User login
-
COVID-19 in pregnancy raises risk of preterm birth and severe disease
based on data from two studies published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
In a study of birth and infant outcomes, rates of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks’ gestational age) were higher among women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with the national average (12.9% vs. 10.2%) wrote Kate R. Woodworth, MD, and colleagues of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team.
The researchers collected information on pregnancy and infant outcomes from 16 jurisdictions through the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Mothers and Babies Network (SET-NET). The study included 5,252 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported during March 29–Oct. 14, 2020.
Overall, 12.9% of the 3,912 live births with known gestational age were preterm. A total of 610 infants were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 2.6% were positive. Most of these perinatal infections (85%) occurred among infants born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection within 1 week of delivery.
Half of the infants with positive test results were preterm, possibly reflecting higher screening rates in the ICU, the researchers said. “These findings also support the growing evidence that although severe COVID-19 does occur in neonates the majority of term neonates experience asymptomatic infection or mild disease; however, information on long term outcomes among exposed infants is unknown.”
Address disparities that amplify risk
The study findings were limited by several factors including inconsistent symptom reporting, overrepresentation of Hispanic women, and incomplete information on pregnancy loss, Dr. Woodworth and associates noted. However, the results add to the knowledge about the impact of COVID-19 disease on pregnancy by providing a large, population-based cohort with completed pregnancy outcomes as well as infant testing.
“SET-NET will continue to follow pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 through completion of pregnancy and infants until age 6 months to guide clinical and public health practice,” the researchers noted. “Longer-term investigation into solutions to alleviate underlying inequities in social determinants of health associated with disparities in maternal morbidity, mortality, and adverse pregnancy outcomes, and effectively addressing these inequities, could reduce the prevalence of conditions and experiences that might amplify risks from COVID-19,” they added.
Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women
In a second study published in the MMWR, Laura D. Zambrano, PhD, and colleagues, also of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team, compared data on 23,434 reportedly pregnant and 386,028 nonpregnant women of reproductive age (15-44 years) with confirmed and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections reported to the CDC between Jan. 22, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020.
After adjustment for age, race, and underlying medical conditions, pregnant women with COVID-19 disease were significantly more likely than were nonpregnant women to be admitted to intensive care (10.5 per 1,000 cases vs. 3.9 per 1,000 cases), to receive invasive ventilation (2.9 vs. 1.1), receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.7 vs. 0.3) and to die (1.5 vs. 1.2).
“Irrespective of pregnancy status, ICU admissions, receipt of invasive ventilation, and death occurred more often among women aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24 years,” Dr. Zambrano and associates noted. In addition, non-Hispanic Black and Black women comprised 14.1% of the study population but accounted for 36.6% of deaths overall (9 in pregnant women and 167 in nonpregnant women).
The findings in the study of characteristics were limited by several factors including the voluntary reporting of COVID-19 cases, potential reporting bias, and inadequate time to assess severe cases, the researchers noted. However, “data from previous influenza pandemics, including 2009 H1N1, have shown that pregnant women are at increased risk for severe outcomes including death and the absolute risks for severe outcomes were higher than in this study of COVID-19 during pregnancy.”
“Pregnant women should be informed of their risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness and the warning signs of severe COVID-19,” Dr. Zambrano and associates said. “Providers who care for pregnant women should be familiar with guidelines for medical management of COVID-19, including considerations for management of COVID-19 in pregnancy.”
More data needed for informed counseling
“It is important to conduct research trials involving pregnant women so that we have reliable data regarding outcomes with which to counsel women,” Angela Bianco, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, said in an interview.
“Often pregnant women are excluded from research trials, but the impact of the current public health crisis affects all persons regardless of pregnancy status,” she said.
Dr. Bianco said that she was not surprised by the findings of either study. “In fact, our own research produced similar results.”
“These recent publications found that age-matched pregnant versus nonpregnant women had more severe manifestations of COVID-19, and specifically that pregnant women had a higher risk of requiring ventilation and intensive care admission, as well as higher risk of death,” she said. “Previous studies examining the effect of other SARS viruses have demonstrated that pregnancy is associated with worse outcomes; these findings are likely attributable to the relative state of immunosuppression in pregnancy.” Also, “one of these trials found a greater risk of premature birth in women with COVID-19; this may largely be attributable to iatrogenic delivery due to maternal illness as opposed to spontaneous preterm birth,” Dr. Bianco explained.
“Data are emerging regarding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pregnancy outcomes, however information remains limited,” Dr. Bianco noted. “Clinicians need to make patients aware that SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of severe illness requiring intensive care and/or ventilatory support and even death; however, the precise rates remain unknown. “COVID-19 during pregnancy may result in a preterm birth, but at this time the rate of fetal infection remains unknown,” she said. “Clinicians need to reinforce the importance of physical distancing, mask use, and proper hand hygiene, particularly in this vulnerable population.”
Dr. Bianco emphasized: “Longitudinal studies assessing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection at various gestational age periods are needed, as at this time most of the available data includes women with SARS-CoV-2 infection around the time of delivery. Long-term infant outcomes are needed, as well as studies assessing the risk of fetal infection.”
The studies were supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bianco had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Woodworth KR et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e2; Zambrano LD et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e3.
based on data from two studies published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
In a study of birth and infant outcomes, rates of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks’ gestational age) were higher among women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with the national average (12.9% vs. 10.2%) wrote Kate R. Woodworth, MD, and colleagues of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team.
The researchers collected information on pregnancy and infant outcomes from 16 jurisdictions through the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Mothers and Babies Network (SET-NET). The study included 5,252 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported during March 29–Oct. 14, 2020.
Overall, 12.9% of the 3,912 live births with known gestational age were preterm. A total of 610 infants were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 2.6% were positive. Most of these perinatal infections (85%) occurred among infants born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection within 1 week of delivery.
Half of the infants with positive test results were preterm, possibly reflecting higher screening rates in the ICU, the researchers said. “These findings also support the growing evidence that although severe COVID-19 does occur in neonates the majority of term neonates experience asymptomatic infection or mild disease; however, information on long term outcomes among exposed infants is unknown.”
Address disparities that amplify risk
The study findings were limited by several factors including inconsistent symptom reporting, overrepresentation of Hispanic women, and incomplete information on pregnancy loss, Dr. Woodworth and associates noted. However, the results add to the knowledge about the impact of COVID-19 disease on pregnancy by providing a large, population-based cohort with completed pregnancy outcomes as well as infant testing.
“SET-NET will continue to follow pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 through completion of pregnancy and infants until age 6 months to guide clinical and public health practice,” the researchers noted. “Longer-term investigation into solutions to alleviate underlying inequities in social determinants of health associated with disparities in maternal morbidity, mortality, and adverse pregnancy outcomes, and effectively addressing these inequities, could reduce the prevalence of conditions and experiences that might amplify risks from COVID-19,” they added.
Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women
In a second study published in the MMWR, Laura D. Zambrano, PhD, and colleagues, also of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team, compared data on 23,434 reportedly pregnant and 386,028 nonpregnant women of reproductive age (15-44 years) with confirmed and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections reported to the CDC between Jan. 22, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020.
After adjustment for age, race, and underlying medical conditions, pregnant women with COVID-19 disease were significantly more likely than were nonpregnant women to be admitted to intensive care (10.5 per 1,000 cases vs. 3.9 per 1,000 cases), to receive invasive ventilation (2.9 vs. 1.1), receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.7 vs. 0.3) and to die (1.5 vs. 1.2).
“Irrespective of pregnancy status, ICU admissions, receipt of invasive ventilation, and death occurred more often among women aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24 years,” Dr. Zambrano and associates noted. In addition, non-Hispanic Black and Black women comprised 14.1% of the study population but accounted for 36.6% of deaths overall (9 in pregnant women and 167 in nonpregnant women).
The findings in the study of characteristics were limited by several factors including the voluntary reporting of COVID-19 cases, potential reporting bias, and inadequate time to assess severe cases, the researchers noted. However, “data from previous influenza pandemics, including 2009 H1N1, have shown that pregnant women are at increased risk for severe outcomes including death and the absolute risks for severe outcomes were higher than in this study of COVID-19 during pregnancy.”
“Pregnant women should be informed of their risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness and the warning signs of severe COVID-19,” Dr. Zambrano and associates said. “Providers who care for pregnant women should be familiar with guidelines for medical management of COVID-19, including considerations for management of COVID-19 in pregnancy.”
More data needed for informed counseling
“It is important to conduct research trials involving pregnant women so that we have reliable data regarding outcomes with which to counsel women,” Angela Bianco, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, said in an interview.
“Often pregnant women are excluded from research trials, but the impact of the current public health crisis affects all persons regardless of pregnancy status,” she said.
Dr. Bianco said that she was not surprised by the findings of either study. “In fact, our own research produced similar results.”
“These recent publications found that age-matched pregnant versus nonpregnant women had more severe manifestations of COVID-19, and specifically that pregnant women had a higher risk of requiring ventilation and intensive care admission, as well as higher risk of death,” she said. “Previous studies examining the effect of other SARS viruses have demonstrated that pregnancy is associated with worse outcomes; these findings are likely attributable to the relative state of immunosuppression in pregnancy.” Also, “one of these trials found a greater risk of premature birth in women with COVID-19; this may largely be attributable to iatrogenic delivery due to maternal illness as opposed to spontaneous preterm birth,” Dr. Bianco explained.
“Data are emerging regarding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pregnancy outcomes, however information remains limited,” Dr. Bianco noted. “Clinicians need to make patients aware that SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of severe illness requiring intensive care and/or ventilatory support and even death; however, the precise rates remain unknown. “COVID-19 during pregnancy may result in a preterm birth, but at this time the rate of fetal infection remains unknown,” she said. “Clinicians need to reinforce the importance of physical distancing, mask use, and proper hand hygiene, particularly in this vulnerable population.”
Dr. Bianco emphasized: “Longitudinal studies assessing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection at various gestational age periods are needed, as at this time most of the available data includes women with SARS-CoV-2 infection around the time of delivery. Long-term infant outcomes are needed, as well as studies assessing the risk of fetal infection.”
The studies were supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bianco had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Woodworth KR et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e2; Zambrano LD et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e3.
based on data from two studies published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
In a study of birth and infant outcomes, rates of preterm birth (less than 37 weeks’ gestational age) were higher among women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with the national average (12.9% vs. 10.2%) wrote Kate R. Woodworth, MD, and colleagues of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team.
The researchers collected information on pregnancy and infant outcomes from 16 jurisdictions through the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Mothers and Babies Network (SET-NET). The study included 5,252 women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reported during March 29–Oct. 14, 2020.
Overall, 12.9% of the 3,912 live births with known gestational age were preterm. A total of 610 infants were tested for SARS-CoV-2, and 2.6% were positive. Most of these perinatal infections (85%) occurred among infants born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection within 1 week of delivery.
Half of the infants with positive test results were preterm, possibly reflecting higher screening rates in the ICU, the researchers said. “These findings also support the growing evidence that although severe COVID-19 does occur in neonates the majority of term neonates experience asymptomatic infection or mild disease; however, information on long term outcomes among exposed infants is unknown.”
Address disparities that amplify risk
The study findings were limited by several factors including inconsistent symptom reporting, overrepresentation of Hispanic women, and incomplete information on pregnancy loss, Dr. Woodworth and associates noted. However, the results add to the knowledge about the impact of COVID-19 disease on pregnancy by providing a large, population-based cohort with completed pregnancy outcomes as well as infant testing.
“SET-NET will continue to follow pregnancies affected by SARS-CoV-2 through completion of pregnancy and infants until age 6 months to guide clinical and public health practice,” the researchers noted. “Longer-term investigation into solutions to alleviate underlying inequities in social determinants of health associated with disparities in maternal morbidity, mortality, and adverse pregnancy outcomes, and effectively addressing these inequities, could reduce the prevalence of conditions and experiences that might amplify risks from COVID-19,” they added.
Severe disease and death increased in pregnant women
In a second study published in the MMWR, Laura D. Zambrano, PhD, and colleagues, also of the CDC COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Linked Outcomes Team, compared data on 23,434 reportedly pregnant and 386,028 nonpregnant women of reproductive age (15-44 years) with confirmed and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections reported to the CDC between Jan. 22, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020.
After adjustment for age, race, and underlying medical conditions, pregnant women with COVID-19 disease were significantly more likely than were nonpregnant women to be admitted to intensive care (10.5 per 1,000 cases vs. 3.9 per 1,000 cases), to receive invasive ventilation (2.9 vs. 1.1), receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.7 vs. 0.3) and to die (1.5 vs. 1.2).
“Irrespective of pregnancy status, ICU admissions, receipt of invasive ventilation, and death occurred more often among women aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24 years,” Dr. Zambrano and associates noted. In addition, non-Hispanic Black and Black women comprised 14.1% of the study population but accounted for 36.6% of deaths overall (9 in pregnant women and 167 in nonpregnant women).
The findings in the study of characteristics were limited by several factors including the voluntary reporting of COVID-19 cases, potential reporting bias, and inadequate time to assess severe cases, the researchers noted. However, “data from previous influenza pandemics, including 2009 H1N1, have shown that pregnant women are at increased risk for severe outcomes including death and the absolute risks for severe outcomes were higher than in this study of COVID-19 during pregnancy.”
“Pregnant women should be informed of their risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness and the warning signs of severe COVID-19,” Dr. Zambrano and associates said. “Providers who care for pregnant women should be familiar with guidelines for medical management of COVID-19, including considerations for management of COVID-19 in pregnancy.”
More data needed for informed counseling
“It is important to conduct research trials involving pregnant women so that we have reliable data regarding outcomes with which to counsel women,” Angela Bianco, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, said in an interview.
“Often pregnant women are excluded from research trials, but the impact of the current public health crisis affects all persons regardless of pregnancy status,” she said.
Dr. Bianco said that she was not surprised by the findings of either study. “In fact, our own research produced similar results.”
“These recent publications found that age-matched pregnant versus nonpregnant women had more severe manifestations of COVID-19, and specifically that pregnant women had a higher risk of requiring ventilation and intensive care admission, as well as higher risk of death,” she said. “Previous studies examining the effect of other SARS viruses have demonstrated that pregnancy is associated with worse outcomes; these findings are likely attributable to the relative state of immunosuppression in pregnancy.” Also, “one of these trials found a greater risk of premature birth in women with COVID-19; this may largely be attributable to iatrogenic delivery due to maternal illness as opposed to spontaneous preterm birth,” Dr. Bianco explained.
“Data are emerging regarding the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on pregnancy outcomes, however information remains limited,” Dr. Bianco noted. “Clinicians need to make patients aware that SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of severe illness requiring intensive care and/or ventilatory support and even death; however, the precise rates remain unknown. “COVID-19 during pregnancy may result in a preterm birth, but at this time the rate of fetal infection remains unknown,” she said. “Clinicians need to reinforce the importance of physical distancing, mask use, and proper hand hygiene, particularly in this vulnerable population.”
Dr. Bianco emphasized: “Longitudinal studies assessing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection at various gestational age periods are needed, as at this time most of the available data includes women with SARS-CoV-2 infection around the time of delivery. Long-term infant outcomes are needed, as well as studies assessing the risk of fetal infection.”
The studies were supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bianco had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Woodworth KR et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e2; Zambrano LD et al. MMWR. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e3.
FROM MMWR
New case suggestive of in utero SARS-CoV-2 transmission
A new report of mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through umbilical cord blood adds to a small but growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted in utero.
Further,
The data
In a report published in the Journal of The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Isabelle Von Kohorn, MD, PhD, of Holy Cross Health in Silver Spring, Md., and colleagues, described a case of neonatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a boy delivered by C-section at 34 weeks to a mother diagnosed with COVID-19 some 14 hours before. The newborn was immediately removed to a neonatal ICU and reunited with his mother a week later, once the mother had recovered.
Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues reported that, while the infant’s nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative at 24 hours after birth, repeat molecular tests (using different assays) from 49 hours on were positive and indicated an increasing viral burden, although the infant never developed symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to being found in the nasopharynx, viral RNA also was detected in cord blood and in urine. No viral RNA was found in the placenta.
The circumstances of the birth, and the care taken to keep mother and her infant at a safe distance along with masking of the mother, made it “extremely unlikely” that the infant acquired his infection by the respiratory route, Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues wrote.
“While we cannot rule out microscopic maternal blood contamination of cord blood in this or any other delivery, cord blood collection procedures are designed to avoid gross contamination with maternal blood. Microscopic contamination would not explain the RNA levels observed in our patient’s cord blood,” they wrote.
Clinicians should note that a neonate born to a mother with COVID-19 may take time to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the investigators argued, though the current recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to test nasopharyngeal secretions of well newborns at 24 and 48 hours but not again in the absence of symptoms. “This case suggests that some cases of SARS-CoV-2 in newborns may be detectable only after 48 hours of life.”
The authors hypothesized that virus transmitted by cord blood “seeded the nasopharynx and required 2 days for incubation and replication sufficient for detection.”
Some perspective
In an interview, Andrea Edlow, MD, A maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, called the findings provocative if not definitive in establishing in utero or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the same way that a Nature Communications case report did in July 2020. In that case, of a baby born to a mother with COVID-19, virus was seen at high levels in the placenta.
With the current case, “the absence of detectable virus in the placenta is certainly inconsistent/confusing if the authors claim hematogenous spread from mother to baby,” Dr. Edlow commented, “but the authors do offer plausible explanations, such as examination of limited areas within the placenta (when we know infection is likely to be patchy) and possible degradation of RNA prior to attempting to measure placental viral presence.”
Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the investigators disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Edlow had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Von Kohorn I et al. J Pediat Inf Dis Soc. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa127
A new report of mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through umbilical cord blood adds to a small but growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted in utero.
Further,
The data
In a report published in the Journal of The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Isabelle Von Kohorn, MD, PhD, of Holy Cross Health in Silver Spring, Md., and colleagues, described a case of neonatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a boy delivered by C-section at 34 weeks to a mother diagnosed with COVID-19 some 14 hours before. The newborn was immediately removed to a neonatal ICU and reunited with his mother a week later, once the mother had recovered.
Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues reported that, while the infant’s nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative at 24 hours after birth, repeat molecular tests (using different assays) from 49 hours on were positive and indicated an increasing viral burden, although the infant never developed symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to being found in the nasopharynx, viral RNA also was detected in cord blood and in urine. No viral RNA was found in the placenta.
The circumstances of the birth, and the care taken to keep mother and her infant at a safe distance along with masking of the mother, made it “extremely unlikely” that the infant acquired his infection by the respiratory route, Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues wrote.
“While we cannot rule out microscopic maternal blood contamination of cord blood in this or any other delivery, cord blood collection procedures are designed to avoid gross contamination with maternal blood. Microscopic contamination would not explain the RNA levels observed in our patient’s cord blood,” they wrote.
Clinicians should note that a neonate born to a mother with COVID-19 may take time to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the investigators argued, though the current recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to test nasopharyngeal secretions of well newborns at 24 and 48 hours but not again in the absence of symptoms. “This case suggests that some cases of SARS-CoV-2 in newborns may be detectable only after 48 hours of life.”
The authors hypothesized that virus transmitted by cord blood “seeded the nasopharynx and required 2 days for incubation and replication sufficient for detection.”
Some perspective
In an interview, Andrea Edlow, MD, A maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, called the findings provocative if not definitive in establishing in utero or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the same way that a Nature Communications case report did in July 2020. In that case, of a baby born to a mother with COVID-19, virus was seen at high levels in the placenta.
With the current case, “the absence of detectable virus in the placenta is certainly inconsistent/confusing if the authors claim hematogenous spread from mother to baby,” Dr. Edlow commented, “but the authors do offer plausible explanations, such as examination of limited areas within the placenta (when we know infection is likely to be patchy) and possible degradation of RNA prior to attempting to measure placental viral presence.”
Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the investigators disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Edlow had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Von Kohorn I et al. J Pediat Inf Dis Soc. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa127
A new report of mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through umbilical cord blood adds to a small but growing body of evidence that the virus can be transmitted in utero.
Further,
The data
In a report published in the Journal of The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Isabelle Von Kohorn, MD, PhD, of Holy Cross Health in Silver Spring, Md., and colleagues, described a case of neonatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a boy delivered by C-section at 34 weeks to a mother diagnosed with COVID-19 some 14 hours before. The newborn was immediately removed to a neonatal ICU and reunited with his mother a week later, once the mother had recovered.
Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues reported that, while the infant’s nasopharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was negative at 24 hours after birth, repeat molecular tests (using different assays) from 49 hours on were positive and indicated an increasing viral burden, although the infant never developed symptoms of COVID-19. In addition to being found in the nasopharynx, viral RNA also was detected in cord blood and in urine. No viral RNA was found in the placenta.
The circumstances of the birth, and the care taken to keep mother and her infant at a safe distance along with masking of the mother, made it “extremely unlikely” that the infant acquired his infection by the respiratory route, Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues wrote.
“While we cannot rule out microscopic maternal blood contamination of cord blood in this or any other delivery, cord blood collection procedures are designed to avoid gross contamination with maternal blood. Microscopic contamination would not explain the RNA levels observed in our patient’s cord blood,” they wrote.
Clinicians should note that a neonate born to a mother with COVID-19 may take time to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the investigators argued, though the current recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to test nasopharyngeal secretions of well newborns at 24 and 48 hours but not again in the absence of symptoms. “This case suggests that some cases of SARS-CoV-2 in newborns may be detectable only after 48 hours of life.”
The authors hypothesized that virus transmitted by cord blood “seeded the nasopharynx and required 2 days for incubation and replication sufficient for detection.”
Some perspective
In an interview, Andrea Edlow, MD, A maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, called the findings provocative if not definitive in establishing in utero or vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the same way that a Nature Communications case report did in July 2020. In that case, of a baby born to a mother with COVID-19, virus was seen at high levels in the placenta.
With the current case, “the absence of detectable virus in the placenta is certainly inconsistent/confusing if the authors claim hematogenous spread from mother to baby,” Dr. Edlow commented, “but the authors do offer plausible explanations, such as examination of limited areas within the placenta (when we know infection is likely to be patchy) and possible degradation of RNA prior to attempting to measure placental viral presence.”
Dr. Von Kohorn and colleagues’ study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the investigators disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Edlow had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Von Kohorn I et al. J Pediat Inf Dis Soc. 2020 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa127
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASES SOCIETY
Lions and tigers and anteaters? U.S. scientists scan the menagerie for COVID
As COVID-19 cases surge in the United States, one Texas veterinarian has been quietly tracking the spread of the disease – not in people, but in their pets.
Since June, Dr. Sarah Hamer and her team at Texas A&M University have tested hundreds of animals from area households where humans contracted COVID-19. They’ve swabbed dogs and cats, sure, but also pet hamsters and guinea pigs, looking for signs of infection. “We’re open to all of it,” said Dr. Hamer, a professor of epidemiology, who has found at least 19 cases of infection.
One pet that tested positive was Phoenix, a 7-year-old part Siamese cat owned by Kaitlyn Romoser, who works in a university lab. Ms. Romoser, 23, was confirmed to have COVID-19 twice, once in March and again in September. The second time she was much sicker, she said, and Phoenix was her constant companion.
“If I would have known animals were just getting it everywhere, I would have tried to distance myself, but he will not distance himself from me,” Ms. Romoser said. “He sleeps in my bed with me. There was absolutely no social distancing.”
Across the country, veterinarians and other researchers are scouring the animal kingdom for signs of the virus that causes COVID-19. At least 2,000 animals in the U.S. have been tested for the coronavirus since the pandemic began, according to federal records. Cats and dogs that were exposed to sick owners represent most of the animals tested and 80% of the positive cases found.
But scientists have cast a wide net investigating other animals that could be at risk. In states from California to Florida, researchers have tested species ranging from farmed minks and zoo cats to unexpected critters like dolphins, armadillos, and anteaters.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an official tally of confirmed animal COVID cases that stands at several dozen. But that list is a vast undercount of actual infections. In Utah and Wisconsin, for instance, more than 14,000 minks died in recent weeks after contracting COVID infections initially spread by humans.
So far, there’s limited evidence that animals are transmitting the virus to people. Veterinarians emphasize that pet owners appear to be in no danger from their animal companions and should continue to love and care for them. But scientists say continued testing is one way to remain vigilant in the face of a previously unknown pathogen.
“We just know that coronaviruses, as a family, infect a lot of species, mostly mammals,” said Dr. Peter Rabinowitz, a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and the director of the University of Washington Center for One Health Research in Seattle. “It makes sense to take a species-spanning approach and look at a wide spectrum.”
Much of the testing has been rooted in scientific curiosity. Since the pandemic began, a major puzzle has been how the virus, which likely originated in bats, spread to humans. A leading theory is that it jumped to an intermediate species, still unknown, and then to people.
In April, a 4-year-old Malayan tiger at the Bronx Zoo tested positive for COVID-19 in a first-of-its-kind case after seven big cats showed signs of respiratory illness. The tiger, Nadia, contracted the virus from a caretaker, federal health officials said. Four other tigers and three African lions were also confirmed to be infected.
In Washington state, the site of the first U.S. outbreak in humans, scientists rushed to design a COVID test for animals in March, said Charlie Powell, a spokesperson for the Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Pullman. “We knew with warm-blooded animals, housed together, there’s going to be some cross-infection,” he said. Tests for animals use different reagent compounds than those used for tests in people, so they don’t deplete the human supply, Mr. Powell added.
Since spring, the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory has tested nearly 80 animals, including 38 dogs, 29 cats, 2 ferrets, a camel, and 2 tamanduas, a type of anteater. The lab also tested six minks from the outbreak in Utah, five of which accounted for the lab’s only positive tests.
All told, nearly 1,400 animals have been tested for COVID-19 through the National Animal Health Laboratory Network or private labs, said Lyndsay Cole, a spokesperson for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. More than 400 animals have been tested through the National Veterinary Services Laboratories. At least 250 more have been tested through academic research projects.
Most of the tests have been in household cats and dogs with suspicious respiratory symptoms. In June, the USDA reported that a dog in New York was the first pet dog to test positive for the coronavirus after falling ill and struggling to breathe. The dog, a 7-year-old German shepherd named Buddy, later died. Officials determined he’d contracted the virus from his owner.
Neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor the USDA recommends routine testing for house pets or other animals – but that hasn’t stopped owners from asking, said Dr. Douglas Kratt, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association.
“The questions have become a little more consistent at my practice,” he said. “People do want to know about COVID-19 and their pets. Can their pet pick it up at a clinic or boarding or in doggie day care?”
The answer, so far, is that humans are the primary source of infection in pets. In September, a small, unpublished study from the University of Guelph in Canada found that companion cats and dogs appeared to be infected by their sick owners, judging by antibodies to the coronavirus detected in their blood.
In Texas, Dr. Hamer started testing animals from households where someone had contracted COVID-19 to learn more about transmission pathways. “Right now, we’re very much trying to describe what’s happening in nature,” she said.
So far, most of the animals – including Phoenix, Ms. Romoser’s cat – have shown no signs of illness or disease. That’s true so far for many species of animals tested for COVID-19, veterinarians said. Most nonhuman creatures appear to weather COVID infection with mild symptoms like sniffles and lethargy, if any.
Still, owners should apply best practices for avoiding COVID infection to pets, too, Dr. Kratt said. Don’t let pets come into contact with unfamiliar animals, he suggested. Owners should wash their hands frequently and avoid nuzzling and other very close contact, if possible.
Cats appear to be more susceptible to COVID-19 than dogs, researchers said. And minks, which are farmed in the U.S. and elsewhere for their fur, appear quite vulnerable.
In the meantime, the list of creatures tested for COVID-19 – whether for illness or science – is growing. In Florida, 22 animals had been tested as of early October, including 3 wild dolphins, 2 civets, 2 clouded leopards, a gorilla, an orangutan, an alpaca, and a bush baby, state officials said.
In California, 29 animals had been tested by the end of September, including a meerkat, a monkey, and a coatimundi, a member of the raccoon family.
In Seattle, a plan to test orcas, or killer whales, in Puget Sound was called off at the last minute after a member of the scientific team was exposed to COVID-19 and had to quarantine, said Dr. Joe Gaydos, a senior wildlife veterinarian and science director for the SeaDoc Society, a conservation program at the University of California-Davis. The group missed its September window to locate the animals and obtain breath and fecal samples for analysis.
No one thinks marine animals will play a big role in the pandemic decimating the human population, Dr. Gaydos said. But testing many creatures on both land and sea is vital.
“We don’t know what this virus is going to do or can do,” Dr. Gaydos said.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
As COVID-19 cases surge in the United States, one Texas veterinarian has been quietly tracking the spread of the disease – not in people, but in their pets.
Since June, Dr. Sarah Hamer and her team at Texas A&M University have tested hundreds of animals from area households where humans contracted COVID-19. They’ve swabbed dogs and cats, sure, but also pet hamsters and guinea pigs, looking for signs of infection. “We’re open to all of it,” said Dr. Hamer, a professor of epidemiology, who has found at least 19 cases of infection.
One pet that tested positive was Phoenix, a 7-year-old part Siamese cat owned by Kaitlyn Romoser, who works in a university lab. Ms. Romoser, 23, was confirmed to have COVID-19 twice, once in March and again in September. The second time she was much sicker, she said, and Phoenix was her constant companion.
“If I would have known animals were just getting it everywhere, I would have tried to distance myself, but he will not distance himself from me,” Ms. Romoser said. “He sleeps in my bed with me. There was absolutely no social distancing.”
Across the country, veterinarians and other researchers are scouring the animal kingdom for signs of the virus that causes COVID-19. At least 2,000 animals in the U.S. have been tested for the coronavirus since the pandemic began, according to federal records. Cats and dogs that were exposed to sick owners represent most of the animals tested and 80% of the positive cases found.
But scientists have cast a wide net investigating other animals that could be at risk. In states from California to Florida, researchers have tested species ranging from farmed minks and zoo cats to unexpected critters like dolphins, armadillos, and anteaters.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an official tally of confirmed animal COVID cases that stands at several dozen. But that list is a vast undercount of actual infections. In Utah and Wisconsin, for instance, more than 14,000 minks died in recent weeks after contracting COVID infections initially spread by humans.
So far, there’s limited evidence that animals are transmitting the virus to people. Veterinarians emphasize that pet owners appear to be in no danger from their animal companions and should continue to love and care for them. But scientists say continued testing is one way to remain vigilant in the face of a previously unknown pathogen.
“We just know that coronaviruses, as a family, infect a lot of species, mostly mammals,” said Dr. Peter Rabinowitz, a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and the director of the University of Washington Center for One Health Research in Seattle. “It makes sense to take a species-spanning approach and look at a wide spectrum.”
Much of the testing has been rooted in scientific curiosity. Since the pandemic began, a major puzzle has been how the virus, which likely originated in bats, spread to humans. A leading theory is that it jumped to an intermediate species, still unknown, and then to people.
In April, a 4-year-old Malayan tiger at the Bronx Zoo tested positive for COVID-19 in a first-of-its-kind case after seven big cats showed signs of respiratory illness. The tiger, Nadia, contracted the virus from a caretaker, federal health officials said. Four other tigers and three African lions were also confirmed to be infected.
In Washington state, the site of the first U.S. outbreak in humans, scientists rushed to design a COVID test for animals in March, said Charlie Powell, a spokesperson for the Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Pullman. “We knew with warm-blooded animals, housed together, there’s going to be some cross-infection,” he said. Tests for animals use different reagent compounds than those used for tests in people, so they don’t deplete the human supply, Mr. Powell added.
Since spring, the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory has tested nearly 80 animals, including 38 dogs, 29 cats, 2 ferrets, a camel, and 2 tamanduas, a type of anteater. The lab also tested six minks from the outbreak in Utah, five of which accounted for the lab’s only positive tests.
All told, nearly 1,400 animals have been tested for COVID-19 through the National Animal Health Laboratory Network or private labs, said Lyndsay Cole, a spokesperson for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. More than 400 animals have been tested through the National Veterinary Services Laboratories. At least 250 more have been tested through academic research projects.
Most of the tests have been in household cats and dogs with suspicious respiratory symptoms. In June, the USDA reported that a dog in New York was the first pet dog to test positive for the coronavirus after falling ill and struggling to breathe. The dog, a 7-year-old German shepherd named Buddy, later died. Officials determined he’d contracted the virus from his owner.
Neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor the USDA recommends routine testing for house pets or other animals – but that hasn’t stopped owners from asking, said Dr. Douglas Kratt, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association.
“The questions have become a little more consistent at my practice,” he said. “People do want to know about COVID-19 and their pets. Can their pet pick it up at a clinic or boarding or in doggie day care?”
The answer, so far, is that humans are the primary source of infection in pets. In September, a small, unpublished study from the University of Guelph in Canada found that companion cats and dogs appeared to be infected by their sick owners, judging by antibodies to the coronavirus detected in their blood.
In Texas, Dr. Hamer started testing animals from households where someone had contracted COVID-19 to learn more about transmission pathways. “Right now, we’re very much trying to describe what’s happening in nature,” she said.
So far, most of the animals – including Phoenix, Ms. Romoser’s cat – have shown no signs of illness or disease. That’s true so far for many species of animals tested for COVID-19, veterinarians said. Most nonhuman creatures appear to weather COVID infection with mild symptoms like sniffles and lethargy, if any.
Still, owners should apply best practices for avoiding COVID infection to pets, too, Dr. Kratt said. Don’t let pets come into contact with unfamiliar animals, he suggested. Owners should wash their hands frequently and avoid nuzzling and other very close contact, if possible.
Cats appear to be more susceptible to COVID-19 than dogs, researchers said. And minks, which are farmed in the U.S. and elsewhere for their fur, appear quite vulnerable.
In the meantime, the list of creatures tested for COVID-19 – whether for illness or science – is growing. In Florida, 22 animals had been tested as of early October, including 3 wild dolphins, 2 civets, 2 clouded leopards, a gorilla, an orangutan, an alpaca, and a bush baby, state officials said.
In California, 29 animals had been tested by the end of September, including a meerkat, a monkey, and a coatimundi, a member of the raccoon family.
In Seattle, a plan to test orcas, or killer whales, in Puget Sound was called off at the last minute after a member of the scientific team was exposed to COVID-19 and had to quarantine, said Dr. Joe Gaydos, a senior wildlife veterinarian and science director for the SeaDoc Society, a conservation program at the University of California-Davis. The group missed its September window to locate the animals and obtain breath and fecal samples for analysis.
No one thinks marine animals will play a big role in the pandemic decimating the human population, Dr. Gaydos said. But testing many creatures on both land and sea is vital.
“We don’t know what this virus is going to do or can do,” Dr. Gaydos said.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
As COVID-19 cases surge in the United States, one Texas veterinarian has been quietly tracking the spread of the disease – not in people, but in their pets.
Since June, Dr. Sarah Hamer and her team at Texas A&M University have tested hundreds of animals from area households where humans contracted COVID-19. They’ve swabbed dogs and cats, sure, but also pet hamsters and guinea pigs, looking for signs of infection. “We’re open to all of it,” said Dr. Hamer, a professor of epidemiology, who has found at least 19 cases of infection.
One pet that tested positive was Phoenix, a 7-year-old part Siamese cat owned by Kaitlyn Romoser, who works in a university lab. Ms. Romoser, 23, was confirmed to have COVID-19 twice, once in March and again in September. The second time she was much sicker, she said, and Phoenix was her constant companion.
“If I would have known animals were just getting it everywhere, I would have tried to distance myself, but he will not distance himself from me,” Ms. Romoser said. “He sleeps in my bed with me. There was absolutely no social distancing.”
Across the country, veterinarians and other researchers are scouring the animal kingdom for signs of the virus that causes COVID-19. At least 2,000 animals in the U.S. have been tested for the coronavirus since the pandemic began, according to federal records. Cats and dogs that were exposed to sick owners represent most of the animals tested and 80% of the positive cases found.
But scientists have cast a wide net investigating other animals that could be at risk. In states from California to Florida, researchers have tested species ranging from farmed minks and zoo cats to unexpected critters like dolphins, armadillos, and anteaters.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an official tally of confirmed animal COVID cases that stands at several dozen. But that list is a vast undercount of actual infections. In Utah and Wisconsin, for instance, more than 14,000 minks died in recent weeks after contracting COVID infections initially spread by humans.
So far, there’s limited evidence that animals are transmitting the virus to people. Veterinarians emphasize that pet owners appear to be in no danger from their animal companions and should continue to love and care for them. But scientists say continued testing is one way to remain vigilant in the face of a previously unknown pathogen.
“We just know that coronaviruses, as a family, infect a lot of species, mostly mammals,” said Dr. Peter Rabinowitz, a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and the director of the University of Washington Center for One Health Research in Seattle. “It makes sense to take a species-spanning approach and look at a wide spectrum.”
Much of the testing has been rooted in scientific curiosity. Since the pandemic began, a major puzzle has been how the virus, which likely originated in bats, spread to humans. A leading theory is that it jumped to an intermediate species, still unknown, and then to people.
In April, a 4-year-old Malayan tiger at the Bronx Zoo tested positive for COVID-19 in a first-of-its-kind case after seven big cats showed signs of respiratory illness. The tiger, Nadia, contracted the virus from a caretaker, federal health officials said. Four other tigers and three African lions were also confirmed to be infected.
In Washington state, the site of the first U.S. outbreak in humans, scientists rushed to design a COVID test for animals in March, said Charlie Powell, a spokesperson for the Washington State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Pullman. “We knew with warm-blooded animals, housed together, there’s going to be some cross-infection,” he said. Tests for animals use different reagent compounds than those used for tests in people, so they don’t deplete the human supply, Mr. Powell added.
Since spring, the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory has tested nearly 80 animals, including 38 dogs, 29 cats, 2 ferrets, a camel, and 2 tamanduas, a type of anteater. The lab also tested six minks from the outbreak in Utah, five of which accounted for the lab’s only positive tests.
All told, nearly 1,400 animals have been tested for COVID-19 through the National Animal Health Laboratory Network or private labs, said Lyndsay Cole, a spokesperson for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. More than 400 animals have been tested through the National Veterinary Services Laboratories. At least 250 more have been tested through academic research projects.
Most of the tests have been in household cats and dogs with suspicious respiratory symptoms. In June, the USDA reported that a dog in New York was the first pet dog to test positive for the coronavirus after falling ill and struggling to breathe. The dog, a 7-year-old German shepherd named Buddy, later died. Officials determined he’d contracted the virus from his owner.
Neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor the USDA recommends routine testing for house pets or other animals – but that hasn’t stopped owners from asking, said Dr. Douglas Kratt, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association.
“The questions have become a little more consistent at my practice,” he said. “People do want to know about COVID-19 and their pets. Can their pet pick it up at a clinic or boarding or in doggie day care?”
The answer, so far, is that humans are the primary source of infection in pets. In September, a small, unpublished study from the University of Guelph in Canada found that companion cats and dogs appeared to be infected by their sick owners, judging by antibodies to the coronavirus detected in their blood.
In Texas, Dr. Hamer started testing animals from households where someone had contracted COVID-19 to learn more about transmission pathways. “Right now, we’re very much trying to describe what’s happening in nature,” she said.
So far, most of the animals – including Phoenix, Ms. Romoser’s cat – have shown no signs of illness or disease. That’s true so far for many species of animals tested for COVID-19, veterinarians said. Most nonhuman creatures appear to weather COVID infection with mild symptoms like sniffles and lethargy, if any.
Still, owners should apply best practices for avoiding COVID infection to pets, too, Dr. Kratt said. Don’t let pets come into contact with unfamiliar animals, he suggested. Owners should wash their hands frequently and avoid nuzzling and other very close contact, if possible.
Cats appear to be more susceptible to COVID-19 than dogs, researchers said. And minks, which are farmed in the U.S. and elsewhere for their fur, appear quite vulnerable.
In the meantime, the list of creatures tested for COVID-19 – whether for illness or science – is growing. In Florida, 22 animals had been tested as of early October, including 3 wild dolphins, 2 civets, 2 clouded leopards, a gorilla, an orangutan, an alpaca, and a bush baby, state officials said.
In California, 29 animals had been tested by the end of September, including a meerkat, a monkey, and a coatimundi, a member of the raccoon family.
In Seattle, a plan to test orcas, or killer whales, in Puget Sound was called off at the last minute after a member of the scientific team was exposed to COVID-19 and had to quarantine, said Dr. Joe Gaydos, a senior wildlife veterinarian and science director for the SeaDoc Society, a conservation program at the University of California-Davis. The group missed its September window to locate the animals and obtain breath and fecal samples for analysis.
No one thinks marine animals will play a big role in the pandemic decimating the human population, Dr. Gaydos said. But testing many creatures on both land and sea is vital.
“We don’t know what this virus is going to do or can do,” Dr. Gaydos said.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Common SARS-CoV-2 mutation may be making COVID-19 more contagious
Most SARS-CoV-2 virus strains feature a specific mutation that makes them more transmissible, to the point that these strains now predominate globally, new evidence shows.
In contrast to a greater variety of strains early in the pandemic, now 99.9% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the study feature the D614G mutation on the spike protein. In addition, people infected with a D614G strain have higher nasopharynx viral loads at diagnosis.
It’s not all bad news. This single-point mutation was not associated with worse clinical COVID-19 severity. Also, the mutation isn’t expected to interfere with the efficacy any of the antibody cocktails, small molecule therapies or vaccines in development.
Furthermore, “as bad as SARS-CoV-2 is, we may have dodged a bullet in terms of how quickly it mutates,” study author Ilya Finkelstein, PhD, said in an interview. This virus mutates much slower than HIV, for example, giving researchers a greater chance to stay one step ahead, he said.
The study was published online Oct. 30 in the journal mBio.
Molecular sleuthing
The research was possible because colleagues at the Houston Methodist Hospital system sequenced the genome of 5085 SARS-CoV-2 strains early in the outbreak and during a second wave of infection over the summer, Dr. Finkelstein said.
The unique data source also includes information from plasma, convalescent plasma, and patient outcomes. Studying a large and diverse population in a major metropolitan area like Houston helps create a “molecular fingerprint” for the virus that will continue to be very useful, said Dr. Finkelstein, a researcher and director of the Finkelstein Lab at the University of Texas, Austin.
D614G was the most common genetic substitution the researchers found, appearing in 82% of SARS-CoV-2 strains during the first wave from March 5 to May 11. The proportion with this mutation jumped to 99.9% by the second wave, defined as occurring between May 12 and July 7 in the study.
The jump in mutation frequency “occurred very rapidly, in a matter of just a few months,” the researchers noted.
The presence of the mutation during the first wave was independently associated with mechanical ventilation days, overall length of stay, and ICU length of stay. However, it was not associated with any significant differences in patient outcomes.
The D614G mutation is now so common worldwide that these viruses are considered reference strains. Researchers believe D614G predominates because it increases the spike protein’s ability to open cells for the virus to enter.
Despite the large number of virus strains evaluated, the samples only represent about 10% of COVID-19 cases in Houston during the study, a potential limitation. Also, some collected samples could not be used for high-quality genome analysis because of limited virus nucleic acid.
Also, it remains unclear if host-virus immune interactions play a significant role. However, the researchers noted in the paper that “available data suggest that, in the aggregate, host genetics does not play an overwhelming role in determining outcome in the great majority of adult patients, once virus infection is established.”
Surveillance ongoing
“The findings will help us to understand the origin, composition, and trajectory of future infection waves and the potential effect of the host immune response and therapeutic maneuvers on SARS-CoV-2 evolution,” the researchers added.
Going forward, the ongoing molecular surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 “may provide critical insights into the origin of the new infection spikes and waves that are occurring as public health constraints are further relaxed, schools and colleges reopen, holidays occur, commercial air travel increases and individuals change their behavior because of COVID-19 ‘fatigue,’ ” the researchers noted.
They added that the genome data will also be useful in assessing ongoing molecular evolution in spike and other proteins “as baseline herd immunity is generated, either by natural exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or by vaccination.”
Further validation warranted
“The study is very interesting and well performed,” Noam Shomron, PhD, a member of the faculty of medicine at Tel Aviv University, said in an interview.
Analyzing the “SARS-CoV-2 molecular evolution in a specific region in the USA … could be viewed as a microcosm of what occurs in other large cities in the USA,” he said.
However, “before jumping to conclusions, this should be further validated,” added Dr. Shomron, who authored a study suggesting differences in genetic alleles could partially explain variations across countries in the infection rates, severity, and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2.
“We know that many other features and contributors might affect the results – even social constraints could generate a bias in the observations,” he said.
Dr. Finkelstein and Dr. Shomron disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most SARS-CoV-2 virus strains feature a specific mutation that makes them more transmissible, to the point that these strains now predominate globally, new evidence shows.
In contrast to a greater variety of strains early in the pandemic, now 99.9% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the study feature the D614G mutation on the spike protein. In addition, people infected with a D614G strain have higher nasopharynx viral loads at diagnosis.
It’s not all bad news. This single-point mutation was not associated with worse clinical COVID-19 severity. Also, the mutation isn’t expected to interfere with the efficacy any of the antibody cocktails, small molecule therapies or vaccines in development.
Furthermore, “as bad as SARS-CoV-2 is, we may have dodged a bullet in terms of how quickly it mutates,” study author Ilya Finkelstein, PhD, said in an interview. This virus mutates much slower than HIV, for example, giving researchers a greater chance to stay one step ahead, he said.
The study was published online Oct. 30 in the journal mBio.
Molecular sleuthing
The research was possible because colleagues at the Houston Methodist Hospital system sequenced the genome of 5085 SARS-CoV-2 strains early in the outbreak and during a second wave of infection over the summer, Dr. Finkelstein said.
The unique data source also includes information from plasma, convalescent plasma, and patient outcomes. Studying a large and diverse population in a major metropolitan area like Houston helps create a “molecular fingerprint” for the virus that will continue to be very useful, said Dr. Finkelstein, a researcher and director of the Finkelstein Lab at the University of Texas, Austin.
D614G was the most common genetic substitution the researchers found, appearing in 82% of SARS-CoV-2 strains during the first wave from March 5 to May 11. The proportion with this mutation jumped to 99.9% by the second wave, defined as occurring between May 12 and July 7 in the study.
The jump in mutation frequency “occurred very rapidly, in a matter of just a few months,” the researchers noted.
The presence of the mutation during the first wave was independently associated with mechanical ventilation days, overall length of stay, and ICU length of stay. However, it was not associated with any significant differences in patient outcomes.
The D614G mutation is now so common worldwide that these viruses are considered reference strains. Researchers believe D614G predominates because it increases the spike protein’s ability to open cells for the virus to enter.
Despite the large number of virus strains evaluated, the samples only represent about 10% of COVID-19 cases in Houston during the study, a potential limitation. Also, some collected samples could not be used for high-quality genome analysis because of limited virus nucleic acid.
Also, it remains unclear if host-virus immune interactions play a significant role. However, the researchers noted in the paper that “available data suggest that, in the aggregate, host genetics does not play an overwhelming role in determining outcome in the great majority of adult patients, once virus infection is established.”
Surveillance ongoing
“The findings will help us to understand the origin, composition, and trajectory of future infection waves and the potential effect of the host immune response and therapeutic maneuvers on SARS-CoV-2 evolution,” the researchers added.
Going forward, the ongoing molecular surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 “may provide critical insights into the origin of the new infection spikes and waves that are occurring as public health constraints are further relaxed, schools and colleges reopen, holidays occur, commercial air travel increases and individuals change their behavior because of COVID-19 ‘fatigue,’ ” the researchers noted.
They added that the genome data will also be useful in assessing ongoing molecular evolution in spike and other proteins “as baseline herd immunity is generated, either by natural exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or by vaccination.”
Further validation warranted
“The study is very interesting and well performed,” Noam Shomron, PhD, a member of the faculty of medicine at Tel Aviv University, said in an interview.
Analyzing the “SARS-CoV-2 molecular evolution in a specific region in the USA … could be viewed as a microcosm of what occurs in other large cities in the USA,” he said.
However, “before jumping to conclusions, this should be further validated,” added Dr. Shomron, who authored a study suggesting differences in genetic alleles could partially explain variations across countries in the infection rates, severity, and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2.
“We know that many other features and contributors might affect the results – even social constraints could generate a bias in the observations,” he said.
Dr. Finkelstein and Dr. Shomron disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Most SARS-CoV-2 virus strains feature a specific mutation that makes them more transmissible, to the point that these strains now predominate globally, new evidence shows.
In contrast to a greater variety of strains early in the pandemic, now 99.9% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the study feature the D614G mutation on the spike protein. In addition, people infected with a D614G strain have higher nasopharynx viral loads at diagnosis.
It’s not all bad news. This single-point mutation was not associated with worse clinical COVID-19 severity. Also, the mutation isn’t expected to interfere with the efficacy any of the antibody cocktails, small molecule therapies or vaccines in development.
Furthermore, “as bad as SARS-CoV-2 is, we may have dodged a bullet in terms of how quickly it mutates,” study author Ilya Finkelstein, PhD, said in an interview. This virus mutates much slower than HIV, for example, giving researchers a greater chance to stay one step ahead, he said.
The study was published online Oct. 30 in the journal mBio.
Molecular sleuthing
The research was possible because colleagues at the Houston Methodist Hospital system sequenced the genome of 5085 SARS-CoV-2 strains early in the outbreak and during a second wave of infection over the summer, Dr. Finkelstein said.
The unique data source also includes information from plasma, convalescent plasma, and patient outcomes. Studying a large and diverse population in a major metropolitan area like Houston helps create a “molecular fingerprint” for the virus that will continue to be very useful, said Dr. Finkelstein, a researcher and director of the Finkelstein Lab at the University of Texas, Austin.
D614G was the most common genetic substitution the researchers found, appearing in 82% of SARS-CoV-2 strains during the first wave from March 5 to May 11. The proportion with this mutation jumped to 99.9% by the second wave, defined as occurring between May 12 and July 7 in the study.
The jump in mutation frequency “occurred very rapidly, in a matter of just a few months,” the researchers noted.
The presence of the mutation during the first wave was independently associated with mechanical ventilation days, overall length of stay, and ICU length of stay. However, it was not associated with any significant differences in patient outcomes.
The D614G mutation is now so common worldwide that these viruses are considered reference strains. Researchers believe D614G predominates because it increases the spike protein’s ability to open cells for the virus to enter.
Despite the large number of virus strains evaluated, the samples only represent about 10% of COVID-19 cases in Houston during the study, a potential limitation. Also, some collected samples could not be used for high-quality genome analysis because of limited virus nucleic acid.
Also, it remains unclear if host-virus immune interactions play a significant role. However, the researchers noted in the paper that “available data suggest that, in the aggregate, host genetics does not play an overwhelming role in determining outcome in the great majority of adult patients, once virus infection is established.”
Surveillance ongoing
“The findings will help us to understand the origin, composition, and trajectory of future infection waves and the potential effect of the host immune response and therapeutic maneuvers on SARS-CoV-2 evolution,” the researchers added.
Going forward, the ongoing molecular surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 “may provide critical insights into the origin of the new infection spikes and waves that are occurring as public health constraints are further relaxed, schools and colleges reopen, holidays occur, commercial air travel increases and individuals change their behavior because of COVID-19 ‘fatigue,’ ” the researchers noted.
They added that the genome data will also be useful in assessing ongoing molecular evolution in spike and other proteins “as baseline herd immunity is generated, either by natural exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or by vaccination.”
Further validation warranted
“The study is very interesting and well performed,” Noam Shomron, PhD, a member of the faculty of medicine at Tel Aviv University, said in an interview.
Analyzing the “SARS-CoV-2 molecular evolution in a specific region in the USA … could be viewed as a microcosm of what occurs in other large cities in the USA,” he said.
However, “before jumping to conclusions, this should be further validated,” added Dr. Shomron, who authored a study suggesting differences in genetic alleles could partially explain variations across countries in the infection rates, severity, and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2.
“We know that many other features and contributors might affect the results – even social constraints could generate a bias in the observations,” he said.
Dr. Finkelstein and Dr. Shomron disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Obesity biggest risk for COVID-19 pneumonia, after age, male sex
In a large international study of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, the likelihood of having severe pneumonia (i.e., needing invasive mechanical ventilation) increased stepwise with increasing body mass index (BMI) – independent of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or current smoking.
The main finding was a linear correlation between BMI and need for invasive mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for center, age, sex, and other prespecified metabolic risk factors.
Risk was “highest for older people and males, but the next most important risk factor to developing severe pneumonia if infected [was] obesity,” said François Pattou, MD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (France), who presented the findings at the ObesityWeek 2020 virtual meeting. The results were also recently published in a preprint article in The Lancet.
Dr. Pattou and colleagues first reported back in April that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, especially in younger patients. Many further reports linked the two, and the French researchers then set out to conduct the current large, international, multicenter cohort study.
“The high number of patients included here [allowed us] to disentangle the role of various metabolic cofactors and to show that obesity, not diabetes or hypertension, was the main determinant of severe pneumonia [after age and gender],” Dr. Pattou said in an interview.
And the impact of obesity was most pronounced in women younger than 50 years.
Patients with severe obesity must protect themselves
Of interest, the study also found an “obesity paradox” for mortality after admission to the ICU.
Specifically, compared with leaner patients (BMI < 25 kg/m2), those with severe obesity (obesity class III, BMI ≥ 40) had an increased risk of dying within 28 days of admission to ICU. But patients with overweight to moderate obesity (BMI 25-39.9) had a lower risk of this outcome.
“The second original finding of our study,” Dr. Pattou continued, was the “nonlinear relation observed between BMI and all-cause mortality rate in ICU patients.”
Matteo Rottoli, MD, PhD, author of a related study reported by in July, said the new trial “confirms the findings of our study, which are that obesity is an independent risk factor for intensive care admission and death.”
Dr. Rottoli, from Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues found that in their population of patients with COVID-19, a BMI > 35 was associated with a greater risk of death.
The takeaway message from the research is that “obesity should be considered one of the most important parameters to identify the population at risk” of getting COVID-19 who need to take extra precautions such as social distancing, Dr. Rottoli stressed.
Dr. Pattou agrees, particularly when it comes to severe obesity.
Intensive care physicians have learned a lot in the past months about COVID-19 pneumonia and how to address it (such as not precipitating intubation, using corticosteroids), he explained.
“Importantly, the general population has also learned a lot, and we can hope that patients with obesity, especially those with severe obesity, will take extra measures to protect themselves, resulting in a decrease of the incidence of severe pneumonia in young and severely obese patients,” he added.
Untangling BMI from other metabolic risk factors
Dr. Pattou said that, from Dec. 16, 2019, to Nov. 1, 2020, more than 45 million people worldwide tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 1.2 million people died from it.
Multiple studies have reported that, among people with COVID-19, those with obesity are at higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, invasive ventilation, and death, but it had not been clear if BMI was an independent risk factor.
Dr. Pattou and colleagues aimed to examine the relationship between BMI and COVID-19 pneumonia severity, defined by the need for mechanical ventilation (primary outcome), as well as 28-day all-cause mortality (secondary outcome) among patients admitted to the ICU.
They also sought to disentangle the effect of BMI from other metabolic risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and current smoking) and examine the influence of age and sex on outcomes.
They performed a retrospective analysis of 1,461 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (positive reverse polymerase chain reaction test using a nasal or pharyngeal swab specimen) who were admitted to the ICU at 21 centers from Feb. 19 to May 11, 2020.
Participating centers were in France (13), Italy (3), the United States (1 in New York and 1 in Providence, R.I.), Israel (1), Belgium (1), and Spain (1).
Close to three-quarters of patients were men (73%), which is similar to multiple other studies, Dr. Pattou said. Patients were a mean age of 64 years and had a mean BMI of 28.1.
Half of patients had hypertension (52%), 29% had diabetes, 29% had hyperlipidemia, and 6.5% were current smokers.
Close to three-quarters (74%) required invasive mechanical ventilation, and 36% died within 28 days of ICU admission.
Each 5-kg/m2 increase in BMI was associated with a 27% increased risk of mechanical ventilation in the overall cohort and a 65% increased risk of this outcome among women younger than 50 years, after adjustment for other risk factors.
Male sex and each 10-year increase in age were associated with an 82% and a 17% increased risk of ventilation, respectively, but hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and current smoking were not associated with a greater risk. After adjustment for center, age, sex, and prespecified metabolic risk factors, obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40) was associated with a 68% increase in mortality, compared with the risk seen in lean patients.
The findings were similar across different centers.
“To our knowledge, this study represents the first international collaborative effort to explore the association of BMI with the outcomes of pneumonia among COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU,” said the investigators.
They conclude that “available evidence should foster more focused and effective interventions in COVID-19 patients with the highest risk of severe pneumonia, in order to reduce future strain on intensive care resources worldwide, and inform physio-pathological research to elucidate the mechanism of severe lung damage in COVID-19.”
The study did not receive specific funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large international study of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, the likelihood of having severe pneumonia (i.e., needing invasive mechanical ventilation) increased stepwise with increasing body mass index (BMI) – independent of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or current smoking.
The main finding was a linear correlation between BMI and need for invasive mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for center, age, sex, and other prespecified metabolic risk factors.
Risk was “highest for older people and males, but the next most important risk factor to developing severe pneumonia if infected [was] obesity,” said François Pattou, MD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (France), who presented the findings at the ObesityWeek 2020 virtual meeting. The results were also recently published in a preprint article in The Lancet.
Dr. Pattou and colleagues first reported back in April that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, especially in younger patients. Many further reports linked the two, and the French researchers then set out to conduct the current large, international, multicenter cohort study.
“The high number of patients included here [allowed us] to disentangle the role of various metabolic cofactors and to show that obesity, not diabetes or hypertension, was the main determinant of severe pneumonia [after age and gender],” Dr. Pattou said in an interview.
And the impact of obesity was most pronounced in women younger than 50 years.
Patients with severe obesity must protect themselves
Of interest, the study also found an “obesity paradox” for mortality after admission to the ICU.
Specifically, compared with leaner patients (BMI < 25 kg/m2), those with severe obesity (obesity class III, BMI ≥ 40) had an increased risk of dying within 28 days of admission to ICU. But patients with overweight to moderate obesity (BMI 25-39.9) had a lower risk of this outcome.
“The second original finding of our study,” Dr. Pattou continued, was the “nonlinear relation observed between BMI and all-cause mortality rate in ICU patients.”
Matteo Rottoli, MD, PhD, author of a related study reported by in July, said the new trial “confirms the findings of our study, which are that obesity is an independent risk factor for intensive care admission and death.”
Dr. Rottoli, from Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues found that in their population of patients with COVID-19, a BMI > 35 was associated with a greater risk of death.
The takeaway message from the research is that “obesity should be considered one of the most important parameters to identify the population at risk” of getting COVID-19 who need to take extra precautions such as social distancing, Dr. Rottoli stressed.
Dr. Pattou agrees, particularly when it comes to severe obesity.
Intensive care physicians have learned a lot in the past months about COVID-19 pneumonia and how to address it (such as not precipitating intubation, using corticosteroids), he explained.
“Importantly, the general population has also learned a lot, and we can hope that patients with obesity, especially those with severe obesity, will take extra measures to protect themselves, resulting in a decrease of the incidence of severe pneumonia in young and severely obese patients,” he added.
Untangling BMI from other metabolic risk factors
Dr. Pattou said that, from Dec. 16, 2019, to Nov. 1, 2020, more than 45 million people worldwide tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 1.2 million people died from it.
Multiple studies have reported that, among people with COVID-19, those with obesity are at higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, invasive ventilation, and death, but it had not been clear if BMI was an independent risk factor.
Dr. Pattou and colleagues aimed to examine the relationship between BMI and COVID-19 pneumonia severity, defined by the need for mechanical ventilation (primary outcome), as well as 28-day all-cause mortality (secondary outcome) among patients admitted to the ICU.
They also sought to disentangle the effect of BMI from other metabolic risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and current smoking) and examine the influence of age and sex on outcomes.
They performed a retrospective analysis of 1,461 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (positive reverse polymerase chain reaction test using a nasal or pharyngeal swab specimen) who were admitted to the ICU at 21 centers from Feb. 19 to May 11, 2020.
Participating centers were in France (13), Italy (3), the United States (1 in New York and 1 in Providence, R.I.), Israel (1), Belgium (1), and Spain (1).
Close to three-quarters of patients were men (73%), which is similar to multiple other studies, Dr. Pattou said. Patients were a mean age of 64 years and had a mean BMI of 28.1.
Half of patients had hypertension (52%), 29% had diabetes, 29% had hyperlipidemia, and 6.5% were current smokers.
Close to three-quarters (74%) required invasive mechanical ventilation, and 36% died within 28 days of ICU admission.
Each 5-kg/m2 increase in BMI was associated with a 27% increased risk of mechanical ventilation in the overall cohort and a 65% increased risk of this outcome among women younger than 50 years, after adjustment for other risk factors.
Male sex and each 10-year increase in age were associated with an 82% and a 17% increased risk of ventilation, respectively, but hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and current smoking were not associated with a greater risk. After adjustment for center, age, sex, and prespecified metabolic risk factors, obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40) was associated with a 68% increase in mortality, compared with the risk seen in lean patients.
The findings were similar across different centers.
“To our knowledge, this study represents the first international collaborative effort to explore the association of BMI with the outcomes of pneumonia among COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU,” said the investigators.
They conclude that “available evidence should foster more focused and effective interventions in COVID-19 patients with the highest risk of severe pneumonia, in order to reduce future strain on intensive care resources worldwide, and inform physio-pathological research to elucidate the mechanism of severe lung damage in COVID-19.”
The study did not receive specific funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large international study of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, the likelihood of having severe pneumonia (i.e., needing invasive mechanical ventilation) increased stepwise with increasing body mass index (BMI) – independent of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or current smoking.
The main finding was a linear correlation between BMI and need for invasive mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for center, age, sex, and other prespecified metabolic risk factors.
Risk was “highest for older people and males, but the next most important risk factor to developing severe pneumonia if infected [was] obesity,” said François Pattou, MD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (France), who presented the findings at the ObesityWeek 2020 virtual meeting. The results were also recently published in a preprint article in The Lancet.
Dr. Pattou and colleagues first reported back in April that obesity is one of the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, especially in younger patients. Many further reports linked the two, and the French researchers then set out to conduct the current large, international, multicenter cohort study.
“The high number of patients included here [allowed us] to disentangle the role of various metabolic cofactors and to show that obesity, not diabetes or hypertension, was the main determinant of severe pneumonia [after age and gender],” Dr. Pattou said in an interview.
And the impact of obesity was most pronounced in women younger than 50 years.
Patients with severe obesity must protect themselves
Of interest, the study also found an “obesity paradox” for mortality after admission to the ICU.
Specifically, compared with leaner patients (BMI < 25 kg/m2), those with severe obesity (obesity class III, BMI ≥ 40) had an increased risk of dying within 28 days of admission to ICU. But patients with overweight to moderate obesity (BMI 25-39.9) had a lower risk of this outcome.
“The second original finding of our study,” Dr. Pattou continued, was the “nonlinear relation observed between BMI and all-cause mortality rate in ICU patients.”
Matteo Rottoli, MD, PhD, author of a related study reported by in July, said the new trial “confirms the findings of our study, which are that obesity is an independent risk factor for intensive care admission and death.”
Dr. Rottoli, from Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues found that in their population of patients with COVID-19, a BMI > 35 was associated with a greater risk of death.
The takeaway message from the research is that “obesity should be considered one of the most important parameters to identify the population at risk” of getting COVID-19 who need to take extra precautions such as social distancing, Dr. Rottoli stressed.
Dr. Pattou agrees, particularly when it comes to severe obesity.
Intensive care physicians have learned a lot in the past months about COVID-19 pneumonia and how to address it (such as not precipitating intubation, using corticosteroids), he explained.
“Importantly, the general population has also learned a lot, and we can hope that patients with obesity, especially those with severe obesity, will take extra measures to protect themselves, resulting in a decrease of the incidence of severe pneumonia in young and severely obese patients,” he added.
Untangling BMI from other metabolic risk factors
Dr. Pattou said that, from Dec. 16, 2019, to Nov. 1, 2020, more than 45 million people worldwide tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 1.2 million people died from it.
Multiple studies have reported that, among people with COVID-19, those with obesity are at higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, invasive ventilation, and death, but it had not been clear if BMI was an independent risk factor.
Dr. Pattou and colleagues aimed to examine the relationship between BMI and COVID-19 pneumonia severity, defined by the need for mechanical ventilation (primary outcome), as well as 28-day all-cause mortality (secondary outcome) among patients admitted to the ICU.
They also sought to disentangle the effect of BMI from other metabolic risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and current smoking) and examine the influence of age and sex on outcomes.
They performed a retrospective analysis of 1,461 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (positive reverse polymerase chain reaction test using a nasal or pharyngeal swab specimen) who were admitted to the ICU at 21 centers from Feb. 19 to May 11, 2020.
Participating centers were in France (13), Italy (3), the United States (1 in New York and 1 in Providence, R.I.), Israel (1), Belgium (1), and Spain (1).
Close to three-quarters of patients were men (73%), which is similar to multiple other studies, Dr. Pattou said. Patients were a mean age of 64 years and had a mean BMI of 28.1.
Half of patients had hypertension (52%), 29% had diabetes, 29% had hyperlipidemia, and 6.5% were current smokers.
Close to three-quarters (74%) required invasive mechanical ventilation, and 36% died within 28 days of ICU admission.
Each 5-kg/m2 increase in BMI was associated with a 27% increased risk of mechanical ventilation in the overall cohort and a 65% increased risk of this outcome among women younger than 50 years, after adjustment for other risk factors.
Male sex and each 10-year increase in age were associated with an 82% and a 17% increased risk of ventilation, respectively, but hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and current smoking were not associated with a greater risk. After adjustment for center, age, sex, and prespecified metabolic risk factors, obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40) was associated with a 68% increase in mortality, compared with the risk seen in lean patients.
The findings were similar across different centers.
“To our knowledge, this study represents the first international collaborative effort to explore the association of BMI with the outcomes of pneumonia among COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU,” said the investigators.
They conclude that “available evidence should foster more focused and effective interventions in COVID-19 patients with the highest risk of severe pneumonia, in order to reduce future strain on intensive care resources worldwide, and inform physio-pathological research to elucidate the mechanism of severe lung damage in COVID-19.”
The study did not receive specific funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Low-dose radiotherapy for lung inflammation in severe COVID-19
The first study to suggest benefit from low-dose radiotherapy for severe COVID-19–induced pneumonia involved only 20 patients, but the results were so promising that two larger randomized trials are now underway.
“RESCUE-119 was a trial based on the hypothesis that low-dose radiation therapy may help eliminate the stormy cytokine release and unchecked edema in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” said Mohammed Khan, MD, PhD, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.
“We found patients had a quicker improvement in their time to clinical recovery with low-dose radiation therapy, compared to controls, and this was significant even in this small cohort of patients,” he said.
Dr. Khan was speaking at a special press briefing held during the virtual American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.
A total of 20 patients were involved in the trial. Ten patients were treated with low-dose radiotherapy; 10 others, who served as control patients, were treated with the best supportive care and COVID-directed therapies. The control patients were matched for age and comorbidities. All these patients were hospitalized and were oxygen dependent, Dr. Khan noted. In addition, for all patients, serial x-rays demonstrated consolidation and damage in the lung.
The intervention consisted of whole-lung low-dose radiotherapy delivered at a dose of 1.5 Gy.
The first five patients were assessed at an interim endpoint of 7 days to confirm the safety of the procedure. Subsequently, a total of 10 patients were treated with radiotherapy and were followed to day 28.
The main study endpoints were time to clinical recovery, determined on the basis of the patient’s being taken off oxygen, and improvement, evidenced on either serial x-rays or by inflammatory biomarkers.
The median time to clinical recovery was almost three times faster for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, at a median of 3 days; for control patients, the median was 12 days (P = .048).
“We also saw a trend toward getting patients out of hospital sooner,” Dr. Khan added. The mean time to hospital discharge was 12 days for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, compared with 20 days for control patients (P = .19).
Only one patient required intubation after receiving low-dose radiotherapy, whereas 4 of 10 control patients required some sort of intubation (P = .12), he noted.
Investigators also saw improvements on serial x-rays in 9 of 10 patients treated with low-dose radiotherapy, compared with only 4 patients in the control group. There was also a significant improvement in delirium among the low-dose radiotherapy group compared with control patients (P < .01). Before receiving low-dose radiotherapy, C-reactive protein levels increased by 22% per day. After receiving the 1.5-Gy radiation treatment, there was a sharp reduction in C-reactive protein levels (P < .01) as well as in lactate dehydrogenase levels (P = .03).
Overall survival, however, did not differ between the two treatment groups; 90% of both groups were alive at day 28.
“By focally dampening cytokine hyperactivation, [low-dose radiotherapy] may improve COVID-19 outcomes through immunomodulation,” Dr. Khan explained.
VENTED and PRE-VENT trials
These results from the small RESCUE-119 trial led to the launch of two larger phase 2 trials, the VENTED and the PRE-VENT trials, noted Arnab Chakravarti, MD, professor and chair of radiation oncology, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.
To be enrolled in the VENTED trial, patients must have received mechanical ventilation. They will receive at least one dose of ultra-low-dose bilateral whole-lung radiotherapy, with the option of receiving a second dose. The primary objective is 30-day mortality rate.
“The hypothesis is that low-dose thoracic radiation will decrease inflammation and improve outcomes for these intubated COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Chakravarti explained.
The PRE-VENT trial will explore low-dose thoracic radiotherapy for hospitalized patients with severe respiratory compromise who have not yet been intubated. Two doses of low-dose radiotherapy will be tested and compared. The primary study objective is to determine which of the two doses appears to be the most efficacious, Dr. Chakravarti noted.
“The ultimate question to which we remain agnostic is whether the potential benefits of low-dose radiation therapy outweigh the risks,” he said.
Low-dose radiotherapy is readily available in most countries, unlike the newly developed COVID-19 drugs, which are only available in the developed world, he noted. “This creates a bit more economic equity in terms of COVID-19 treatment.”
In addition, it may offer a therapeutic option that could be useful in the future, “as low-dose radiation therapy does not discriminate against various viruses that may cause another pandemic,” he commented. It could offer “a stopgap measure where we don’t have to shut down society completely, which, as we have all witnessed, can cause tremendous financial and social unrest.”
Reasonable question
Whether or not radiotherapy has value for the short-term management of severe pulmonary inflammation caused by COVID-19 is a reasonable question to evaluate in clinical trials, commented discussant Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of radiation oncology, University of Washington, Seattle.
He noted that inflammatory cells are highly sensitive to radiation, and low-dose radiotherapy has been used effectively in other inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis. Indeed, before the discovery of antibiotics, low-dose radiation was used with reasonable efficacy to treat pneumonia.
“The pneumonia associated with this viral infection is a bit unique in that what happens is the infection triggers an inflammatory cascade – the so-called cytokine storm – that essentially overwhelms the lungs, thereby leading, unfortunately, to mortality,” Dr. Rengan noted. “So a big focus of our energy is how to stop this inflammatory cascade from occurring.”
Corticosteroids are currently the only therapeutic intervention that has shown any mortality benefit in COVID-19, he pointed out.
The question now being asked is: “Can we suppress inflammation specifically within the lung?” Dr. Rengan continued. The main problem with radiotherapy is that it has different effects on various tissues, both immediately and over the long term.
“The immediate benefit that we will likely see from these studies is the immediate sterilization of inflammatory cells,” he said. However, injury to normal lung tissue from low-dose radiotherapy could lead to inflammation weeks or months later, and this could contribute to the disease burden and increase the risk of dying.
Dr. Rengan also noted that there are some very real practical concerns about offering radiotherapy to COVID-19 patients, including potential COVID-19 transmission to vulnerable cancer patients.
Nevertheless, Dr. Rengan said the results to date are very important and that ongoing trials will provide important new information about the long-term impact of this particular treatment in high-risk patients.
“This is a race to the bottom – we are trying to find the lowest possible dose of radiation therapy that we can deliver to sterilize these inflammatory cells without creating any harm to the surrounding tissue,” he said.
“It also brings radiation oncologists into the fight against this deadly disease,” he added.
Dr. Rengan has received honoraria from Novocur and has served as a consultant to AstraZeneca.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The first study to suggest benefit from low-dose radiotherapy for severe COVID-19–induced pneumonia involved only 20 patients, but the results were so promising that two larger randomized trials are now underway.
“RESCUE-119 was a trial based on the hypothesis that low-dose radiation therapy may help eliminate the stormy cytokine release and unchecked edema in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” said Mohammed Khan, MD, PhD, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.
“We found patients had a quicker improvement in their time to clinical recovery with low-dose radiation therapy, compared to controls, and this was significant even in this small cohort of patients,” he said.
Dr. Khan was speaking at a special press briefing held during the virtual American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.
A total of 20 patients were involved in the trial. Ten patients were treated with low-dose radiotherapy; 10 others, who served as control patients, were treated with the best supportive care and COVID-directed therapies. The control patients were matched for age and comorbidities. All these patients were hospitalized and were oxygen dependent, Dr. Khan noted. In addition, for all patients, serial x-rays demonstrated consolidation and damage in the lung.
The intervention consisted of whole-lung low-dose radiotherapy delivered at a dose of 1.5 Gy.
The first five patients were assessed at an interim endpoint of 7 days to confirm the safety of the procedure. Subsequently, a total of 10 patients were treated with radiotherapy and were followed to day 28.
The main study endpoints were time to clinical recovery, determined on the basis of the patient’s being taken off oxygen, and improvement, evidenced on either serial x-rays or by inflammatory biomarkers.
The median time to clinical recovery was almost three times faster for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, at a median of 3 days; for control patients, the median was 12 days (P = .048).
“We also saw a trend toward getting patients out of hospital sooner,” Dr. Khan added. The mean time to hospital discharge was 12 days for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, compared with 20 days for control patients (P = .19).
Only one patient required intubation after receiving low-dose radiotherapy, whereas 4 of 10 control patients required some sort of intubation (P = .12), he noted.
Investigators also saw improvements on serial x-rays in 9 of 10 patients treated with low-dose radiotherapy, compared with only 4 patients in the control group. There was also a significant improvement in delirium among the low-dose radiotherapy group compared with control patients (P < .01). Before receiving low-dose radiotherapy, C-reactive protein levels increased by 22% per day. After receiving the 1.5-Gy radiation treatment, there was a sharp reduction in C-reactive protein levels (P < .01) as well as in lactate dehydrogenase levels (P = .03).
Overall survival, however, did not differ between the two treatment groups; 90% of both groups were alive at day 28.
“By focally dampening cytokine hyperactivation, [low-dose radiotherapy] may improve COVID-19 outcomes through immunomodulation,” Dr. Khan explained.
VENTED and PRE-VENT trials
These results from the small RESCUE-119 trial led to the launch of two larger phase 2 trials, the VENTED and the PRE-VENT trials, noted Arnab Chakravarti, MD, professor and chair of radiation oncology, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.
To be enrolled in the VENTED trial, patients must have received mechanical ventilation. They will receive at least one dose of ultra-low-dose bilateral whole-lung radiotherapy, with the option of receiving a second dose. The primary objective is 30-day mortality rate.
“The hypothesis is that low-dose thoracic radiation will decrease inflammation and improve outcomes for these intubated COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Chakravarti explained.
The PRE-VENT trial will explore low-dose thoracic radiotherapy for hospitalized patients with severe respiratory compromise who have not yet been intubated. Two doses of low-dose radiotherapy will be tested and compared. The primary study objective is to determine which of the two doses appears to be the most efficacious, Dr. Chakravarti noted.
“The ultimate question to which we remain agnostic is whether the potential benefits of low-dose radiation therapy outweigh the risks,” he said.
Low-dose radiotherapy is readily available in most countries, unlike the newly developed COVID-19 drugs, which are only available in the developed world, he noted. “This creates a bit more economic equity in terms of COVID-19 treatment.”
In addition, it may offer a therapeutic option that could be useful in the future, “as low-dose radiation therapy does not discriminate against various viruses that may cause another pandemic,” he commented. It could offer “a stopgap measure where we don’t have to shut down society completely, which, as we have all witnessed, can cause tremendous financial and social unrest.”
Reasonable question
Whether or not radiotherapy has value for the short-term management of severe pulmonary inflammation caused by COVID-19 is a reasonable question to evaluate in clinical trials, commented discussant Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of radiation oncology, University of Washington, Seattle.
He noted that inflammatory cells are highly sensitive to radiation, and low-dose radiotherapy has been used effectively in other inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis. Indeed, before the discovery of antibiotics, low-dose radiation was used with reasonable efficacy to treat pneumonia.
“The pneumonia associated with this viral infection is a bit unique in that what happens is the infection triggers an inflammatory cascade – the so-called cytokine storm – that essentially overwhelms the lungs, thereby leading, unfortunately, to mortality,” Dr. Rengan noted. “So a big focus of our energy is how to stop this inflammatory cascade from occurring.”
Corticosteroids are currently the only therapeutic intervention that has shown any mortality benefit in COVID-19, he pointed out.
The question now being asked is: “Can we suppress inflammation specifically within the lung?” Dr. Rengan continued. The main problem with radiotherapy is that it has different effects on various tissues, both immediately and over the long term.
“The immediate benefit that we will likely see from these studies is the immediate sterilization of inflammatory cells,” he said. However, injury to normal lung tissue from low-dose radiotherapy could lead to inflammation weeks or months later, and this could contribute to the disease burden and increase the risk of dying.
Dr. Rengan also noted that there are some very real practical concerns about offering radiotherapy to COVID-19 patients, including potential COVID-19 transmission to vulnerable cancer patients.
Nevertheless, Dr. Rengan said the results to date are very important and that ongoing trials will provide important new information about the long-term impact of this particular treatment in high-risk patients.
“This is a race to the bottom – we are trying to find the lowest possible dose of radiation therapy that we can deliver to sterilize these inflammatory cells without creating any harm to the surrounding tissue,” he said.
“It also brings radiation oncologists into the fight against this deadly disease,” he added.
Dr. Rengan has received honoraria from Novocur and has served as a consultant to AstraZeneca.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The first study to suggest benefit from low-dose radiotherapy for severe COVID-19–induced pneumonia involved only 20 patients, but the results were so promising that two larger randomized trials are now underway.
“RESCUE-119 was a trial based on the hypothesis that low-dose radiation therapy may help eliminate the stormy cytokine release and unchecked edema in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” said Mohammed Khan, MD, PhD, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.
“We found patients had a quicker improvement in their time to clinical recovery with low-dose radiation therapy, compared to controls, and this was significant even in this small cohort of patients,” he said.
Dr. Khan was speaking at a special press briefing held during the virtual American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.
A total of 20 patients were involved in the trial. Ten patients were treated with low-dose radiotherapy; 10 others, who served as control patients, were treated with the best supportive care and COVID-directed therapies. The control patients were matched for age and comorbidities. All these patients were hospitalized and were oxygen dependent, Dr. Khan noted. In addition, for all patients, serial x-rays demonstrated consolidation and damage in the lung.
The intervention consisted of whole-lung low-dose radiotherapy delivered at a dose of 1.5 Gy.
The first five patients were assessed at an interim endpoint of 7 days to confirm the safety of the procedure. Subsequently, a total of 10 patients were treated with radiotherapy and were followed to day 28.
The main study endpoints were time to clinical recovery, determined on the basis of the patient’s being taken off oxygen, and improvement, evidenced on either serial x-rays or by inflammatory biomarkers.
The median time to clinical recovery was almost three times faster for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, at a median of 3 days; for control patients, the median was 12 days (P = .048).
“We also saw a trend toward getting patients out of hospital sooner,” Dr. Khan added. The mean time to hospital discharge was 12 days for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, compared with 20 days for control patients (P = .19).
Only one patient required intubation after receiving low-dose radiotherapy, whereas 4 of 10 control patients required some sort of intubation (P = .12), he noted.
Investigators also saw improvements on serial x-rays in 9 of 10 patients treated with low-dose radiotherapy, compared with only 4 patients in the control group. There was also a significant improvement in delirium among the low-dose radiotherapy group compared with control patients (P < .01). Before receiving low-dose radiotherapy, C-reactive protein levels increased by 22% per day. After receiving the 1.5-Gy radiation treatment, there was a sharp reduction in C-reactive protein levels (P < .01) as well as in lactate dehydrogenase levels (P = .03).
Overall survival, however, did not differ between the two treatment groups; 90% of both groups were alive at day 28.
“By focally dampening cytokine hyperactivation, [low-dose radiotherapy] may improve COVID-19 outcomes through immunomodulation,” Dr. Khan explained.
VENTED and PRE-VENT trials
These results from the small RESCUE-119 trial led to the launch of two larger phase 2 trials, the VENTED and the PRE-VENT trials, noted Arnab Chakravarti, MD, professor and chair of radiation oncology, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.
To be enrolled in the VENTED trial, patients must have received mechanical ventilation. They will receive at least one dose of ultra-low-dose bilateral whole-lung radiotherapy, with the option of receiving a second dose. The primary objective is 30-day mortality rate.
“The hypothesis is that low-dose thoracic radiation will decrease inflammation and improve outcomes for these intubated COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Chakravarti explained.
The PRE-VENT trial will explore low-dose thoracic radiotherapy for hospitalized patients with severe respiratory compromise who have not yet been intubated. Two doses of low-dose radiotherapy will be tested and compared. The primary study objective is to determine which of the two doses appears to be the most efficacious, Dr. Chakravarti noted.
“The ultimate question to which we remain agnostic is whether the potential benefits of low-dose radiation therapy outweigh the risks,” he said.
Low-dose radiotherapy is readily available in most countries, unlike the newly developed COVID-19 drugs, which are only available in the developed world, he noted. “This creates a bit more economic equity in terms of COVID-19 treatment.”
In addition, it may offer a therapeutic option that could be useful in the future, “as low-dose radiation therapy does not discriminate against various viruses that may cause another pandemic,” he commented. It could offer “a stopgap measure where we don’t have to shut down society completely, which, as we have all witnessed, can cause tremendous financial and social unrest.”
Reasonable question
Whether or not radiotherapy has value for the short-term management of severe pulmonary inflammation caused by COVID-19 is a reasonable question to evaluate in clinical trials, commented discussant Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of radiation oncology, University of Washington, Seattle.
He noted that inflammatory cells are highly sensitive to radiation, and low-dose radiotherapy has been used effectively in other inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis. Indeed, before the discovery of antibiotics, low-dose radiation was used with reasonable efficacy to treat pneumonia.
“The pneumonia associated with this viral infection is a bit unique in that what happens is the infection triggers an inflammatory cascade – the so-called cytokine storm – that essentially overwhelms the lungs, thereby leading, unfortunately, to mortality,” Dr. Rengan noted. “So a big focus of our energy is how to stop this inflammatory cascade from occurring.”
Corticosteroids are currently the only therapeutic intervention that has shown any mortality benefit in COVID-19, he pointed out.
The question now being asked is: “Can we suppress inflammation specifically within the lung?” Dr. Rengan continued. The main problem with radiotherapy is that it has different effects on various tissues, both immediately and over the long term.
“The immediate benefit that we will likely see from these studies is the immediate sterilization of inflammatory cells,” he said. However, injury to normal lung tissue from low-dose radiotherapy could lead to inflammation weeks or months later, and this could contribute to the disease burden and increase the risk of dying.
Dr. Rengan also noted that there are some very real practical concerns about offering radiotherapy to COVID-19 patients, including potential COVID-19 transmission to vulnerable cancer patients.
Nevertheless, Dr. Rengan said the results to date are very important and that ongoing trials will provide important new information about the long-term impact of this particular treatment in high-risk patients.
“This is a race to the bottom – we are trying to find the lowest possible dose of radiation therapy that we can deliver to sterilize these inflammatory cells without creating any harm to the surrounding tissue,” he said.
“It also brings radiation oncologists into the fight against this deadly disease,” he added.
Dr. Rengan has received honoraria from Novocur and has served as a consultant to AstraZeneca.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Are HMAS appropriate for posttransplant maintenance in acute leukemias?
Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is one of the most important treatment options for acute leukemias. However, posttransplant cancer recurrence remains a continuing issue. And while there are reasons to think that hypomethylating agents (HMAS) could be helpful as maintenance tools to prevent cancer recurrence after HCT in leukemia, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues that the treatment isn’t yet ready for prime time.
“I don’t think you can prefer hypomethylating agents over anything right now. Unfortunately, there’s no data that we can hang our hat on that says they are of benefit in the posttransplant setting,” said Frederick Appelbaum, MD, executive vice president and deputy director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.
However, there’s still plenty of room for improvement for patients following HCT, he said, pointing to the findings of a 2020 study. The report, which he cowrote, found that 200-day mortality after HCT fell by a third from 2003-2007 to 2013-20017, but also noted that “relapse of cancer remains the largest obstacle to better survival outcomes.”
Dr. Appelbaum described the findings this way: “Without a doubt, the major limitation to transplants for hematologic malignancies today is disease recurrence,” he said. “In fact, if you look at patients after day 100, over 60% of the reason for failure is tumor regrowth. Thus, people are very anxious to look at any method that we can to prevent posttransplant relapse, including the use of hypomethylating agents.”
In regard to strategy, “we don’t have to get rid of every last leukemic cell. Just delaying recurrence might be enough,” he said. “If you can keep the patient from relapsing for the first 3 months, and then take the brakes off the immune suppression and allow immunity to regrow, that may be enough to allow increased numbers of patients to be cured of their disease.”
A potential role
Why might HMAS be a possible option after transplant? They do appear to play a role after chemotherapy, he said, pointing to four 2019 studies: One that examined decitabine and three that examined azacytidine: Here, here, and here.
“These four studies provide convincing evidence that hypomethylating-agent therapy after conventional chemotherapy may either prevent or delay relapse when given as maintenance,” Dr. Appelbaum said.
If HMAS work after standard chemotherapy, why might they fail to work after transplantation? “For one, by the time the disease has been able to go through chemotherapy and transplant, you’re left with highly resistant cells,” he said. “Therefore, hypomethylating agents may not be enough to get rid of the disease. Secondly, any of you who have tried to give a maintenance therapy after transplantation know how difficult it can be with CMV [cytomegalovirus] reactivation, count suppression with ganciclovir, graft-versus-host disease [GVHD] causing nausea and vomiting, diarrhea and renal dysfunction caused by calcineurin inhibitors. These are daily events during the first 3 months after transplantation, making drug administration difficult.”
In addition, he said, “even if you can give the drug, the clinical and disease variability may make it very difficult to detect an effect.”
In another study, researchers “did make a valiant attempt to study azacitidine in the posttransplant setting by randomizing 181 patients to either azacitidine or observation,” Dr. Appelbaum said. “Unfortunately, as they reported in 2018, they could not detect a difference in either disease-free or overall survival.”
The researchers reported that nearly 75% of patients in the azacitidine arm failed to complete the planned 12 cycles of treatment, he said. “The reasons for stopping the drug were pretty profound. Half of the patients stopped because they relapsed. Others had stopped because of grades three or four toxicity, death, or severe GVHD or significant infections. It is very difficult to give the drug.”
In the future, “if we truly want to optimize the benefit of using hypomethylating agents after transplantation, it’s going to be very important for us to understand how they work,” he said. “Understanding that would then help us to select which drug we should use, what the dosing and schedule might be, and also to select patients that might benefit from it. Unfortunately, right now, it’s pretty much of a black box. We don’t really understand the effects of hypomethylating agents in the posttransplant period.”
Still, he added, “without question, the results that we have seen with the use of hypomethylating agents after conventional chemotherapy – prolonging disease-free and, probably, overall survival – are going to provide a very, very strong stimulus to study hypomethylating agents after transplantation as well.”
Dr. Appelbaum reports no disclosures.
The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is one of the most important treatment options for acute leukemias. However, posttransplant cancer recurrence remains a continuing issue. And while there are reasons to think that hypomethylating agents (HMAS) could be helpful as maintenance tools to prevent cancer recurrence after HCT in leukemia, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues that the treatment isn’t yet ready for prime time.
“I don’t think you can prefer hypomethylating agents over anything right now. Unfortunately, there’s no data that we can hang our hat on that says they are of benefit in the posttransplant setting,” said Frederick Appelbaum, MD, executive vice president and deputy director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.
However, there’s still plenty of room for improvement for patients following HCT, he said, pointing to the findings of a 2020 study. The report, which he cowrote, found that 200-day mortality after HCT fell by a third from 2003-2007 to 2013-20017, but also noted that “relapse of cancer remains the largest obstacle to better survival outcomes.”
Dr. Appelbaum described the findings this way: “Without a doubt, the major limitation to transplants for hematologic malignancies today is disease recurrence,” he said. “In fact, if you look at patients after day 100, over 60% of the reason for failure is tumor regrowth. Thus, people are very anxious to look at any method that we can to prevent posttransplant relapse, including the use of hypomethylating agents.”
In regard to strategy, “we don’t have to get rid of every last leukemic cell. Just delaying recurrence might be enough,” he said. “If you can keep the patient from relapsing for the first 3 months, and then take the brakes off the immune suppression and allow immunity to regrow, that may be enough to allow increased numbers of patients to be cured of their disease.”
A potential role
Why might HMAS be a possible option after transplant? They do appear to play a role after chemotherapy, he said, pointing to four 2019 studies: One that examined decitabine and three that examined azacytidine: Here, here, and here.
“These four studies provide convincing evidence that hypomethylating-agent therapy after conventional chemotherapy may either prevent or delay relapse when given as maintenance,” Dr. Appelbaum said.
If HMAS work after standard chemotherapy, why might they fail to work after transplantation? “For one, by the time the disease has been able to go through chemotherapy and transplant, you’re left with highly resistant cells,” he said. “Therefore, hypomethylating agents may not be enough to get rid of the disease. Secondly, any of you who have tried to give a maintenance therapy after transplantation know how difficult it can be with CMV [cytomegalovirus] reactivation, count suppression with ganciclovir, graft-versus-host disease [GVHD] causing nausea and vomiting, diarrhea and renal dysfunction caused by calcineurin inhibitors. These are daily events during the first 3 months after transplantation, making drug administration difficult.”
In addition, he said, “even if you can give the drug, the clinical and disease variability may make it very difficult to detect an effect.”
In another study, researchers “did make a valiant attempt to study azacitidine in the posttransplant setting by randomizing 181 patients to either azacitidine or observation,” Dr. Appelbaum said. “Unfortunately, as they reported in 2018, they could not detect a difference in either disease-free or overall survival.”
The researchers reported that nearly 75% of patients in the azacitidine arm failed to complete the planned 12 cycles of treatment, he said. “The reasons for stopping the drug were pretty profound. Half of the patients stopped because they relapsed. Others had stopped because of grades three or four toxicity, death, or severe GVHD or significant infections. It is very difficult to give the drug.”
In the future, “if we truly want to optimize the benefit of using hypomethylating agents after transplantation, it’s going to be very important for us to understand how they work,” he said. “Understanding that would then help us to select which drug we should use, what the dosing and schedule might be, and also to select patients that might benefit from it. Unfortunately, right now, it’s pretty much of a black box. We don’t really understand the effects of hypomethylating agents in the posttransplant period.”
Still, he added, “without question, the results that we have seen with the use of hypomethylating agents after conventional chemotherapy – prolonging disease-free and, probably, overall survival – are going to provide a very, very strong stimulus to study hypomethylating agents after transplantation as well.”
Dr. Appelbaum reports no disclosures.
The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is one of the most important treatment options for acute leukemias. However, posttransplant cancer recurrence remains a continuing issue. And while there are reasons to think that hypomethylating agents (HMAS) could be helpful as maintenance tools to prevent cancer recurrence after HCT in leukemia, a hematologist/oncologist told colleagues that the treatment isn’t yet ready for prime time.
“I don’t think you can prefer hypomethylating agents over anything right now. Unfortunately, there’s no data that we can hang our hat on that says they are of benefit in the posttransplant setting,” said Frederick Appelbaum, MD, executive vice president and deputy director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus.
However, there’s still plenty of room for improvement for patients following HCT, he said, pointing to the findings of a 2020 study. The report, which he cowrote, found that 200-day mortality after HCT fell by a third from 2003-2007 to 2013-20017, but also noted that “relapse of cancer remains the largest obstacle to better survival outcomes.”
Dr. Appelbaum described the findings this way: “Without a doubt, the major limitation to transplants for hematologic malignancies today is disease recurrence,” he said. “In fact, if you look at patients after day 100, over 60% of the reason for failure is tumor regrowth. Thus, people are very anxious to look at any method that we can to prevent posttransplant relapse, including the use of hypomethylating agents.”
In regard to strategy, “we don’t have to get rid of every last leukemic cell. Just delaying recurrence might be enough,” he said. “If you can keep the patient from relapsing for the first 3 months, and then take the brakes off the immune suppression and allow immunity to regrow, that may be enough to allow increased numbers of patients to be cured of their disease.”
A potential role
Why might HMAS be a possible option after transplant? They do appear to play a role after chemotherapy, he said, pointing to four 2019 studies: One that examined decitabine and three that examined azacytidine: Here, here, and here.
“These four studies provide convincing evidence that hypomethylating-agent therapy after conventional chemotherapy may either prevent or delay relapse when given as maintenance,” Dr. Appelbaum said.
If HMAS work after standard chemotherapy, why might they fail to work after transplantation? “For one, by the time the disease has been able to go through chemotherapy and transplant, you’re left with highly resistant cells,” he said. “Therefore, hypomethylating agents may not be enough to get rid of the disease. Secondly, any of you who have tried to give a maintenance therapy after transplantation know how difficult it can be with CMV [cytomegalovirus] reactivation, count suppression with ganciclovir, graft-versus-host disease [GVHD] causing nausea and vomiting, diarrhea and renal dysfunction caused by calcineurin inhibitors. These are daily events during the first 3 months after transplantation, making drug administration difficult.”
In addition, he said, “even if you can give the drug, the clinical and disease variability may make it very difficult to detect an effect.”
In another study, researchers “did make a valiant attempt to study azacitidine in the posttransplant setting by randomizing 181 patients to either azacitidine or observation,” Dr. Appelbaum said. “Unfortunately, as they reported in 2018, they could not detect a difference in either disease-free or overall survival.”
The researchers reported that nearly 75% of patients in the azacitidine arm failed to complete the planned 12 cycles of treatment, he said. “The reasons for stopping the drug were pretty profound. Half of the patients stopped because they relapsed. Others had stopped because of grades three or four toxicity, death, or severe GVHD or significant infections. It is very difficult to give the drug.”
In the future, “if we truly want to optimize the benefit of using hypomethylating agents after transplantation, it’s going to be very important for us to understand how they work,” he said. “Understanding that would then help us to select which drug we should use, what the dosing and schedule might be, and also to select patients that might benefit from it. Unfortunately, right now, it’s pretty much of a black box. We don’t really understand the effects of hypomethylating agents in the posttransplant period.”
Still, he added, “without question, the results that we have seen with the use of hypomethylating agents after conventional chemotherapy – prolonging disease-free and, probably, overall survival – are going to provide a very, very strong stimulus to study hypomethylating agents after transplantation as well.”
Dr. Appelbaum reports no disclosures.
The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
FROM ALF 2020
Biometric changes on fitness trackers, smartwatches detect COVID-19
A smartphone app that combines passively collected physiologic data from wearable devices, such as fitness trackers, and self-reported symptoms can discriminate between COVID-19–positive and –negative individuals among those who report symptoms, new data suggest.
After analyzing data from more than 30,000 participants, researchers from the Digital Engagement and Tracking for Early Control and Treatment (DETECT) study concluded that adding individual changes in sensor data improves models based on symptoms alone for differentiating symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 positive and symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 negative.
The combination can potentially identify infection clusters before wider community spread occurs, Giorgio Quer, PhD, and colleagues report in an article published online Oct. 29 in Nature Medicine. DETECT investigators note that marrying participant-reported symptoms with personal sensor data, such as deviation from normal sleep duration and resting heart rate, resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.73-0.86) for differentiating between symptomatic individuals who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19.
“By better characterizing each individual’s unique baseline, you can then identify changes that may indicate that someone has a viral illness,” said Dr. Quer, director of artificial intelligence at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. “In previous research, we found that the proportion of individuals with elevated resting heart rate and sleep duration compared with their normal could significantly improve real-time detection of influenza-like illness rates at the state level,” he said in an interview.
Thus, continuous passively captured data may be a useful adjunct to bricks-and-mortar site testing, which is generally a one-off or infrequent sampling assay and is not always easily accessible, he added. Furthermore, traditional screening with temperature and symptom reporting is inadequate. An elevation in temperature is not as common as frequently believed for people who test positive for COVID-19, Dr. Quer continued. “Early identification via sensor variables of those who are presymptomatic or even asymptomatic would be especially valuable, as people may potentially be infectious during this period, and early detection is the ultimate goal,” Dr. Quer said.
According to his group, adding these physiologic changes from baseline values significantly outperformed detection (P < .01) using a British model described in an earlier study by by Cristina Menni, PhD, and associates. That method, in which symptoms were considered alone, yielded an AUC of 0.71 (IQR, 0.63-0.79).
According to Dr. Quer, one in five Americans currently wear an electronic device. “If we could enroll even a small percentage of these individuals, we’d be able to potentially identify clusters before they have the opportunity to spread,” he said.
DETECT study details
During the period March 15 to June 7, 2020, the study enrolled 30,529 participants from all 50 states. They ranged in age from younger than 35 years (23.1%) to older than 65 years (12.8%); the majority (63.5%) were aged 35-65 years, and 62% were women. Sensor devices in use by the cohort included Fitbit activity trackers (78.4%) and Apple HealthKit (31.2%).
Participants downloaded an app called MyDataHelps, which collects smartwatch and activity tracker information, including self-reported symptoms and diagnostic testing results. The app also monitors changes from baseline in resting heart rate, sleep duration, and physical activity, as measured by steps.
Overall, 3,811 participants reported having at least one symptom of some kind (e.g., fatigue, cough, dyspnea, loss of taste or smell). Of these, 54 reported testing positive for COVID-19, and 279 reported testing negative.
Sleep and activity were significantly different for the positive and negative groups, with an AUC of 0.68 (IQR, 0.57-0.79) for the sleep metric and 0.69 (IQR, 0.61-0.77) for the activity metric, suggesting that these parameters were more affected in COVID-19–positive participants.
When the investigators combined resting heart rate, sleep, and activity into a single metric, predictive performance improved to an AUC of 0.72 (IQR, 0.64-0.80).
The next step, Dr. Quer said, is to include an alert to notify users of possible infection.
Alerting users to possible COVID-19 infection
In a similar study, an alert feature was already incorporated. The study, led by Michael P. Snyder, PhD, director of the Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, will soon be published online in Nature Biomedical Engineering. In that study, presymptomatic detection of COVID-19 was achieved in more than 80% of participants using resting heart rate.
“The median is 4 days prior to symptom formation,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We have an alarm system to notify people when their heart rate is elevated. So a positive signal from a smartwatch can be used to follow up by polymerase chain reaction [testing].”
Dr. Snyder said these approaches offer a roadmap to containing widespread infections. “Public health authorities need to be open to these technologies and begin incorporating them into their tracking,” he said. “Right now, people do temperature checks, which are of limited value. Resting heart rate is much better information.”
Although the DETECT researchers have not yet received feedback on their results, they believe public health authorities could recommend the use of such apps. “These are devices that people routinely wear for tracking their fitness and sleep, so it would be relatively easy to use the data for viral illness tracking,” said co–lead author Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps. “Testing resources are still limited and don’t allow for routine serial testing of individuals who may be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Wearables can offer a different way to routinely monitor and screen people for changes in their data that may indicate COVID-19.”
The marshaling of data through consumer digital platforms to fight the coronavirus is gaining ground. New York State and New Jersey are already embracing smartphone apps to alert individuals to possible exposure to the virus.
More than 710,000 New Yorkers have downloaded the COVID NY Alert app, launched in October to help protect individuals and communities from COVID-19 by sending alerts without compromising privacy or personal information. “Upon receiving a notification about a potential exposure, users are then able to self-quarantine, get tested, and reduce the potential exposure risk to family, friends, coworkers, and others,” Jonah Bruno, a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health, said in an interview.
And recently the Mayo Clinic and Safe Health Systems launched a platform to store COVID-19 testing and vaccination data.
Both the Scripps and Stanford platforms are part of a global technologic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospective studies, led by device manufacturers and academic institutions, allow individuals to voluntarily share sensor and clinical data to address the crisis. Similar approaches have been used to track COVID-19 in large populations in Germany via the Corona Data Donation app.
The study by Dr. Quer and colleagues was funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported grants from Janssen and personal fees from Otsuka and Livongo outside of the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Snyder has ties to Personalis, Qbio, January, SensOmics, Protos, Mirvie, and Oralome.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A smartphone app that combines passively collected physiologic data from wearable devices, such as fitness trackers, and self-reported symptoms can discriminate between COVID-19–positive and –negative individuals among those who report symptoms, new data suggest.
After analyzing data from more than 30,000 participants, researchers from the Digital Engagement and Tracking for Early Control and Treatment (DETECT) study concluded that adding individual changes in sensor data improves models based on symptoms alone for differentiating symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 positive and symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 negative.
The combination can potentially identify infection clusters before wider community spread occurs, Giorgio Quer, PhD, and colleagues report in an article published online Oct. 29 in Nature Medicine. DETECT investigators note that marrying participant-reported symptoms with personal sensor data, such as deviation from normal sleep duration and resting heart rate, resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.73-0.86) for differentiating between symptomatic individuals who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19.
“By better characterizing each individual’s unique baseline, you can then identify changes that may indicate that someone has a viral illness,” said Dr. Quer, director of artificial intelligence at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. “In previous research, we found that the proportion of individuals with elevated resting heart rate and sleep duration compared with their normal could significantly improve real-time detection of influenza-like illness rates at the state level,” he said in an interview.
Thus, continuous passively captured data may be a useful adjunct to bricks-and-mortar site testing, which is generally a one-off or infrequent sampling assay and is not always easily accessible, he added. Furthermore, traditional screening with temperature and symptom reporting is inadequate. An elevation in temperature is not as common as frequently believed for people who test positive for COVID-19, Dr. Quer continued. “Early identification via sensor variables of those who are presymptomatic or even asymptomatic would be especially valuable, as people may potentially be infectious during this period, and early detection is the ultimate goal,” Dr. Quer said.
According to his group, adding these physiologic changes from baseline values significantly outperformed detection (P < .01) using a British model described in an earlier study by by Cristina Menni, PhD, and associates. That method, in which symptoms were considered alone, yielded an AUC of 0.71 (IQR, 0.63-0.79).
According to Dr. Quer, one in five Americans currently wear an electronic device. “If we could enroll even a small percentage of these individuals, we’d be able to potentially identify clusters before they have the opportunity to spread,” he said.
DETECT study details
During the period March 15 to June 7, 2020, the study enrolled 30,529 participants from all 50 states. They ranged in age from younger than 35 years (23.1%) to older than 65 years (12.8%); the majority (63.5%) were aged 35-65 years, and 62% were women. Sensor devices in use by the cohort included Fitbit activity trackers (78.4%) and Apple HealthKit (31.2%).
Participants downloaded an app called MyDataHelps, which collects smartwatch and activity tracker information, including self-reported symptoms and diagnostic testing results. The app also monitors changes from baseline in resting heart rate, sleep duration, and physical activity, as measured by steps.
Overall, 3,811 participants reported having at least one symptom of some kind (e.g., fatigue, cough, dyspnea, loss of taste or smell). Of these, 54 reported testing positive for COVID-19, and 279 reported testing negative.
Sleep and activity were significantly different for the positive and negative groups, with an AUC of 0.68 (IQR, 0.57-0.79) for the sleep metric and 0.69 (IQR, 0.61-0.77) for the activity metric, suggesting that these parameters were more affected in COVID-19–positive participants.
When the investigators combined resting heart rate, sleep, and activity into a single metric, predictive performance improved to an AUC of 0.72 (IQR, 0.64-0.80).
The next step, Dr. Quer said, is to include an alert to notify users of possible infection.
Alerting users to possible COVID-19 infection
In a similar study, an alert feature was already incorporated. The study, led by Michael P. Snyder, PhD, director of the Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, will soon be published online in Nature Biomedical Engineering. In that study, presymptomatic detection of COVID-19 was achieved in more than 80% of participants using resting heart rate.
“The median is 4 days prior to symptom formation,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We have an alarm system to notify people when their heart rate is elevated. So a positive signal from a smartwatch can be used to follow up by polymerase chain reaction [testing].”
Dr. Snyder said these approaches offer a roadmap to containing widespread infections. “Public health authorities need to be open to these technologies and begin incorporating them into their tracking,” he said. “Right now, people do temperature checks, which are of limited value. Resting heart rate is much better information.”
Although the DETECT researchers have not yet received feedback on their results, they believe public health authorities could recommend the use of such apps. “These are devices that people routinely wear for tracking their fitness and sleep, so it would be relatively easy to use the data for viral illness tracking,” said co–lead author Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps. “Testing resources are still limited and don’t allow for routine serial testing of individuals who may be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Wearables can offer a different way to routinely monitor and screen people for changes in their data that may indicate COVID-19.”
The marshaling of data through consumer digital platforms to fight the coronavirus is gaining ground. New York State and New Jersey are already embracing smartphone apps to alert individuals to possible exposure to the virus.
More than 710,000 New Yorkers have downloaded the COVID NY Alert app, launched in October to help protect individuals and communities from COVID-19 by sending alerts without compromising privacy or personal information. “Upon receiving a notification about a potential exposure, users are then able to self-quarantine, get tested, and reduce the potential exposure risk to family, friends, coworkers, and others,” Jonah Bruno, a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health, said in an interview.
And recently the Mayo Clinic and Safe Health Systems launched a platform to store COVID-19 testing and vaccination data.
Both the Scripps and Stanford platforms are part of a global technologic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospective studies, led by device manufacturers and academic institutions, allow individuals to voluntarily share sensor and clinical data to address the crisis. Similar approaches have been used to track COVID-19 in large populations in Germany via the Corona Data Donation app.
The study by Dr. Quer and colleagues was funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported grants from Janssen and personal fees from Otsuka and Livongo outside of the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Snyder has ties to Personalis, Qbio, January, SensOmics, Protos, Mirvie, and Oralome.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A smartphone app that combines passively collected physiologic data from wearable devices, such as fitness trackers, and self-reported symptoms can discriminate between COVID-19–positive and –negative individuals among those who report symptoms, new data suggest.
After analyzing data from more than 30,000 participants, researchers from the Digital Engagement and Tracking for Early Control and Treatment (DETECT) study concluded that adding individual changes in sensor data improves models based on symptoms alone for differentiating symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 positive and symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 negative.
The combination can potentially identify infection clusters before wider community spread occurs, Giorgio Quer, PhD, and colleagues report in an article published online Oct. 29 in Nature Medicine. DETECT investigators note that marrying participant-reported symptoms with personal sensor data, such as deviation from normal sleep duration and resting heart rate, resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.73-0.86) for differentiating between symptomatic individuals who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19.
“By better characterizing each individual’s unique baseline, you can then identify changes that may indicate that someone has a viral illness,” said Dr. Quer, director of artificial intelligence at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. “In previous research, we found that the proportion of individuals with elevated resting heart rate and sleep duration compared with their normal could significantly improve real-time detection of influenza-like illness rates at the state level,” he said in an interview.
Thus, continuous passively captured data may be a useful adjunct to bricks-and-mortar site testing, which is generally a one-off or infrequent sampling assay and is not always easily accessible, he added. Furthermore, traditional screening with temperature and symptom reporting is inadequate. An elevation in temperature is not as common as frequently believed for people who test positive for COVID-19, Dr. Quer continued. “Early identification via sensor variables of those who are presymptomatic or even asymptomatic would be especially valuable, as people may potentially be infectious during this period, and early detection is the ultimate goal,” Dr. Quer said.
According to his group, adding these physiologic changes from baseline values significantly outperformed detection (P < .01) using a British model described in an earlier study by by Cristina Menni, PhD, and associates. That method, in which symptoms were considered alone, yielded an AUC of 0.71 (IQR, 0.63-0.79).
According to Dr. Quer, one in five Americans currently wear an electronic device. “If we could enroll even a small percentage of these individuals, we’d be able to potentially identify clusters before they have the opportunity to spread,” he said.
DETECT study details
During the period March 15 to June 7, 2020, the study enrolled 30,529 participants from all 50 states. They ranged in age from younger than 35 years (23.1%) to older than 65 years (12.8%); the majority (63.5%) were aged 35-65 years, and 62% were women. Sensor devices in use by the cohort included Fitbit activity trackers (78.4%) and Apple HealthKit (31.2%).
Participants downloaded an app called MyDataHelps, which collects smartwatch and activity tracker information, including self-reported symptoms and diagnostic testing results. The app also monitors changes from baseline in resting heart rate, sleep duration, and physical activity, as measured by steps.
Overall, 3,811 participants reported having at least one symptom of some kind (e.g., fatigue, cough, dyspnea, loss of taste or smell). Of these, 54 reported testing positive for COVID-19, and 279 reported testing negative.
Sleep and activity were significantly different for the positive and negative groups, with an AUC of 0.68 (IQR, 0.57-0.79) for the sleep metric and 0.69 (IQR, 0.61-0.77) for the activity metric, suggesting that these parameters were more affected in COVID-19–positive participants.
When the investigators combined resting heart rate, sleep, and activity into a single metric, predictive performance improved to an AUC of 0.72 (IQR, 0.64-0.80).
The next step, Dr. Quer said, is to include an alert to notify users of possible infection.
Alerting users to possible COVID-19 infection
In a similar study, an alert feature was already incorporated. The study, led by Michael P. Snyder, PhD, director of the Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, will soon be published online in Nature Biomedical Engineering. In that study, presymptomatic detection of COVID-19 was achieved in more than 80% of participants using resting heart rate.
“The median is 4 days prior to symptom formation,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We have an alarm system to notify people when their heart rate is elevated. So a positive signal from a smartwatch can be used to follow up by polymerase chain reaction [testing].”
Dr. Snyder said these approaches offer a roadmap to containing widespread infections. “Public health authorities need to be open to these technologies and begin incorporating them into their tracking,” he said. “Right now, people do temperature checks, which are of limited value. Resting heart rate is much better information.”
Although the DETECT researchers have not yet received feedback on their results, they believe public health authorities could recommend the use of such apps. “These are devices that people routinely wear for tracking their fitness and sleep, so it would be relatively easy to use the data for viral illness tracking,” said co–lead author Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps. “Testing resources are still limited and don’t allow for routine serial testing of individuals who may be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Wearables can offer a different way to routinely monitor and screen people for changes in their data that may indicate COVID-19.”
The marshaling of data through consumer digital platforms to fight the coronavirus is gaining ground. New York State and New Jersey are already embracing smartphone apps to alert individuals to possible exposure to the virus.
More than 710,000 New Yorkers have downloaded the COVID NY Alert app, launched in October to help protect individuals and communities from COVID-19 by sending alerts without compromising privacy or personal information. “Upon receiving a notification about a potential exposure, users are then able to self-quarantine, get tested, and reduce the potential exposure risk to family, friends, coworkers, and others,” Jonah Bruno, a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health, said in an interview.
And recently the Mayo Clinic and Safe Health Systems launched a platform to store COVID-19 testing and vaccination data.
Both the Scripps and Stanford platforms are part of a global technologic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospective studies, led by device manufacturers and academic institutions, allow individuals to voluntarily share sensor and clinical data to address the crisis. Similar approaches have been used to track COVID-19 in large populations in Germany via the Corona Data Donation app.
The study by Dr. Quer and colleagues was funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported grants from Janssen and personal fees from Otsuka and Livongo outside of the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Snyder has ties to Personalis, Qbio, January, SensOmics, Protos, Mirvie, and Oralome.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Primary care journals address systemic racism in medicine
Sumi Sexton, MD, editor in chief of American Family Physician (AFP), said in an interview she had been working on changes at her journal that would answer the need for action that was made clear by this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests and realized the issue was much bigger than one journal. She proposed the collaboration with the other editors.
The editors wrote a joint statement explaining what they plan to do collectively. It was published online Oct. 15 ahead of print and will be published in all 10 journals at the beginning of the year.
Following the action by family medicine editors, the American College of Physicians issued a statement expressing commitment to being an antiracist organization. It calls on all doctors to speak out against hate and discrimination and to act against institutional and systemic racism. The statement also apologizes for the organization’s own past actions: “ACP acknowledges and regrets its own historical organizational injustices and inequities, and past racism, discrimination and exclusionary practices throughout its history, whether intentional or unintentional, by act or omission.”
Family medicine journals plan changes
Changes will differ at each family medicine publication, according to Sexton and other interviewees. Some specific changes at AFP, for example, include creating a medical editor role dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure that content is not only accurate but also that more content addresses racism, Dr. Sexton said.
AFP is creating a Web page dedicated to diversity and will now capitalize the word “Black” in racial and cultural references. Recent calls for papers have included emphasis on finding authors from underrepresented groups and on mentoring new authors.
“We really need to enable our colleagues,” Dr. Sexton said.
The journals are also pooling their published research on topics of racism and inclusion and have established a joint bibliography.
The steps are important, Dr. Sexton said, because reform in research will start a “cascade of action” that will result in better patient care.
“Our mission is to care for the individual as a whole person,” Dr. Sexton said. “This is part of that mission.”
Increasing diversity on editorial boards
Family physician Kameron Leigh Matthews, MD, chief medical officer for the Veterans Health Administration, praised the journals’ plan.
She noted that the groups are addressing diversity on their editorial boards, as well as evaluating content. Effective change must also happen regarding the people reviewing the content, she said in an interview. “It has to be both.
“I’m very proud as a family physician that our editors came together and are giving the right response. It’s not enough to say we stand against racism. They’re actually offering concrete actions that they will take as editors, and that will influence health care,” she said.
Dr. Matthews pointed to an example of what can happen when the editorial process fails and racism is introduced in research.
She cited the retraction of an article in the Journal of the American Heart Association entitled, “Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce.” The article advocated for ending racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate and medical school admissions.
The American Heart Association said the article concluded “incorrectly that Black and Hispanic trainees in medicine are less qualified than White and Asian trainees.” The article had “rightfully drawn criticism for its misrepresentations and conclusions,” the AHA said, adding that it would launch an investigation into how the article came to be published.
Dr. Matthews says that’s why it’s so important that, in their statement, the family medicine editors vow to address not only the content but also the editing process to avoid similar systemic lapses.
Dr. Matthews added that, because the proportion of physicians from underrepresented groups is small – only 5% of physicians are Black and 6% are Hispanic – it is vital, as recommended in the editors’ statement, to mentor researchers from underrepresented groups and to reach out to students and residents to be coauthors.
“To sit back and say there’s not enough to recruit from is not sufficient,” Dr. Matthews said. “You need to recognize that you need to assist with expanding the pool.”
She also said she would like to see the journals focus more heavily on solutions to racial disparities in health care rather than on pointing them out.
At the Journal of Family Practice (JFP), Editor in Chief John Hickner, MD, said adding diversity to the editorial board is a top priority. He also reiterated that diversity in top leadership is a concern across all the journals, inasmuch as only 1 of the 10 editors in chief is a person of color.
As an editor, he said, he will personally, as well as through family medicine department chairs, be seeking authors who are members of underrepresented groups and that he will be assisting those who need help.
“I’m committed to giving them special attention in the editorial process,” he said.
Dr. Hickner said the 10 journals have also committed to periodically evaluate whether their approaches are making substantial changes. He said the editors have vowed to meet at least once a year to review progress “and hold each other accountable.”
Statement authors, in addition to Dr. Sexton and Dr. Hickner, include these editors in chief: Caroline R. Richardson, MD, Annals of Family Medicine; Sarina B. Schrager, MD, FPM; Marjorie A. Bowman, MD, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine; Christopher P. Morley, PhD, PRiMER; Nicholas Pimlott, MD, PhD, Canadian Family Physician; John W. Saultz, MD, Family Medicine; and Barry D. Weiss, MD, FP Essentials.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The Journal of Family Practice is owned by the same news organization as this publication.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Sumi Sexton, MD, editor in chief of American Family Physician (AFP), said in an interview she had been working on changes at her journal that would answer the need for action that was made clear by this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests and realized the issue was much bigger than one journal. She proposed the collaboration with the other editors.
The editors wrote a joint statement explaining what they plan to do collectively. It was published online Oct. 15 ahead of print and will be published in all 10 journals at the beginning of the year.
Following the action by family medicine editors, the American College of Physicians issued a statement expressing commitment to being an antiracist organization. It calls on all doctors to speak out against hate and discrimination and to act against institutional and systemic racism. The statement also apologizes for the organization’s own past actions: “ACP acknowledges and regrets its own historical organizational injustices and inequities, and past racism, discrimination and exclusionary practices throughout its history, whether intentional or unintentional, by act or omission.”
Family medicine journals plan changes
Changes will differ at each family medicine publication, according to Sexton and other interviewees. Some specific changes at AFP, for example, include creating a medical editor role dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure that content is not only accurate but also that more content addresses racism, Dr. Sexton said.
AFP is creating a Web page dedicated to diversity and will now capitalize the word “Black” in racial and cultural references. Recent calls for papers have included emphasis on finding authors from underrepresented groups and on mentoring new authors.
“We really need to enable our colleagues,” Dr. Sexton said.
The journals are also pooling their published research on topics of racism and inclusion and have established a joint bibliography.
The steps are important, Dr. Sexton said, because reform in research will start a “cascade of action” that will result in better patient care.
“Our mission is to care for the individual as a whole person,” Dr. Sexton said. “This is part of that mission.”
Increasing diversity on editorial boards
Family physician Kameron Leigh Matthews, MD, chief medical officer for the Veterans Health Administration, praised the journals’ plan.
She noted that the groups are addressing diversity on their editorial boards, as well as evaluating content. Effective change must also happen regarding the people reviewing the content, she said in an interview. “It has to be both.
“I’m very proud as a family physician that our editors came together and are giving the right response. It’s not enough to say we stand against racism. They’re actually offering concrete actions that they will take as editors, and that will influence health care,” she said.
Dr. Matthews pointed to an example of what can happen when the editorial process fails and racism is introduced in research.
She cited the retraction of an article in the Journal of the American Heart Association entitled, “Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce.” The article advocated for ending racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate and medical school admissions.
The American Heart Association said the article concluded “incorrectly that Black and Hispanic trainees in medicine are less qualified than White and Asian trainees.” The article had “rightfully drawn criticism for its misrepresentations and conclusions,” the AHA said, adding that it would launch an investigation into how the article came to be published.
Dr. Matthews says that’s why it’s so important that, in their statement, the family medicine editors vow to address not only the content but also the editing process to avoid similar systemic lapses.
Dr. Matthews added that, because the proportion of physicians from underrepresented groups is small – only 5% of physicians are Black and 6% are Hispanic – it is vital, as recommended in the editors’ statement, to mentor researchers from underrepresented groups and to reach out to students and residents to be coauthors.
“To sit back and say there’s not enough to recruit from is not sufficient,” Dr. Matthews said. “You need to recognize that you need to assist with expanding the pool.”
She also said she would like to see the journals focus more heavily on solutions to racial disparities in health care rather than on pointing them out.
At the Journal of Family Practice (JFP), Editor in Chief John Hickner, MD, said adding diversity to the editorial board is a top priority. He also reiterated that diversity in top leadership is a concern across all the journals, inasmuch as only 1 of the 10 editors in chief is a person of color.
As an editor, he said, he will personally, as well as through family medicine department chairs, be seeking authors who are members of underrepresented groups and that he will be assisting those who need help.
“I’m committed to giving them special attention in the editorial process,” he said.
Dr. Hickner said the 10 journals have also committed to periodically evaluate whether their approaches are making substantial changes. He said the editors have vowed to meet at least once a year to review progress “and hold each other accountable.”
Statement authors, in addition to Dr. Sexton and Dr. Hickner, include these editors in chief: Caroline R. Richardson, MD, Annals of Family Medicine; Sarina B. Schrager, MD, FPM; Marjorie A. Bowman, MD, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine; Christopher P. Morley, PhD, PRiMER; Nicholas Pimlott, MD, PhD, Canadian Family Physician; John W. Saultz, MD, Family Medicine; and Barry D. Weiss, MD, FP Essentials.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The Journal of Family Practice is owned by the same news organization as this publication.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Sumi Sexton, MD, editor in chief of American Family Physician (AFP), said in an interview she had been working on changes at her journal that would answer the need for action that was made clear by this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests and realized the issue was much bigger than one journal. She proposed the collaboration with the other editors.
The editors wrote a joint statement explaining what they plan to do collectively. It was published online Oct. 15 ahead of print and will be published in all 10 journals at the beginning of the year.
Following the action by family medicine editors, the American College of Physicians issued a statement expressing commitment to being an antiracist organization. It calls on all doctors to speak out against hate and discrimination and to act against institutional and systemic racism. The statement also apologizes for the organization’s own past actions: “ACP acknowledges and regrets its own historical organizational injustices and inequities, and past racism, discrimination and exclusionary practices throughout its history, whether intentional or unintentional, by act or omission.”
Family medicine journals plan changes
Changes will differ at each family medicine publication, according to Sexton and other interviewees. Some specific changes at AFP, for example, include creating a medical editor role dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure that content is not only accurate but also that more content addresses racism, Dr. Sexton said.
AFP is creating a Web page dedicated to diversity and will now capitalize the word “Black” in racial and cultural references. Recent calls for papers have included emphasis on finding authors from underrepresented groups and on mentoring new authors.
“We really need to enable our colleagues,” Dr. Sexton said.
The journals are also pooling their published research on topics of racism and inclusion and have established a joint bibliography.
The steps are important, Dr. Sexton said, because reform in research will start a “cascade of action” that will result in better patient care.
“Our mission is to care for the individual as a whole person,” Dr. Sexton said. “This is part of that mission.”
Increasing diversity on editorial boards
Family physician Kameron Leigh Matthews, MD, chief medical officer for the Veterans Health Administration, praised the journals’ plan.
She noted that the groups are addressing diversity on their editorial boards, as well as evaluating content. Effective change must also happen regarding the people reviewing the content, she said in an interview. “It has to be both.
“I’m very proud as a family physician that our editors came together and are giving the right response. It’s not enough to say we stand against racism. They’re actually offering concrete actions that they will take as editors, and that will influence health care,” she said.
Dr. Matthews pointed to an example of what can happen when the editorial process fails and racism is introduced in research.
She cited the retraction of an article in the Journal of the American Heart Association entitled, “Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce.” The article advocated for ending racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate and medical school admissions.
The American Heart Association said the article concluded “incorrectly that Black and Hispanic trainees in medicine are less qualified than White and Asian trainees.” The article had “rightfully drawn criticism for its misrepresentations and conclusions,” the AHA said, adding that it would launch an investigation into how the article came to be published.
Dr. Matthews says that’s why it’s so important that, in their statement, the family medicine editors vow to address not only the content but also the editing process to avoid similar systemic lapses.
Dr. Matthews added that, because the proportion of physicians from underrepresented groups is small – only 5% of physicians are Black and 6% are Hispanic – it is vital, as recommended in the editors’ statement, to mentor researchers from underrepresented groups and to reach out to students and residents to be coauthors.
“To sit back and say there’s not enough to recruit from is not sufficient,” Dr. Matthews said. “You need to recognize that you need to assist with expanding the pool.”
She also said she would like to see the journals focus more heavily on solutions to racial disparities in health care rather than on pointing them out.
At the Journal of Family Practice (JFP), Editor in Chief John Hickner, MD, said adding diversity to the editorial board is a top priority. He also reiterated that diversity in top leadership is a concern across all the journals, inasmuch as only 1 of the 10 editors in chief is a person of color.
As an editor, he said, he will personally, as well as through family medicine department chairs, be seeking authors who are members of underrepresented groups and that he will be assisting those who need help.
“I’m committed to giving them special attention in the editorial process,” he said.
Dr. Hickner said the 10 journals have also committed to periodically evaluate whether their approaches are making substantial changes. He said the editors have vowed to meet at least once a year to review progress “and hold each other accountable.”
Statement authors, in addition to Dr. Sexton and Dr. Hickner, include these editors in chief: Caroline R. Richardson, MD, Annals of Family Medicine; Sarina B. Schrager, MD, FPM; Marjorie A. Bowman, MD, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine; Christopher P. Morley, PhD, PRiMER; Nicholas Pimlott, MD, PhD, Canadian Family Physician; John W. Saultz, MD, Family Medicine; and Barry D. Weiss, MD, FP Essentials.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The Journal of Family Practice is owned by the same news organization as this publication.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
New return-to-play recommendations for athletes with COVID-19
The latest recommendations from sports cardiologists on getting athletes with COVID-19 back on the playing field safely emphasize a more judicious approach to screening for cardiac injury.
The new recommendations, made by the American College of Cardiology’s Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section, are for adult athletes in competitive sports and also for two important groups: younger athletes taking part in competitive high school sports and older athletes aged 35 and older, the Masters athletes, who continue to be active throughout their lives. The document was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
Because of the evolving nature of knowledge about COVID-19, updates on recommendations for safe return to play for athletes of all ages will continue to be made, senior author Aaron L. Baggish, MD, director of the cardiovascular performance program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said.
“The recommendations we released in May were entirely based on our experience taking care of hospitalized patients with COVID-19; we had no athletes in this population. We used a lot of conservative guesswork around how this would apply to otherwise healthy athletes,” Dr. Baggish said in an interview.
“But as sports started to open up, and we started to see large numbers of first professional and then college athletes come back into training, we realized that we needed to stop and ask whether the recommendations we put forward back in May were still appropriate,” Dr. Baggish said.
“Once we started to actually get into the trenches with these athletes, literally hundreds of them, and applying the testing strategies that we had initially recommended in everybody, we realized that we probably had some room for improvement, and that’s why we reconvened, to make these revisions,” he said.
Essentially, the recommendations now urge less cardiac testing. “Cardiac injury is not as common as we may have originally thought,” said Dr. Baggish.
“In the early days of COVID, people who were hospitalized had evidence of heart injury, and so we wondered if that prevalence would also be applicable to otherwise young, healthy people who got COVID. If that had been the case, we would have been in big trouble with respect to getting people back into sports. So this is why we started with a conservative screening approach and a lot of testing in order to not miss a huge burden of disease,” he said.
“But what we’ve learned over the past few months is that young people who get either asymptomatic or mild infection appear to have very, very low risk of having associated heart injury, so the need for testing in that population, when people who have infections recover fully, is almost certainly not going to be high yield,” Dr. Baggish said.
First iteration of the recommendations
Published in May in the early weeks of the pandemic, the first recommendations for safe return to play said that all athletes should stop training for at least 2 weeks after their symptoms resolve, then undergo “careful, clinical cardiovascular evaluation in combination with cardiac biomarkers and imaging.”
Additional testing with cardiac MRI, exercise testing, or ambulatory rhythm monitoring was to be done “based on the clinical course and initial testing.”
But experts caution that monitoring on such a scale in everyone is unnecessary and could even be counterproductive.
“Sending young athletes for extensive testing is not warranted and could send them to unnecessary testing, cardiac imaging, and so on,” Dr. Baggish said.
Only those athletes who continue to have symptoms or whose symptoms return when they get back to their athletic activities should go on for more screening.
“There, in essence, is the single main change from May, and that is a move away from screening with testing everyone, [and instead] confining that to the people who had moderate or greater severity disease,” he said.
Both iterations of the recommendations end with the same message.
“We are at the beginning of our knowledge about the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 but we are gathering evidence every day,” said Dr. Baggish. “Just as they did earlier, we acknowledge that our approaches are subject to change when we learn more about how COVID affects the heart, and specifically the hearts of athletes. This will be an ongoing process.”
Something to lean on
The recommendations are welcome, said James E. Udelson, MD, chief of the division of cardiology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, coauthor of an accompanying editorial.
“It was a bit of the wild west out there, because each university, each college, all with good intentions, had been all struggling to figure out what to do, and how much to do. Probably the most important message from this new paper is the fact that now there is something out there that all coaches, athletes, families, schools, trainers can get some guidance from,” Dr. Udelson said in an interview.
Refining the cardiac screening criteria was a necessary step, Dr. Udelson said.
“How much cardiac imaging do you do? That is a matter of controversy,” said Dr. Udelson, who coauthored the commentary with Tufts cardiologist Ethan Rowin, MD, and Michael A. Curtis, MEd, a certified strength and conditioning specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “The problem is that if you use a very sensitive imaging test on a lot of people, sometimes you find things that you really didn’t need to know about. They’re really not important. And now, the athlete is told he or she cannot play for 3 months because they might have myocarditis.
“Should we be too sensitive, meaning do we want to pick up anything no matter whether it’s important or not?” he added. “There will be a lot of false positives, and we are going to disqualify a lot of people. Or do you tune it a different way?”
Dr. Udelson said he would like to see commercial sports donate money to support research into the potential cardiotoxicity of COVID-19.
“If the organizations that benefit from these athletes, like the National Collegiate Athletic Association and professional sports leagues, can fund some of this research, that would be a huge help,” Dr. Udelson said.
“These are the top sports cardiologists in the country, and they have to start somewhere, and these are all based on what we know right now, as well as their own extensive experience. We all know that we are just at the beginning of our knowledge of this. But we have to have something to guide this huge community out there that is really thirsty for help.”
Dr. Baggish reports receiving research funding for the study of athletes in competitive sports from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Football League Players Association; and the American Heart Association and receiving compensation for his role as team cardiologist from the US Olympic Committee/US Olympic Training Centers, US Soccer, US Rowing, the New England Patriots, the Boston Bruins, the New England Revolution, and Harvard University. Dr. Udelson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The latest recommendations from sports cardiologists on getting athletes with COVID-19 back on the playing field safely emphasize a more judicious approach to screening for cardiac injury.
The new recommendations, made by the American College of Cardiology’s Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section, are for adult athletes in competitive sports and also for two important groups: younger athletes taking part in competitive high school sports and older athletes aged 35 and older, the Masters athletes, who continue to be active throughout their lives. The document was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
Because of the evolving nature of knowledge about COVID-19, updates on recommendations for safe return to play for athletes of all ages will continue to be made, senior author Aaron L. Baggish, MD, director of the cardiovascular performance program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said.
“The recommendations we released in May were entirely based on our experience taking care of hospitalized patients with COVID-19; we had no athletes in this population. We used a lot of conservative guesswork around how this would apply to otherwise healthy athletes,” Dr. Baggish said in an interview.
“But as sports started to open up, and we started to see large numbers of first professional and then college athletes come back into training, we realized that we needed to stop and ask whether the recommendations we put forward back in May were still appropriate,” Dr. Baggish said.
“Once we started to actually get into the trenches with these athletes, literally hundreds of them, and applying the testing strategies that we had initially recommended in everybody, we realized that we probably had some room for improvement, and that’s why we reconvened, to make these revisions,” he said.
Essentially, the recommendations now urge less cardiac testing. “Cardiac injury is not as common as we may have originally thought,” said Dr. Baggish.
“In the early days of COVID, people who were hospitalized had evidence of heart injury, and so we wondered if that prevalence would also be applicable to otherwise young, healthy people who got COVID. If that had been the case, we would have been in big trouble with respect to getting people back into sports. So this is why we started with a conservative screening approach and a lot of testing in order to not miss a huge burden of disease,” he said.
“But what we’ve learned over the past few months is that young people who get either asymptomatic or mild infection appear to have very, very low risk of having associated heart injury, so the need for testing in that population, when people who have infections recover fully, is almost certainly not going to be high yield,” Dr. Baggish said.
First iteration of the recommendations
Published in May in the early weeks of the pandemic, the first recommendations for safe return to play said that all athletes should stop training for at least 2 weeks after their symptoms resolve, then undergo “careful, clinical cardiovascular evaluation in combination with cardiac biomarkers and imaging.”
Additional testing with cardiac MRI, exercise testing, or ambulatory rhythm monitoring was to be done “based on the clinical course and initial testing.”
But experts caution that monitoring on such a scale in everyone is unnecessary and could even be counterproductive.
“Sending young athletes for extensive testing is not warranted and could send them to unnecessary testing, cardiac imaging, and so on,” Dr. Baggish said.
Only those athletes who continue to have symptoms or whose symptoms return when they get back to their athletic activities should go on for more screening.
“There, in essence, is the single main change from May, and that is a move away from screening with testing everyone, [and instead] confining that to the people who had moderate or greater severity disease,” he said.
Both iterations of the recommendations end with the same message.
“We are at the beginning of our knowledge about the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 but we are gathering evidence every day,” said Dr. Baggish. “Just as they did earlier, we acknowledge that our approaches are subject to change when we learn more about how COVID affects the heart, and specifically the hearts of athletes. This will be an ongoing process.”
Something to lean on
The recommendations are welcome, said James E. Udelson, MD, chief of the division of cardiology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, coauthor of an accompanying editorial.
“It was a bit of the wild west out there, because each university, each college, all with good intentions, had been all struggling to figure out what to do, and how much to do. Probably the most important message from this new paper is the fact that now there is something out there that all coaches, athletes, families, schools, trainers can get some guidance from,” Dr. Udelson said in an interview.
Refining the cardiac screening criteria was a necessary step, Dr. Udelson said.
“How much cardiac imaging do you do? That is a matter of controversy,” said Dr. Udelson, who coauthored the commentary with Tufts cardiologist Ethan Rowin, MD, and Michael A. Curtis, MEd, a certified strength and conditioning specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “The problem is that if you use a very sensitive imaging test on a lot of people, sometimes you find things that you really didn’t need to know about. They’re really not important. And now, the athlete is told he or she cannot play for 3 months because they might have myocarditis.
“Should we be too sensitive, meaning do we want to pick up anything no matter whether it’s important or not?” he added. “There will be a lot of false positives, and we are going to disqualify a lot of people. Or do you tune it a different way?”
Dr. Udelson said he would like to see commercial sports donate money to support research into the potential cardiotoxicity of COVID-19.
“If the organizations that benefit from these athletes, like the National Collegiate Athletic Association and professional sports leagues, can fund some of this research, that would be a huge help,” Dr. Udelson said.
“These are the top sports cardiologists in the country, and they have to start somewhere, and these are all based on what we know right now, as well as their own extensive experience. We all know that we are just at the beginning of our knowledge of this. But we have to have something to guide this huge community out there that is really thirsty for help.”
Dr. Baggish reports receiving research funding for the study of athletes in competitive sports from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Football League Players Association; and the American Heart Association and receiving compensation for his role as team cardiologist from the US Olympic Committee/US Olympic Training Centers, US Soccer, US Rowing, the New England Patriots, the Boston Bruins, the New England Revolution, and Harvard University. Dr. Udelson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The latest recommendations from sports cardiologists on getting athletes with COVID-19 back on the playing field safely emphasize a more judicious approach to screening for cardiac injury.
The new recommendations, made by the American College of Cardiology’s Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section, are for adult athletes in competitive sports and also for two important groups: younger athletes taking part in competitive high school sports and older athletes aged 35 and older, the Masters athletes, who continue to be active throughout their lives. The document was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
Because of the evolving nature of knowledge about COVID-19, updates on recommendations for safe return to play for athletes of all ages will continue to be made, senior author Aaron L. Baggish, MD, director of the cardiovascular performance program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said.
“The recommendations we released in May were entirely based on our experience taking care of hospitalized patients with COVID-19; we had no athletes in this population. We used a lot of conservative guesswork around how this would apply to otherwise healthy athletes,” Dr. Baggish said in an interview.
“But as sports started to open up, and we started to see large numbers of first professional and then college athletes come back into training, we realized that we needed to stop and ask whether the recommendations we put forward back in May were still appropriate,” Dr. Baggish said.
“Once we started to actually get into the trenches with these athletes, literally hundreds of them, and applying the testing strategies that we had initially recommended in everybody, we realized that we probably had some room for improvement, and that’s why we reconvened, to make these revisions,” he said.
Essentially, the recommendations now urge less cardiac testing. “Cardiac injury is not as common as we may have originally thought,” said Dr. Baggish.
“In the early days of COVID, people who were hospitalized had evidence of heart injury, and so we wondered if that prevalence would also be applicable to otherwise young, healthy people who got COVID. If that had been the case, we would have been in big trouble with respect to getting people back into sports. So this is why we started with a conservative screening approach and a lot of testing in order to not miss a huge burden of disease,” he said.
“But what we’ve learned over the past few months is that young people who get either asymptomatic or mild infection appear to have very, very low risk of having associated heart injury, so the need for testing in that population, when people who have infections recover fully, is almost certainly not going to be high yield,” Dr. Baggish said.
First iteration of the recommendations
Published in May in the early weeks of the pandemic, the first recommendations for safe return to play said that all athletes should stop training for at least 2 weeks after their symptoms resolve, then undergo “careful, clinical cardiovascular evaluation in combination with cardiac biomarkers and imaging.”
Additional testing with cardiac MRI, exercise testing, or ambulatory rhythm monitoring was to be done “based on the clinical course and initial testing.”
But experts caution that monitoring on such a scale in everyone is unnecessary and could even be counterproductive.
“Sending young athletes for extensive testing is not warranted and could send them to unnecessary testing, cardiac imaging, and so on,” Dr. Baggish said.
Only those athletes who continue to have symptoms or whose symptoms return when they get back to their athletic activities should go on for more screening.
“There, in essence, is the single main change from May, and that is a move away from screening with testing everyone, [and instead] confining that to the people who had moderate or greater severity disease,” he said.
Both iterations of the recommendations end with the same message.
“We are at the beginning of our knowledge about the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 but we are gathering evidence every day,” said Dr. Baggish. “Just as they did earlier, we acknowledge that our approaches are subject to change when we learn more about how COVID affects the heart, and specifically the hearts of athletes. This will be an ongoing process.”
Something to lean on
The recommendations are welcome, said James E. Udelson, MD, chief of the division of cardiology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, coauthor of an accompanying editorial.
“It was a bit of the wild west out there, because each university, each college, all with good intentions, had been all struggling to figure out what to do, and how much to do. Probably the most important message from this new paper is the fact that now there is something out there that all coaches, athletes, families, schools, trainers can get some guidance from,” Dr. Udelson said in an interview.
Refining the cardiac screening criteria was a necessary step, Dr. Udelson said.
“How much cardiac imaging do you do? That is a matter of controversy,” said Dr. Udelson, who coauthored the commentary with Tufts cardiologist Ethan Rowin, MD, and Michael A. Curtis, MEd, a certified strength and conditioning specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “The problem is that if you use a very sensitive imaging test on a lot of people, sometimes you find things that you really didn’t need to know about. They’re really not important. And now, the athlete is told he or she cannot play for 3 months because they might have myocarditis.
“Should we be too sensitive, meaning do we want to pick up anything no matter whether it’s important or not?” he added. “There will be a lot of false positives, and we are going to disqualify a lot of people. Or do you tune it a different way?”
Dr. Udelson said he would like to see commercial sports donate money to support research into the potential cardiotoxicity of COVID-19.
“If the organizations that benefit from these athletes, like the National Collegiate Athletic Association and professional sports leagues, can fund some of this research, that would be a huge help,” Dr. Udelson said.
“These are the top sports cardiologists in the country, and they have to start somewhere, and these are all based on what we know right now, as well as their own extensive experience. We all know that we are just at the beginning of our knowledge of this. But we have to have something to guide this huge community out there that is really thirsty for help.”
Dr. Baggish reports receiving research funding for the study of athletes in competitive sports from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Football League Players Association; and the American Heart Association and receiving compensation for his role as team cardiologist from the US Olympic Committee/US Olympic Training Centers, US Soccer, US Rowing, the New England Patriots, the Boston Bruins, the New England Revolution, and Harvard University. Dr. Udelson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.