area – and the survival curves of these patients with early-stage CTCL were flat.

“Most patients are going to live for decades with their disease if they have early disease, and that’s very reassuring for patients,” the dermatopathologist observed.

And yet, early-stage disease does not follow an indolent lifelong course in a subset of patients; rather, their disease becomes aggressive and resistant to all treatments short of stem cell transplantation. Investigators at Harvard University, Boston, have reported that high-throughput sequencing of the T-cell receptor beta gene in lesional skin biopsies is a powerful tool for early identification of this high-risk subpopulation of patients with early-stage MF. They demonstrated in a cohort of 141 patients with early-stage MF, then again in a validation cohort of 69 others, that a tumor clone frequency (TCF) greater than 25% in lesional skin, as measured by high-throughput sequencing, was a more powerful predictor of disease progression than any of the established prognostic factors.

In the discovery set, a TCF in excess of 25% was associated with a 4.9-fold increased likelihood of reduced progression-free survival; in the validation set, the risk was 10-fold greater than in patients with a lesser TCF. These were significantly greater risks than those seen with other proposed biomarkers of diminished progression-free survival, including the presence of plaques; stage IB, as opposed to IA, disease; large-cell transformation; age greater than 60 years; and elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels.

Although this groundbreaking work requires confirmation in another dataset, “this may be something we evolve towards doing in patients with early disease to pick out those who may have bad outcomes later,” Dr. Shinohara commented.

Still, she stressed, molecular studies will never replace histopathologic analysis for diagnosis of MF. “Judicious use of molecular studies may help in establishing the diagnosis, but I don’t think any one molecular study is ever going to be our home run,” she said.

She reported no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

[email protected]

Dermatopathologist Michi M. Shinohara, MD, is often asked why it takes so long to diagnose mycosis fungoides. Her reply: Early histopathologic findings in mycosis fungoides (MF) can be subtle, and accurate diagnosis is aided by taking multiple skin biopsies from different sites sequentially over time when there’s diagnostic uncertainty.

“Take multiple biopsies. There is clear literature that taking multiple biopsies from different areas of the body can really increase the sensitivity and specificity of TCR/PCR [T-cell receptor gene PCR clonality studies],” she said at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by the Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

Patients with MF carry multiple subclones, and by taking multiple skin biopsies, different expression patterns may be revealed.

“MF is incredibly mutationally complex, and that has implications for therapy. There is certainly no single, nor even a few, targetable mutations. There are over 50 driver mutations known in CTCL [cutaneous T-cell lymphoma] involving more than a dozen signaling pathways,” said Dr. Shinohara, codirector of the cutaneous lymphoma clinic at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and director of dermatopathology at the University of Washington, Seattle.

MF is a lymphoma of skin-resident memory T-cells, the same T-cells involved in the pathogenesis of fixed drug eruption. MF accounts for about half of primary CTCLs. Traditionally, the average time from appearance of skin lesions to definitive diagnosis of MF is 3-6 years.

The International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas diagnostic algorithm emphasizes that accurate diagnosis of MF requires clinical and histopathologic correlation supported by immunohistochemistry and TCR/PCR or other molecular studies. In an independent validation study, the algorithm demonstrated a sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 60% for diagnosis of MF.

Using this algorithm, a diagnosis of MF requires 4 points or more. A maximum of 2 points is available for the key clinical findings of variably sized persistent patches and/or plaques on non–sun-exposed areas, with poikiloderma. Another maximum of 2 points is awarded for the classic histopathologic findings consistent with MF and other forms of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma – namely, a superficial lymphoid infiltrate with epidermotropic but not spongiotic atypia. A positive immunohistochemical study is worth 1 point, and another point is granted for a positive result from a molecular study; both the immunohistochemical and molecular studies should “almost always” be done in patients with suspected MF, whereas a bone marrow biopsy is almost never appropriate.

The challenge for dermatopathologists in making an early diagnosis of MF is that, in patch-stage disease, many of the patient’s own cytotoxic CD8+ T-cells are present in the biopsy specimen battling the malignancy. These tumor-fighting cells often mask the malignant T-cells, clouding the picture under the microscope and putting the 2-point maximum for histopathologic findings out of reach. However, as the patient progresses to plaques, tumors, and erythroderma, the proportion of malignant T-cells increases and the diagnosis becomes easier, Dr. Shinohara explained.

In cases where histopathologic uncertainty exists, the immunohistochemistry and molecular studies become particularly important because, when positive, they can raise a patient’s score up to the 4-point diagnostic threshold. Dr. Shinohara focused on recent advances in molecular studies because that’s where the action is of late in the field of MF diagnostics.
 

High-throughput sequencing and other molecular studies

Three molecular study options are available for the diagnosis of MF: TCR/PCR, which is the traditional clonality study; next-generation high-throughput DNA sequencing; and flow cytometry.

A TCR/PCR study showing a monoclonal T-cell clone on a more subdued polyclonal background is highly suggestive of MF, as opposed to other inflammatory dermatoses. Early in the disease, however, the pattern can be oligoclonal, an inconclusive result. This point is where taking multiple biopsies from different skin sites becomes extremely helpful to amplify TCR/PCR’s sensitivity and specificity. Indeed, investigators at Stanford (Calif.) University have reported that TCR/PCR analysis showing an identical T-cell clone in biopsy specimens from two different skin sites had 82.6% sensitivity and 95.7% specificity for unequivocal MF.

High-throughput sequencing of the T-cell receptor gene has greater specificity for diagnosis of MF than TCR/PCR, and with similar sensitivity.

“The sensitivity of high-throughput sequencing is okay, but really we want it to be helpful in those wishy washy cases where we get an oligoclonal result on TCR/PCR; that’s, I think, an ideal use for it,” Dr. Shinohara said.

In addition to its role in establishing the diagnosis of MF, high-throughput sequencing shows promise for two other potential applications: detection of residual disease following stem cell transplantation and risk stratification in patients with early-stage disease.

Citing a landmark Stanford retrospective cohort analysis of actuarial disease-specific survival in 525 patients with MF and Sezary syndrome, she noted that the majority of patients had stage IA or IB disease – meaning patches and/or plaques on less than or more than 10% of their body surface area – and the survival curves of these patients with early-stage CTCL were flat.

“Most patients are going to live for decades with their disease if they have early disease, and that’s very reassuring for patients,” the dermatopathologist observed.

And yet, early-stage disease does not follow an indolent lifelong course in a subset of patients; rather, their disease becomes aggressive and resistant to all treatments short of stem cell transplantation. Investigators at Harvard University, Boston, have reported that high-throughput sequencing of the T-cell receptor beta gene in lesional skin biopsies is a powerful tool for early identification of this high-risk subpopulation of patients with early-stage MF. They demonstrated in a cohort of 141 patients with early-stage MF, then again in a validation cohort of 69 others, that a tumor clone frequency (TCF) greater than 25% in lesional skin, as measured by high-throughput sequencing, was a more powerful predictor of disease progression than any of the established prognostic factors.

In the discovery set, a TCF in excess of 25% was associated with a 4.9-fold increased likelihood of reduced progression-free survival; in the validation set, the risk was 10-fold greater than in patients with a lesser TCF. These were significantly greater risks than those seen with other proposed biomarkers of diminished progression-free survival, including the presence of plaques; stage IB, as opposed to IA, disease; large-cell transformation; age greater than 60 years; and elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels.

Although this groundbreaking work requires confirmation in another dataset, “this may be something we evolve towards doing in patients with early disease to pick out those who may have bad outcomes later,” Dr. Shinohara commented.

Still, she stressed, molecular studies will never replace histopathologic analysis for diagnosis of MF. “Judicious use of molecular studies may help in establishing the diagnosis, but I don’t think any one molecular study is ever going to be our home run,” she said.

She reported no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

[email protected]

Dermatopathologist Michi M. Shinohara, MD, is often asked why it takes so long to diagnose mycosis fungoides. Her reply: Early histopathologic findings in mycosis fungoides (MF) can be subtle, and accurate diagnosis is aided by taking multiple skin biopsies from different sites sequentially over time when there’s diagnostic uncertainty.

“Take multiple biopsies. There is clear literature that taking multiple biopsies from different areas of the body can really increase the sensitivity and specificity of TCR/PCR [T-cell receptor gene PCR clonality studies],” she said at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by the Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

Patients with MF carry multiple subclones, and by taking multiple skin biopsies, different expression patterns may be revealed.

“MF is incredibly mutationally complex, and that has implications for therapy. There is certainly no single, nor even a few, targetable mutations. There are over 50 driver mutations known in CTCL [cutaneous T-cell lymphoma] involving more than a dozen signaling pathways,” said Dr. Shinohara, codirector of the cutaneous lymphoma clinic at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance and director of dermatopathology at the University of Washington, Seattle.

MF is a lymphoma of skin-resident memory T-cells, the same T-cells involved in the pathogenesis of fixed drug eruption. MF accounts for about half of primary CTCLs. Traditionally, the average time from appearance of skin lesions to definitive diagnosis of MF is 3-6 years.

The International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas diagnostic algorithm emphasizes that accurate diagnosis of MF requires clinical and histopathologic correlation supported by immunohistochemistry and TCR/PCR or other molecular studies. In an independent validation study, the algorithm demonstrated a sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 60% for diagnosis of MF.

Using this algorithm, a diagnosis of MF requires 4 points or more. A maximum of 2 points is available for the key clinical findings of variably sized persistent patches and/or plaques on non–sun-exposed areas, with poikiloderma. Another maximum of 2 points is awarded for the classic histopathologic findings consistent with MF and other forms of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma – namely, a superficial lymphoid infiltrate with epidermotropic but not spongiotic atypia. A positive immunohistochemical study is worth 1 point, and another point is granted for a positive result from a molecular study; both the immunohistochemical and molecular studies should “almost always” be done in patients with suspected MF, whereas a bone marrow biopsy is almost never appropriate.

The challenge for dermatopathologists in making an early diagnosis of MF is that, in patch-stage disease, many of the patient’s own cytotoxic CD8+ T-cells are present in the biopsy specimen battling the malignancy. These tumor-fighting cells often mask the malignant T-cells, clouding the picture under the microscope and putting the 2-point maximum for histopathologic findings out of reach. However, as the patient progresses to plaques, tumors, and erythroderma, the proportion of malignant T-cells increases and the diagnosis becomes easier, Dr. Shinohara explained.

In cases where histopathologic uncertainty exists, the immunohistochemistry and molecular studies become particularly important because, when positive, they can raise a patient’s score up to the 4-point diagnostic threshold. Dr. Shinohara focused on recent advances in molecular studies because that’s where the action is of late in the field of MF diagnostics.
 

High-throughput sequencing and other molecular studies

Three molecular study options are available for the diagnosis of MF: TCR/PCR, which is the traditional clonality study; next-generation high-throughput DNA sequencing; and flow cytometry.

A TCR/PCR study showing a monoclonal T-cell clone on a more subdued polyclonal background is highly suggestive of MF, as opposed to other inflammatory dermatoses. Early in the disease, however, the pattern can be oligoclonal, an inconclusive result. This point is where taking multiple biopsies from different skin sites becomes extremely helpful to amplify TCR/PCR’s sensitivity and specificity. Indeed, investigators at Stanford (Calif.) University have reported that TCR/PCR analysis showing an identical T-cell clone in biopsy specimens from two different skin sites had 82.6% sensitivity and 95.7% specificity for unequivocal MF.

High-throughput sequencing of the T-cell receptor gene has greater specificity for diagnosis of MF than TCR/PCR, and with similar sensitivity.

“The sensitivity of high-throughput sequencing is okay, but really we want it to be helpful in those wishy washy cases where we get an oligoclonal result on TCR/PCR; that’s, I think, an ideal use for it,” Dr. Shinohara said.

In addition to its role in establishing the diagnosis of MF, high-throughput sequencing shows promise for two other potential applications: detection of residual disease following stem cell transplantation and risk stratification in patients with early-stage disease.

Citing a landmark Stanford retrospective cohort analysis of actuarial disease-specific survival in 525 patients with MF and Sezary syndrome, she noted that the majority of patients had stage IA or IB disease – meaning patches and/or plaques on less than or more than 10% of their body surface area – and the survival curves of these patients with early-stage CTCL were flat.

“Most patients are going to live for decades with their disease if they have early disease, and that’s very reassuring for patients,” the dermatopathologist observed.

And yet, early-stage disease does not follow an indolent lifelong course in a subset of patients; rather, their disease becomes aggressive and resistant to all treatments short of stem cell transplantation. Investigators at Harvard University, Boston, have reported that high-throughput sequencing of the T-cell receptor beta gene in lesional skin biopsies is a powerful tool for early identification of this high-risk subpopulation of patients with early-stage MF. They demonstrated in a cohort of 141 patients with early-stage MF, then again in a validation cohort of 69 others, that a tumor clone frequency (TCF) greater than 25% in lesional skin, as measured by high-throughput sequencing, was a more powerful predictor of disease progression than any of the established prognostic factors.

In the discovery set, a TCF in excess of 25% was associated with a 4.9-fold increased likelihood of reduced progression-free survival; in the validation set, the risk was 10-fold greater than in patients with a lesser TCF. These were significantly greater risks than those seen with other proposed biomarkers of diminished progression-free survival, including the presence of plaques; stage IB, as opposed to IA, disease; large-cell transformation; age greater than 60 years; and elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels.

Although this groundbreaking work requires confirmation in another dataset, “this may be something we evolve towards doing in patients with early disease to pick out those who may have bad outcomes later,” Dr. Shinohara commented.

Still, she stressed, molecular studies will never replace histopathologic analysis for diagnosis of MF. “Judicious use of molecular studies may help in establishing the diagnosis, but I don’t think any one molecular study is ever going to be our home run,” she said.

She reported no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

[email protected]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued updated guidance for people with underlying medical conditions who are considering getting the coronavirus vaccine.

scyther5/thinkstock

“Adults of any age with certain underlying medical conditions are at increased risk for severe illness from the virus that causes COVID-19,” the CDC said in the guidance, posted on Dec. 26. “mRNA COVID-19 vaccines may be administered to people with underlying medical conditions provided they have not had a severe allergic reaction to any of the ingredients in the vaccine.” 

Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use mRNA, or messenger RNA.

The CDC guidance had specific information for people with HIV, weakened immune systems, and autoimmune conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and Bell’s palsy who are thinking of getting the vaccine.

People with HIV and weakened immune systems “may receive a COVID-19 vaccine. However, they should be aware of the limited safety data,” the CDC said.

There’s no information available yet about the safety of the vaccines for people with weakened immune systems. People with HIV were included in clinical trials, but “safety data specific to this group are not yet available at this time,” the CDC said.

Cases of Bell’s palsy, a temporary facial paralysis, were reported in people receiving the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in clinical trials, the Food and Drug Administration said Dec. 17. 

But the new CDC guidance said that the FDA “does not consider these to be above the rate expected in the general population. They have not concluded these cases were caused by vaccination. Therefore, persons who have previously had Bell’s palsy may receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.”

Researchers have determined the vaccines are safe for people with GBS, a rare autoimmune disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks nerves just as they leave the spinal cord, the CDC said.

“To date, no cases of GBS have been reported following vaccination among participants in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials,” the CDC guidance said. “With few exceptions, the independent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices general best practice guidelines for immunization do not include a history of GBS as a precaution to vaccination with other vaccines.”

For months, the CDC and other health authorities have said that people with certain medical conditions are at an increased risk of developing severe cases of COVID-19.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued updated guidance for people with underlying medical conditions who are considering getting the coronavirus vaccine.

scyther5/thinkstock

“Adults of any age with certain underlying medical conditions are at increased risk for severe illness from the virus that causes COVID-19,” the CDC said in the guidance, posted on Dec. 26. “mRNA COVID-19 vaccines may be administered to people with underlying medical conditions provided they have not had a severe allergic reaction to any of the ingredients in the vaccine.” 

Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use mRNA, or messenger RNA.

The CDC guidance had specific information for people with HIV, weakened immune systems, and autoimmune conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and Bell’s palsy who are thinking of getting the vaccine.

People with HIV and weakened immune systems “may receive a COVID-19 vaccine. However, they should be aware of the limited safety data,” the CDC said.

There’s no information available yet about the safety of the vaccines for people with weakened immune systems. People with HIV were included in clinical trials, but “safety data specific to this group are not yet available at this time,” the CDC said.

Cases of Bell’s palsy, a temporary facial paralysis, were reported in people receiving the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in clinical trials, the Food and Drug Administration said Dec. 17. 

But the new CDC guidance said that the FDA “does not consider these to be above the rate expected in the general population. They have not concluded these cases were caused by vaccination. Therefore, persons who have previously had Bell’s palsy may receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.”

Researchers have determined the vaccines are safe for people with GBS, a rare autoimmune disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks nerves just as they leave the spinal cord, the CDC said.

“To date, no cases of GBS have been reported following vaccination among participants in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials,” the CDC guidance said. “With few exceptions, the independent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices general best practice guidelines for immunization do not include a history of GBS as a precaution to vaccination with other vaccines.”

For months, the CDC and other health authorities have said that people with certain medical conditions are at an increased risk of developing severe cases of COVID-19.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued updated guidance for people with underlying medical conditions who are considering getting the coronavirus vaccine.

scyther5/thinkstock

“Adults of any age with certain underlying medical conditions are at increased risk for severe illness from the virus that causes COVID-19,” the CDC said in the guidance, posted on Dec. 26. “mRNA COVID-19 vaccines may be administered to people with underlying medical conditions provided they have not had a severe allergic reaction to any of the ingredients in the vaccine.” 

Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use mRNA, or messenger RNA.

The CDC guidance had specific information for people with HIV, weakened immune systems, and autoimmune conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and Bell’s palsy who are thinking of getting the vaccine.

People with HIV and weakened immune systems “may receive a COVID-19 vaccine. However, they should be aware of the limited safety data,” the CDC said.

There’s no information available yet about the safety of the vaccines for people with weakened immune systems. People with HIV were included in clinical trials, but “safety data specific to this group are not yet available at this time,” the CDC said.

Cases of Bell’s palsy, a temporary facial paralysis, were reported in people receiving the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in clinical trials, the Food and Drug Administration said Dec. 17. 

But the new CDC guidance said that the FDA “does not consider these to be above the rate expected in the general population. They have not concluded these cases were caused by vaccination. Therefore, persons who have previously had Bell’s palsy may receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.”

Researchers have determined the vaccines are safe for people with GBS, a rare autoimmune disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks nerves just as they leave the spinal cord, the CDC said.

“To date, no cases of GBS have been reported following vaccination among participants in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials,” the CDC guidance said. “With few exceptions, the independent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices general best practice guidelines for immunization do not include a history of GBS as a precaution to vaccination with other vaccines.”

For months, the CDC and other health authorities have said that people with certain medical conditions are at an increased risk of developing severe cases of COVID-19.

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