Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

COVID-19 cases are continuing to fall in the United States, according to the New York Times tracker, though the number of deaths from the disease again neared 4,000 on Feb. 3.

janiecbros/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The United States has averaged 141,146 cases a day in the past week, down 30% from the average 2 weeks ago. For the first time since November 2020, the country is averaging fewer than 150,000 cases a day, according to the tracker.

However, Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warned that new COVID-19 variants popping up widely could threaten that progress.

“Although we have seen declines in cases and admissions and a recent slowing of deaths, cases remain extraordinarily high, still twice as high as the peak number of cases over the summer. And the continued proliferation of variants, variants that likely have increased transmissibility, that spread more easily, threatens to reverse these recent trends.

“Based on contact tracing of recent variant cases, not wearing masks and participating in in-person social gatherings have contributed to the variants’ spread,” she said at a White House COVID-19 briefing on Feb. 3, 2021.

The number of cases worldwide neared 104 million on Feb. 3 and the U.S. numbers made up 26.4 million of that total.

As of Feb. 4, COVID-19 had killed at least 454,000 people and infected about 26.6 million in the United States since January 2020, according to the Johns Hopkins University tracker.

The Johns Hopkins tracker found that, per capita, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Rhode Island have reported the most cases while New Jersey and New York have recorded the most deaths.

According to the COVID tracking project, hospitalizations for COVID-19 nationwide were down to 91,440 on Feb. 3.

The tracking report noted, “compared to last week, the number of people currently hospitalized with COVID-19 is down by 10% or more in 38 states.”

Even in hard-hit Los Angeles County, infections and case numbers are on the decline, according to the Los Angeles Times. However, officials, warn the numbers remain well above presurge levels. Over the past week, 201 city residents have died every day.

Reuters also reports that Anthony S. Fauci, MD, the government’s top infectious disease expert, said despite some good news in the numbers, Americans should continue to follow social distancing guidelines. He added that double-masking may add protection.

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

COVID-19 cases are continuing to fall in the United States, according to the New York Times tracker, though the number of deaths from the disease again neared 4,000 on Feb. 3.

janiecbros/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The United States has averaged 141,146 cases a day in the past week, down 30% from the average 2 weeks ago. For the first time since November 2020, the country is averaging fewer than 150,000 cases a day, according to the tracker.

However, Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warned that new COVID-19 variants popping up widely could threaten that progress.

“Although we have seen declines in cases and admissions and a recent slowing of deaths, cases remain extraordinarily high, still twice as high as the peak number of cases over the summer. And the continued proliferation of variants, variants that likely have increased transmissibility, that spread more easily, threatens to reverse these recent trends.

“Based on contact tracing of recent variant cases, not wearing masks and participating in in-person social gatherings have contributed to the variants’ spread,” she said at a White House COVID-19 briefing on Feb. 3, 2021.

The number of cases worldwide neared 104 million on Feb. 3 and the U.S. numbers made up 26.4 million of that total.

As of Feb. 4, COVID-19 had killed at least 454,000 people and infected about 26.6 million in the United States since January 2020, according to the Johns Hopkins University tracker.

The Johns Hopkins tracker found that, per capita, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Rhode Island have reported the most cases while New Jersey and New York have recorded the most deaths.

According to the COVID tracking project, hospitalizations for COVID-19 nationwide were down to 91,440 on Feb. 3.

The tracking report noted, “compared to last week, the number of people currently hospitalized with COVID-19 is down by 10% or more in 38 states.”

Even in hard-hit Los Angeles County, infections and case numbers are on the decline, according to the Los Angeles Times. However, officials, warn the numbers remain well above presurge levels. Over the past week, 201 city residents have died every day.

Reuters also reports that Anthony S. Fauci, MD, the government’s top infectious disease expert, said despite some good news in the numbers, Americans should continue to follow social distancing guidelines. He added that double-masking may add protection.

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

COVID-19 cases are continuing to fall in the United States, according to the New York Times tracker, though the number of deaths from the disease again neared 4,000 on Feb. 3.

janiecbros/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The United States has averaged 141,146 cases a day in the past week, down 30% from the average 2 weeks ago. For the first time since November 2020, the country is averaging fewer than 150,000 cases a day, according to the tracker.

However, Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warned that new COVID-19 variants popping up widely could threaten that progress.

“Although we have seen declines in cases and admissions and a recent slowing of deaths, cases remain extraordinarily high, still twice as high as the peak number of cases over the summer. And the continued proliferation of variants, variants that likely have increased transmissibility, that spread more easily, threatens to reverse these recent trends.

“Based on contact tracing of recent variant cases, not wearing masks and participating in in-person social gatherings have contributed to the variants’ spread,” she said at a White House COVID-19 briefing on Feb. 3, 2021.

The number of cases worldwide neared 104 million on Feb. 3 and the U.S. numbers made up 26.4 million of that total.

As of Feb. 4, COVID-19 had killed at least 454,000 people and infected about 26.6 million in the United States since January 2020, according to the Johns Hopkins University tracker.

The Johns Hopkins tracker found that, per capita, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Rhode Island have reported the most cases while New Jersey and New York have recorded the most deaths.

According to the COVID tracking project, hospitalizations for COVID-19 nationwide were down to 91,440 on Feb. 3.

The tracking report noted, “compared to last week, the number of people currently hospitalized with COVID-19 is down by 10% or more in 38 states.”

Even in hard-hit Los Angeles County, infections and case numbers are on the decline, according to the Los Angeles Times. However, officials, warn the numbers remain well above presurge levels. Over the past week, 201 city residents have died every day.

Reuters also reports that Anthony S. Fauci, MD, the government’s top infectious disease expert, said despite some good news in the numbers, Americans should continue to follow social distancing guidelines. He added that double-masking may add protection.

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

Obesity, a risk factor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a prevalent comorbidity among people with cirrhosis of all etiologies, is associated with a number of untoward health outcomes, and weight loss is an important goal, according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association. According to one study cited in the update, approximately 30% of patients with cirrhosis have comorbid obesity, and this figure may increase even further as the epidemic of NAFLD progresses.

For obese patients with cirrhosis, weight loss “is an important therapeutic goal” because obesity heightens risks of portal vein thrombosis, portal hypertension, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver failure in acute on chronic liver disease, and other concerns. Despite no longer being an absolute contraindication, obesity can also complicate liver transplantation considerations, Heather Patton, MD, of the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Consideration of individuals with cirrhosis, however, requires careful scrutiny of surgical candidacy, appropriate resources for care of patients with advanced liver disease, and a high-volume bariatric surgical center given the inherent risks of surgical procedures in this patient population.

For patients with cirrhosis and obesity, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is probably the best option for bariatric surgery because it preserves endoscopic access to the biliary tree, facilitates gradual weight loss, and does not cause malabsorption, according to the update.

Clinicians and patients should time bariatric surgery based on liver disease stage – for patients with decompensated disease, surgery should be performed only at the same time as or after liver transplantation, the experts wrote. Clinicians should also evaluate candidacy for liver transplantation before bariatric surgery “so that patients who are ineligible for transplant (and their families) have a clear understanding of this, avoiding the need for the medical team to address this issue urgently if the patient’s condition deteriorates postoperatively.”

One review suggested that bariatric surgery is “the most effective and durable” means of weight loss, according to the authors of the update; however, another review suggested increased surgical risk for bariatric surgery among patients with cirrhosis, so the update’s authors advised individualized risk-benefit assessments. These assessments are made even more complicated by scarcity of relevant randomized trial data, so the experts identified PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2020 and used these to make 10 best practice advice statements for bariatric surgery in obese patients with cirrhosis.

The surgical, anesthesia, and medical teams must be well versed in assessing and operating on patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis and in managing these patients postoperatively, the experts wrote. The preoperative assessment should include cirrhosis status (compensated versus decompensated), the presence and severity of sarcopenia, ascites, and portal hypertension, and candidacy for liver transplantation. It is vital to check for clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) because endoscopic devices should not be used in patients with gastric and/or esophageal varices. To do so, upper endoscopy and cross-sectional imaging are advised, pending better data on noninvasive assessment methods. For patients without CSPH, endoscopic bariatric treatment can be somewhat less effective for weight loss but also might be less likely to lead to postoperative complications. However, head-to-head and long-term safety data are not yet available.

The experts also noted that bariatric surgery increases the effects (blood levels) of alcohol and can increase patients’ risk for developing an alcohol use disorder. Therefore, clinicians should carefully the history of alcohol use and repeatedly educate patients about the risks of consuming alcohol after bariatric surgery. According to a study from 2012 and a review from 2015, male sex, younger age, less social support, and regular or “problematic” alcohol use before bariatric surgery heighten the risk for developing an alcohol use disorder afterward, the experts noted.

Funding sources included the Robert H. Yauk Charitable Trust Gift for Liver Transplant Research 2017-2020 and Regenerative Medicine for Prevention of Post-Transplant Biliary Complications. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

This article was updated Feb. 23, 2021.

Obesity, a risk factor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a prevalent comorbidity among people with cirrhosis of all etiologies, is associated with a number of untoward health outcomes, and weight loss is an important goal, according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association. According to one study cited in the update, approximately 30% of patients with cirrhosis have comorbid obesity, and this figure may increase even further as the epidemic of NAFLD progresses.

For obese patients with cirrhosis, weight loss “is an important therapeutic goal” because obesity heightens risks of portal vein thrombosis, portal hypertension, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver failure in acute on chronic liver disease, and other concerns. Despite no longer being an absolute contraindication, obesity can also complicate liver transplantation considerations, Heather Patton, MD, of the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Consideration of individuals with cirrhosis, however, requires careful scrutiny of surgical candidacy, appropriate resources for care of patients with advanced liver disease, and a high-volume bariatric surgical center given the inherent risks of surgical procedures in this patient population.

For patients with cirrhosis and obesity, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is probably the best option for bariatric surgery because it preserves endoscopic access to the biliary tree, facilitates gradual weight loss, and does not cause malabsorption, according to the update.

Clinicians and patients should time bariatric surgery based on liver disease stage – for patients with decompensated disease, surgery should be performed only at the same time as or after liver transplantation, the experts wrote. Clinicians should also evaluate candidacy for liver transplantation before bariatric surgery “so that patients who are ineligible for transplant (and their families) have a clear understanding of this, avoiding the need for the medical team to address this issue urgently if the patient’s condition deteriorates postoperatively.”

One review suggested that bariatric surgery is “the most effective and durable” means of weight loss, according to the authors of the update; however, another review suggested increased surgical risk for bariatric surgery among patients with cirrhosis, so the update’s authors advised individualized risk-benefit assessments. These assessments are made even more complicated by scarcity of relevant randomized trial data, so the experts identified PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2020 and used these to make 10 best practice advice statements for bariatric surgery in obese patients with cirrhosis.

The surgical, anesthesia, and medical teams must be well versed in assessing and operating on patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis and in managing these patients postoperatively, the experts wrote. The preoperative assessment should include cirrhosis status (compensated versus decompensated), the presence and severity of sarcopenia, ascites, and portal hypertension, and candidacy for liver transplantation. It is vital to check for clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) because endoscopic devices should not be used in patients with gastric and/or esophageal varices. To do so, upper endoscopy and cross-sectional imaging are advised, pending better data on noninvasive assessment methods. For patients without CSPH, endoscopic bariatric treatment can be somewhat less effective for weight loss but also might be less likely to lead to postoperative complications. However, head-to-head and long-term safety data are not yet available.

The experts also noted that bariatric surgery increases the effects (blood levels) of alcohol and can increase patients’ risk for developing an alcohol use disorder. Therefore, clinicians should carefully the history of alcohol use and repeatedly educate patients about the risks of consuming alcohol after bariatric surgery. According to a study from 2012 and a review from 2015, male sex, younger age, less social support, and regular or “problematic” alcohol use before bariatric surgery heighten the risk for developing an alcohol use disorder afterward, the experts noted.

Funding sources included the Robert H. Yauk Charitable Trust Gift for Liver Transplant Research 2017-2020 and Regenerative Medicine for Prevention of Post-Transplant Biliary Complications. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

This article was updated Feb. 23, 2021.

Obesity, a risk factor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a prevalent comorbidity among people with cirrhosis of all etiologies, is associated with a number of untoward health outcomes, and weight loss is an important goal, according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association. According to one study cited in the update, approximately 30% of patients with cirrhosis have comorbid obesity, and this figure may increase even further as the epidemic of NAFLD progresses.

For obese patients with cirrhosis, weight loss “is an important therapeutic goal” because obesity heightens risks of portal vein thrombosis, portal hypertension, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver failure in acute on chronic liver disease, and other concerns. Despite no longer being an absolute contraindication, obesity can also complicate liver transplantation considerations, Heather Patton, MD, of the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Consideration of individuals with cirrhosis, however, requires careful scrutiny of surgical candidacy, appropriate resources for care of patients with advanced liver disease, and a high-volume bariatric surgical center given the inherent risks of surgical procedures in this patient population.

For patients with cirrhosis and obesity, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is probably the best option for bariatric surgery because it preserves endoscopic access to the biliary tree, facilitates gradual weight loss, and does not cause malabsorption, according to the update.

Clinicians and patients should time bariatric surgery based on liver disease stage – for patients with decompensated disease, surgery should be performed only at the same time as or after liver transplantation, the experts wrote. Clinicians should also evaluate candidacy for liver transplantation before bariatric surgery “so that patients who are ineligible for transplant (and their families) have a clear understanding of this, avoiding the need for the medical team to address this issue urgently if the patient’s condition deteriorates postoperatively.”

One review suggested that bariatric surgery is “the most effective and durable” means of weight loss, according to the authors of the update; however, another review suggested increased surgical risk for bariatric surgery among patients with cirrhosis, so the update’s authors advised individualized risk-benefit assessments. These assessments are made even more complicated by scarcity of relevant randomized trial data, so the experts identified PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2020 and used these to make 10 best practice advice statements for bariatric surgery in obese patients with cirrhosis.

The surgical, anesthesia, and medical teams must be well versed in assessing and operating on patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis and in managing these patients postoperatively, the experts wrote. The preoperative assessment should include cirrhosis status (compensated versus decompensated), the presence and severity of sarcopenia, ascites, and portal hypertension, and candidacy for liver transplantation. It is vital to check for clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) because endoscopic devices should not be used in patients with gastric and/or esophageal varices. To do so, upper endoscopy and cross-sectional imaging are advised, pending better data on noninvasive assessment methods. For patients without CSPH, endoscopic bariatric treatment can be somewhat less effective for weight loss but also might be less likely to lead to postoperative complications. However, head-to-head and long-term safety data are not yet available.

The experts also noted that bariatric surgery increases the effects (blood levels) of alcohol and can increase patients’ risk for developing an alcohol use disorder. Therefore, clinicians should carefully the history of alcohol use and repeatedly educate patients about the risks of consuming alcohol after bariatric surgery. According to a study from 2012 and a review from 2015, male sex, younger age, less social support, and regular or “problematic” alcohol use before bariatric surgery heighten the risk for developing an alcohol use disorder afterward, the experts noted.

Funding sources included the Robert H. Yauk Charitable Trust Gift for Liver Transplant Research 2017-2020 and Regenerative Medicine for Prevention of Post-Transplant Biliary Complications. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

This article was updated Feb. 23, 2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has alerted the public to an increased risk of serious heart-related problems and cancer risk associated with the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), based on early results from a safety clinical trial comparing tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The FDA is awaiting further results from the trial, but in a safety communication issued on Feb. 4, the agency advised patients not to discontinue tofacitinib without consulting their health care providers and advised health care professionals to weigh the risks and benefits when prescribing the drug and continue to follow the current prescribing information.

Tofacitinib was approved for treatment of RA in 2012 at a 5-mg dose. After this approval, the FDA required drug manufacturer Pfizer to conduct a safety clinical trial that included the 5-mg twice-daily dose and a 10-mg twice-daily dose that is currently approved only for ulcerative colitis. In addition to RA and ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib is approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Pfizer announced partial results of the study, known as the ORAL Surveillance trial, in a press release on Jan. 27. The randomized trial included 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years and older who received either 5-mg or 10-mg doses of tofacitinib or a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab or etanercept).

The full results have yet to be released, but based on data from approximately 10,000 person-years for the combined tofacitinib groups and approximately 5,000 person-years for the TNF inhibitor group, the rate of major cardiovascular adverse events was significantly higher in the combined tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.33). In addition, the rate of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNF inhibitor group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.48).

In February 2019, the FDA issued a warning stating an increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose of tofacitinib, following interims results from the safety study.

In July 2019, the FDA added a boxed warning to tofacitinib advising of the increased risk for pulmonary embolism and death associated with the 10-mg twice-daily dose.

The FDA encouraged health care professionals and patients to report any side effects from tofacitinib or other medications through the FDA MedWatch program online or by phone at 1-800-332-1088.

Until nuances revealed, no change in practice

The preliminary study findings contain some nuances that are a bit complicated from a statistical standpoint, according to Daniel Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles; adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle; and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy).

Updated on 2/8/2021.

As health care providers work against the clock to administer as many COVID-19 vaccine doses as soon as possible, logistics aren’t the only thing standing in their way.

Misinformation – which has hampered the nation’s coronavirus response – is now hurting vaccination efforts, too.

About one in five Americans say they won’t take a COVID-19 vaccine, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Even a third of health care workers have voiced their hesitance.

The spread of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation creates “a really powerful parallel pandemic to the real pandemic,” Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, told NPR. The center has tracked the links between vaccine misinformation and vaccine hesitancy during the past year.

The “infodemic” is essentially “working in concert to really undermine our capacity to contain COVID,” Mr. Ahmed said.

To help combat vaccine misinformation and address lingering concerns that people have, corporate, nonprofit, and media leaders, including this news organization, are joining a public service campaign called VaxFacts. Led by HealthGuard, the goal of the campaign is to provide facts and tools to help consumers make informed decisions about vaccines.

Steven Brill, co-CEO of HealthGuard, said credible information that comes from trusted messengers is critical to counter vaccine hesitancy.

“There’s traditionally a lot of skepticism about vaccines. That has really ramped up in the last few years based on campaigns about the measles vaccine. ... And now you have the COVID vaccine, which by everybody’s understanding has been ‘rushed,’ ” Mr. Brill said during an interview on Coronavirus in Context, a video series hosted by John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD.

“There may be less understanding of the nature of what rushed really means. It’s still gone through the clinical trials it needs to go through.”

HealthGuard is a browser extension that flags health hoaxes, provides credibility ratings for hundreds of websites, and guides users to sources that offer trusted information. The tool is a new service from NewsGuard, which veteran journalists Mr. Brill and co-CEO Gordon Crovitz created in 2018 to combat misinformation in the news. HealthGuard, which is free for users globally through June, is specifically aimed at informing readers about health myths related to vaccines and COVID-19. It will cost $35 per year after that.

The HealthGuard Coronavirus Tracking Center has flagged nearly 400 websites for publishing misinformation about the coronavirus, including several top myths about COVID-19 vaccines:

• The mRNA vaccines can alter human DNA.
• Vaccines will use microchip surveillance technology.
• COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility.
• The vaccine developed by Oxford University will turn people into monkeys.
• COVID-19 vaccines contain aborted human fetal tissue.

As a partner, this news organization will feature continuing coverage of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, including articles and videos.

There will be other efforts this year. Google has launched a $3 million fund to back fact-checking organizations to counter vaccine misinformation, and social media platforms are monitoring posts that actively promote disinformation around vaccines.

The United States has distributed nearly 50 million vaccine doses, and states have administered more than 32 million of them, including 5.9 million second doses in the two-shot vaccines, according to the latest CDC update.

To reach herd immunity, about 75%-85% of Americans will need to receive a vaccine, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in December 2020.

Vaccine skepticism has increased in recent years, which has led to a decline in vaccination rates and the highest annual number of measles cases in the United States in more than 25 years, according to the Pew Research Center. In 2019, the World Health Organization named vaccine hesitancy as 1 of 10 threats to global health.

With the COVID-19 vaccines in particular, people have voiced concerns about their safety and how well they work, given their accelerated development, according to Kaiser’s poll. They’re also worried about potential side effects, the perceived role of politics in the development process, and a lack of trust in government. Others don’t trust vaccines in general or believe they may contract COVID-19 from a vaccine, the Kaiser poll found, “suggesting that messages combating particular types of misinformation may be especially important for increasing vaccine confidence.”

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

As health care providers work against the clock to administer as many COVID-19 vaccine doses as soon as possible, logistics aren’t the only thing standing in their way.

Misinformation – which has hampered the nation’s coronavirus response – is now hurting vaccination efforts, too.

About one in five Americans say they won’t take a COVID-19 vaccine, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Even a third of health care workers have voiced their hesitance.

The spread of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation creates “a really powerful parallel pandemic to the real pandemic,” Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, told NPR. The center has tracked the links between vaccine misinformation and vaccine hesitancy during the past year.

The “infodemic” is essentially “working in concert to really undermine our capacity to contain COVID,” Mr. Ahmed said.

To help combat vaccine misinformation and address lingering concerns that people have, corporate, nonprofit, and media leaders, including this news organization, are joining a public service campaign called VaxFacts. Led by HealthGuard, the goal of the campaign is to provide facts and tools to help consumers make informed decisions about vaccines.

Steven Brill, co-CEO of HealthGuard, said credible information that comes from trusted messengers is critical to counter vaccine hesitancy.

“There’s traditionally a lot of skepticism about vaccines. That has really ramped up in the last few years based on campaigns about the measles vaccine. ... And now you have the COVID vaccine, which by everybody’s understanding has been ‘rushed,’ ” Mr. Brill said during an interview on Coronavirus in Context, a video series hosted by John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD.

“There may be less understanding of the nature of what rushed really means. It’s still gone through the clinical trials it needs to go through.”

HealthGuard is a browser extension that flags health hoaxes, provides credibility ratings for hundreds of websites, and guides users to sources that offer trusted information. The tool is a new service from NewsGuard, which veteran journalists Mr. Brill and co-CEO Gordon Crovitz created in 2018 to combat misinformation in the news. HealthGuard, which is free for users globally through June, is specifically aimed at informing readers about health myths related to vaccines and COVID-19. It will cost $35 per year after that.

The HealthGuard Coronavirus Tracking Center has flagged nearly 400 websites for publishing misinformation about the coronavirus, including several top myths about COVID-19 vaccines:

• The mRNA vaccines can alter human DNA.
• Vaccines will use microchip surveillance technology.
• COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility.
• The vaccine developed by Oxford University will turn people into monkeys.
• COVID-19 vaccines contain aborted human fetal tissue.

As a partner, this news organization will feature continuing coverage of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, including articles and videos.

There will be other efforts this year. Google has launched a $3 million fund to back fact-checking organizations to counter vaccine misinformation, and social media platforms are monitoring posts that actively promote disinformation around vaccines.

The United States has distributed nearly 50 million vaccine doses, and states have administered more than 32 million of them, including 5.9 million second doses in the two-shot vaccines, according to the latest CDC update.

To reach herd immunity, about 75%-85% of Americans will need to receive a vaccine, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in December 2020.

Vaccine skepticism has increased in recent years, which has led to a decline in vaccination rates and the highest annual number of measles cases in the United States in more than 25 years, according to the Pew Research Center. In 2019, the World Health Organization named vaccine hesitancy as 1 of 10 threats to global health.

With the COVID-19 vaccines in particular, people have voiced concerns about their safety and how well they work, given their accelerated development, according to Kaiser’s poll. They’re also worried about potential side effects, the perceived role of politics in the development process, and a lack of trust in government. Others don’t trust vaccines in general or believe they may contract COVID-19 from a vaccine, the Kaiser poll found, “suggesting that messages combating particular types of misinformation may be especially important for increasing vaccine confidence.”

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

As health care providers work against the clock to administer as many COVID-19 vaccine doses as soon as possible, logistics aren’t the only thing standing in their way.

Misinformation – which has hampered the nation’s coronavirus response – is now hurting vaccination efforts, too.

About one in five Americans say they won’t take a COVID-19 vaccine, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Even a third of health care workers have voiced their hesitance.

The spread of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation creates “a really powerful parallel pandemic to the real pandemic,” Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, told NPR. The center has tracked the links between vaccine misinformation and vaccine hesitancy during the past year.

The “infodemic” is essentially “working in concert to really undermine our capacity to contain COVID,” Mr. Ahmed said.

To help combat vaccine misinformation and address lingering concerns that people have, corporate, nonprofit, and media leaders, including this news organization, are joining a public service campaign called VaxFacts. Led by HealthGuard, the goal of the campaign is to provide facts and tools to help consumers make informed decisions about vaccines.

Steven Brill, co-CEO of HealthGuard, said credible information that comes from trusted messengers is critical to counter vaccine hesitancy.

“There’s traditionally a lot of skepticism about vaccines. That has really ramped up in the last few years based on campaigns about the measles vaccine. ... And now you have the COVID vaccine, which by everybody’s understanding has been ‘rushed,’ ” Mr. Brill said during an interview on Coronavirus in Context, a video series hosted by John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD.

“There may be less understanding of the nature of what rushed really means. It’s still gone through the clinical trials it needs to go through.”

HealthGuard is a browser extension that flags health hoaxes, provides credibility ratings for hundreds of websites, and guides users to sources that offer trusted information. The tool is a new service from NewsGuard, which veteran journalists Mr. Brill and co-CEO Gordon Crovitz created in 2018 to combat misinformation in the news. HealthGuard, which is free for users globally through June, is specifically aimed at informing readers about health myths related to vaccines and COVID-19. It will cost $35 per year after that.

The HealthGuard Coronavirus Tracking Center has flagged nearly 400 websites for publishing misinformation about the coronavirus, including several top myths about COVID-19 vaccines:

• The mRNA vaccines can alter human DNA.
• Vaccines will use microchip surveillance technology.
• COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility.
• The vaccine developed by Oxford University will turn people into monkeys.
• COVID-19 vaccines contain aborted human fetal tissue.

As a partner, this news organization will feature continuing coverage of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, including articles and videos.

There will be other efforts this year. Google has launched a $3 million fund to back fact-checking organizations to counter vaccine misinformation, and social media platforms are monitoring posts that actively promote disinformation around vaccines.

The United States has distributed nearly 50 million vaccine doses, and states have administered more than 32 million of them, including 5.9 million second doses in the two-shot vaccines, according to the latest CDC update.

To reach herd immunity, about 75%-85% of Americans will need to receive a vaccine, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in December 2020.

Vaccine skepticism has increased in recent years, which has led to a decline in vaccination rates and the highest annual number of measles cases in the United States in more than 25 years, according to the Pew Research Center. In 2019, the World Health Organization named vaccine hesitancy as 1 of 10 threats to global health.

With the COVID-19 vaccines in particular, people have voiced concerns about their safety and how well they work, given their accelerated development, according to Kaiser’s poll. They’re also worried about potential side effects, the perceived role of politics in the development process, and a lack of trust in government. Others don’t trust vaccines in general or believe they may contract COVID-19 from a vaccine, the Kaiser poll found, “suggesting that messages combating particular types of misinformation may be especially important for increasing vaccine confidence.”

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

Outcomes for mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis receiving light sedation were the same whether they received dexmedetomidine or propofol, according to data from a 13-center randomized, controlled, double-blind study published online Feb. 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dexmedetomidine (an alpha2-receptor agonist) and propofol (a gamma-aminobutyric acid [GABA]–receptor agonist) have similar safety profiles.

The findings from the Maximizing the Efficacy of Sedation and Reducing Neurological Dysfunction and Mortality in Septic Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure (MENDS2) trial were published on an accelerated schedule to coincide with the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Lead author Christopher G. Hughes, MD, chief of anesthesiology in critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that previous trials have shown that dexmedetomidine is likely superior to benzodiazepines, especially in improving delirium, coma, and time on a ventilator. Until this trial, dexmedetomidine’s performance in a head-to-head comparison with propofol – the current standard-of-care agent – was not clear.

Researchers discovered that, “despite theoretical advantages of dexmedetomidine, that did not translate into the clinical realm when patients were receiving up-to-date sedation care,” he said.

Guidelines currently recommend either drug when light sedation is needed for adults on ventilators. The drugs are different in the way they affect arousability, immunity, and inflammation, but a comparison of outcomes in adults with sepsis – in terms of days alive without brain dysfunction – had never before been performed in a randomized, controlled trial.

In this trial, 422 patients were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine (0.15-1.5 mcg/kg of body weight per hour) or propofol (5-50 mcg/kg per minute). Doses were adjusted by bedside nurses (who were unblinded) to achieve specified sedation goals.

The primary outcome was days alive without delirium or coma in the 14 days of intervention. The researchers found no difference between the two groups (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.26).

There was also little difference in three secondary outcomes: ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; OR, 0.98); death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06); or the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) Total score measuring global cognition at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; OR, 0.94).

Dr. Hughes said the researchers “specifically went with a high-severity-of-illness cohort that would be most likely to see an effect.”

He said the drugs have different adverse-effect profiles, so a clinician can consider those in deciding between the two, but either should be fine at baseline.

The researchers note that at least 20 million patients each year develop sepsis with severe organ dysfunction, and more than 20% receive mechanical ventilation.
 

Confirmation of current guidelines

Sandra Kane-Gill, PharmD, president-elect of SCCM, stated in an interview that she is impressed with the study design and said the results give definitive confirmation of current guidelines.

“The rigorous study design is different from previous comparative-effectiveness trials on the drugs in this group of patients,” she said.

As to what clinicians think about when choosing one over the other, Dr. Kane-Gill said that with dexmedetomidine, there may be more concern about bradycardia, whereas propofol may be associated with concerns of high triglycerides.

“There may be more comfort with use of propofol,” and dexmedetomidine can be more costly than propofol, she added, so those could be factors in decision-making as well.

Dr. Hughes said this study offers a robust look at cognition after the ICU, which is getting increasing attention.

“We had a much more extensive cognitive battery we performed on patients than in previous studies,” Dr. Hughes said, “and it’s important that we did not find a difference in either the main cognition or the other cognitive scores between the two agents.”

Enrollment was completed before the pandemic, but he said the results are relevant to COVID-19 patients because those who are on ventilators in the ICU are in a sick, septic-shock cohort.

“COVID patients would be the type of patients we enrolled in this study,” he said, “with the high severity of illness and the infection on top of being on a ventilator. We know that sedation regimens have been challenging in COVID patients.”

Dr. Hughes and Dr. Kane-Gill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes for mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis receiving light sedation were the same whether they received dexmedetomidine or propofol, according to data from a 13-center randomized, controlled, double-blind study published online Feb. 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dexmedetomidine (an alpha2-receptor agonist) and propofol (a gamma-aminobutyric acid [GABA]–receptor agonist) have similar safety profiles.

The findings from the Maximizing the Efficacy of Sedation and Reducing Neurological Dysfunction and Mortality in Septic Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure (MENDS2) trial were published on an accelerated schedule to coincide with the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Lead author Christopher G. Hughes, MD, chief of anesthesiology in critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that previous trials have shown that dexmedetomidine is likely superior to benzodiazepines, especially in improving delirium, coma, and time on a ventilator. Until this trial, dexmedetomidine’s performance in a head-to-head comparison with propofol – the current standard-of-care agent – was not clear.

Researchers discovered that, “despite theoretical advantages of dexmedetomidine, that did not translate into the clinical realm when patients were receiving up-to-date sedation care,” he said.

Guidelines currently recommend either drug when light sedation is needed for adults on ventilators. The drugs are different in the way they affect arousability, immunity, and inflammation, but a comparison of outcomes in adults with sepsis – in terms of days alive without brain dysfunction – had never before been performed in a randomized, controlled trial.

In this trial, 422 patients were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine (0.15-1.5 mcg/kg of body weight per hour) or propofol (5-50 mcg/kg per minute). Doses were adjusted by bedside nurses (who were unblinded) to achieve specified sedation goals.

The primary outcome was days alive without delirium or coma in the 14 days of intervention. The researchers found no difference between the two groups (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.26).

There was also little difference in three secondary outcomes: ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; OR, 0.98); death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06); or the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) Total score measuring global cognition at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; OR, 0.94).

Dr. Hughes said the researchers “specifically went with a high-severity-of-illness cohort that would be most likely to see an effect.”

He said the drugs have different adverse-effect profiles, so a clinician can consider those in deciding between the two, but either should be fine at baseline.

The researchers note that at least 20 million patients each year develop sepsis with severe organ dysfunction, and more than 20% receive mechanical ventilation.
 

Confirmation of current guidelines

Sandra Kane-Gill, PharmD, president-elect of SCCM, stated in an interview that she is impressed with the study design and said the results give definitive confirmation of current guidelines.

“The rigorous study design is different from previous comparative-effectiveness trials on the drugs in this group of patients,” she said.

As to what clinicians think about when choosing one over the other, Dr. Kane-Gill said that with dexmedetomidine, there may be more concern about bradycardia, whereas propofol may be associated with concerns of high triglycerides.

“There may be more comfort with use of propofol,” and dexmedetomidine can be more costly than propofol, she added, so those could be factors in decision-making as well.

Dr. Hughes said this study offers a robust look at cognition after the ICU, which is getting increasing attention.

“We had a much more extensive cognitive battery we performed on patients than in previous studies,” Dr. Hughes said, “and it’s important that we did not find a difference in either the main cognition or the other cognitive scores between the two agents.”

Enrollment was completed before the pandemic, but he said the results are relevant to COVID-19 patients because those who are on ventilators in the ICU are in a sick, septic-shock cohort.

“COVID patients would be the type of patients we enrolled in this study,” he said, “with the high severity of illness and the infection on top of being on a ventilator. We know that sedation regimens have been challenging in COVID patients.”

Dr. Hughes and Dr. Kane-Gill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes for mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis receiving light sedation were the same whether they received dexmedetomidine or propofol, according to data from a 13-center randomized, controlled, double-blind study published online Feb. 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dexmedetomidine (an alpha2-receptor agonist) and propofol (a gamma-aminobutyric acid [GABA]–receptor agonist) have similar safety profiles.

The findings from the Maximizing the Efficacy of Sedation and Reducing Neurological Dysfunction and Mortality in Septic Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure (MENDS2) trial were published on an accelerated schedule to coincide with the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Lead author Christopher G. Hughes, MD, chief of anesthesiology in critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that previous trials have shown that dexmedetomidine is likely superior to benzodiazepines, especially in improving delirium, coma, and time on a ventilator. Until this trial, dexmedetomidine’s performance in a head-to-head comparison with propofol – the current standard-of-care agent – was not clear.

Researchers discovered that, “despite theoretical advantages of dexmedetomidine, that did not translate into the clinical realm when patients were receiving up-to-date sedation care,” he said.

Guidelines currently recommend either drug when light sedation is needed for adults on ventilators. The drugs are different in the way they affect arousability, immunity, and inflammation, but a comparison of outcomes in adults with sepsis – in terms of days alive without brain dysfunction – had never before been performed in a randomized, controlled trial.

In this trial, 422 patients were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine (0.15-1.5 mcg/kg of body weight per hour) or propofol (5-50 mcg/kg per minute). Doses were adjusted by bedside nurses (who were unblinded) to achieve specified sedation goals.

The primary outcome was days alive without delirium or coma in the 14 days of intervention. The researchers found no difference between the two groups (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.26).

There was also little difference in three secondary outcomes: ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; OR, 0.98); death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06); or the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) Total score measuring global cognition at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; OR, 0.94).

Dr. Hughes said the researchers “specifically went with a high-severity-of-illness cohort that would be most likely to see an effect.”

He said the drugs have different adverse-effect profiles, so a clinician can consider those in deciding between the two, but either should be fine at baseline.

The researchers note that at least 20 million patients each year develop sepsis with severe organ dysfunction, and more than 20% receive mechanical ventilation.
 

Confirmation of current guidelines

Sandra Kane-Gill, PharmD, president-elect of SCCM, stated in an interview that she is impressed with the study design and said the results give definitive confirmation of current guidelines.

“The rigorous study design is different from previous comparative-effectiveness trials on the drugs in this group of patients,” she said.

As to what clinicians think about when choosing one over the other, Dr. Kane-Gill said that with dexmedetomidine, there may be more concern about bradycardia, whereas propofol may be associated with concerns of high triglycerides.

“There may be more comfort with use of propofol,” and dexmedetomidine can be more costly than propofol, she added, so those could be factors in decision-making as well.

Dr. Hughes said this study offers a robust look at cognition after the ICU, which is getting increasing attention.

“We had a much more extensive cognitive battery we performed on patients than in previous studies,” Dr. Hughes said, “and it’s important that we did not find a difference in either the main cognition or the other cognitive scores between the two agents.”

Enrollment was completed before the pandemic, but he said the results are relevant to COVID-19 patients because those who are on ventilators in the ICU are in a sick, septic-shock cohort.

“COVID patients would be the type of patients we enrolled in this study,” he said, “with the high severity of illness and the infection on top of being on a ventilator. We know that sedation regimens have been challenging in COVID patients.”

Dr. Hughes and Dr. Kane-Gill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

The gout drug colchicine appears to lower the severity of COVID-19, a small new Brazilian study finds, adding to evidence that the familiar medication holds promise as a treatment for hospitalized patients.

Patients who received colchicine in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial presented better evolution in terms of the need for supplemental oxygen and the length of hospitalisation. ... Colchicine was safe and well tolerated,” the study authors wrote in RMD Open. However, deaths were rare in the trial, they added, and it is impossible to “evaluate the capacity of colchicine to avoid admission to ICU and reduce mortality.”

The oral anti-inflammatory colchicine, widely used as treatment in rheumatic disease, was first approved in the United States 60 years ago. Researchers began to explore its potential as a COVID-19 treatment in the early months of the pandemic.

On Jan. 25, an international team of researchers reported in a press release – but not yet a published paper – that the drug seemed to reduce hospitalizations, mechanical ventilation, and deaths in the ColCORONA trial. Earlier, a much-smaller, randomized, open-label, Greek trial linked the drug to reduced time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay.

The Brazilian authors of the new study, led by Maria Isabel Lopes of the University of São Paulo’s Ribeirão Preto Medical School, randomly assigned 75 hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 to colchicine or placebo. A total of 72 subjects completed the April-August 2020 trial: 36 received colchicine (typically 0.5 mg three times for 5 days, then 0.5 mg twice daily for 5 days; doses were adjusted in low-weight patients and those with chronic kidney disease). The other 36 received the placebo.

(In the United States, 0.6-mg tablets of generic colchicine cost as little as $1.90 each with free coupons, according to goodrx.com.)

The median age in the groups was similar (55 years); and the placebo group had more women (61% vs. 47% in the colchicine group, P = .34). All 72 patients received the same COVID-19 treatment at the time of the trial: azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, and unfractionated heparin. Most patients, about two-thirds in both groups, also received methylprednisolone because they needed higher amounts of supplemental oxygen.

Patients in the colchicine group needed supplemental oxygen for less time: Their median time of need was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-6.0) vs. 6.5 days (IQR, 4.0-9.0) for the placebo group (P < .001). The median time for hospitalization was also lower at 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0–9.0) for the colchicine group vs. 9.0 (IQR, 7.0–12.0) for the placebo group (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001).

The researchers also reported the percentage of patients who needed supplemental oxygen at day 2 as 67% with colchicine vs. 86% with placebo, and at day 7 as 9% vs. 42% (log rank test, 10.6; P = .001). Two patients in the placebo group died, both from ventilator-associated pneumonia.

As for side effects, new or worsened diarrhea was reported more often in the colchicine group (17% vs. 6% with placebo), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .26), and diarrhea was controlled via medication.

The researchers reported that limitations include the exclusion criteria and their inability to link colchicine to rates of ICU admissions and death.

The drug appears to help patients with COVID-19, the study authors wrote, by “inhibiting inflammasome, reducing neutrophil migration and activation, or preventing endothelial damage.”

A “well-conceived and well-designed” study

In an interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatologist Michael H. Pillinger, MD – an investigator with the ColCORONA trial – praised the Brazilian study. It “appears well-conceived and well-designed, and was enrolled at a rate that was greater than the sample size that was estimated to be needed based on power analysis,” he said.

The Brazilian study is small, he noted. (In contrast, the ColCORONA trial had 4,488 outpatient participants.) “This study differs from ColCORONA in several ways – the most important being that it is a study of inpatients with moderate to severe COVID (really mostly moderate),” he added. “ColCORONA is looking at a target audience that is much larger – outpatients with mild to moderate COVID with risk factors for hospitalization. Both questions are really important and certainly not mutually exclusive, since our care remains inadequate in both venues. This study also adds value in that several other studies have been conducted in hospital patients with enrollment criteria relatively similar to this one, and all showed benefit, but those were open-label or retrospective, and this is blinded and placebo-controlled.”
 

Using colchicine in patients with COVID-19

Should physicians turn to colchicine in patients with COVID-19? “I would rather that it still be used in the context of research until formal recommendations can be made by bodies like the NIH and CDC,” Dr. Pillinger said. “But certainly, there may be times when physicians feel compelled to treat patients off label.”

He cautioned, however, that colchicine should never be used with some other drugs. Its interaction with the antibiotic clarithromycin can be fatal, he noted. And, he said, the drug must be monitored in general since it can cause rare, severe problems.

“Overall, colchicine probably works on the overabundant inflammatory response to COVID, and it may be that it can be combined with other drugs that affect viral replication or promote immunity – e.g. vaccines,” Dr. Pillinger said. “So far, it seems as if there is no safety problem with combining colchicine with other approaches, but this has not been studied in a rigorous manner.”

Moving forward, he said, the drug’s very low price outside of the United States “could provide resource-poor countries with a way to help keep patients out of precious hospital beds – or help them go home sooner once admitted.” For now, however, “we need a large-scale inpatient study, and one is currently going on in Great Britain. We also need validation of the outpatient ColCORONA study, and studies to look at whether colchicine can work in conjunction with other strategies.”

The study was funded by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and CAPES Foundation. No disclosures are reported. Dr. Pillinger reports serving as an investigator for the ColCORONA trial and receiving a unrelated investigator-initiated grant from Hikma, a colchicine manufacturer.

A novel community-based testing model has shown promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The model is a socially distanced version of the Flu-Fecal Immunochemical Test (Flu-FIT) program, called Drive By Flu-FIT.

The original Flu-FIT program was designed to increase access to CRC screening by offering home FIT tests to patients at the time of their annual flu shots. The program has been shown to increase CRC screening in diverse populations.

Researchers wanted to determine if a drive-by version of Flu-FIT could counteract the decrease in CRC screening seen during the pandemic, so they conducted a pilot study.

“FIT-based CRC screening overcomes many of the challenges to colonoscopy-based screening due to COVID-19, [such as] not requiring an office visit, thereby overcoming workforce disruptions and many patient concerns,” explained investigator Armenta Washington of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Ms. Washington presented results with Drive By Flu-FIT at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S02-04).
 

About the study

The pilot study of Drive By Flu-FIT was conducted in collaboration with the Einstein Healthcare Network and Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church, the largest Baptist church in the Philadelphia region.

The program enrolled community members into one of three Drive By Flu-FIT events, which took place between October and November 2020. Eligible participants were aged 45-75 years and at average risk for CRC.

Interested candidates completed eligibility, registration, and demographic questionnaires electronically prior to enrollment.

Patients who enrolled watched a 7-minute CRC educational video and completed two questionnaires – one on CRC screening knowledge and one on screening intentions – before and after watching the video.

At the events, participants remained in their cars while physicians in personal protective equipment provided instructions on how to use the FIT and how to return the completed test to a medical collection box, as well as answering questions. Participants also had the option to receive a flu vaccine at the event.
 

Results

Among 335 registered participants, 80 (23.9%) did not ultimately attend an event, and 63 (18.8%) were deemed ineligible.

So 192 patients attended a Drive By Flu-FIT event and received a FIT (57.3%). Patients with symptoms/signs and family history of CRC were referred for colonoscopy.

Among patients who received a FIT, the mean age was 58.9 years, 60.4% were female, 93.8% self-identified as Black, 1.6% self-identified as Hispanic, 15.5% were uninsured, and 54.6% had been previously screened for CRC.

The researchers found that scores on the knowledge questionnaire increased after the video intervention (P = .0006), as did the intention to screen scores (P = .007).

“Baseline knowledge about CRC was high, with the exception of four items related to risk factors, frequency of FIT, Lynch syndrome, and the relationship between physical activity and the risk for CRC,” Ms. Washington explained. “All knowledge scores increased after the video, except for one item related to the early discovery of CRC and its relationship to survival.”

Among the 192 participants who received a FIT, 38 (19.7%) did not return it, 141 (73.4%) had a negative FIT result, and 13 (6.7%) had a positive FIT result and were referred to colonoscopy. The colonoscopy results are pending.

“Overall, we believe that this research shows that a social-distanced, Drive By Flu-FIT program is feasible, acceptable, and effective in engaging the community in CRC education and screening during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Washington said.

During a live discussion, Ms. Washington also noted that most patients opted to receive both the FIT test and the flu vaccine.

“This was certainly great work, especially with the outreach that was done,” commented moderator Ana Maria Lopez, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

The researchers plan to use the results of this pilot study to test and evaluate a Drive By COVID-19 vaccine-FIT model in spring 2021.

Ms. Washington and Dr. Lopez disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute.  The FITs were donated by Polymedco Inc., and the flu vaccines were donated by the Philadelphia Public Health Department.

A novel community-based testing model has shown promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The model is a socially distanced version of the Flu-Fecal Immunochemical Test (Flu-FIT) program, called Drive By Flu-FIT.

The original Flu-FIT program was designed to increase access to CRC screening by offering home FIT tests to patients at the time of their annual flu shots. The program has been shown to increase CRC screening in diverse populations.

Researchers wanted to determine if a drive-by version of Flu-FIT could counteract the decrease in CRC screening seen during the pandemic, so they conducted a pilot study.

“FIT-based CRC screening overcomes many of the challenges to colonoscopy-based screening due to COVID-19, [such as] not requiring an office visit, thereby overcoming workforce disruptions and many patient concerns,” explained investigator Armenta Washington of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Ms. Washington presented results with Drive By Flu-FIT at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S02-04).
 

About the study

The pilot study of Drive By Flu-FIT was conducted in collaboration with the Einstein Healthcare Network and Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church, the largest Baptist church in the Philadelphia region.

The program enrolled community members into one of three Drive By Flu-FIT events, which took place between October and November 2020. Eligible participants were aged 45-75 years and at average risk for CRC.

Interested candidates completed eligibility, registration, and demographic questionnaires electronically prior to enrollment.

Patients who enrolled watched a 7-minute CRC educational video and completed two questionnaires – one on CRC screening knowledge and one on screening intentions – before and after watching the video.

At the events, participants remained in their cars while physicians in personal protective equipment provided instructions on how to use the FIT and how to return the completed test to a medical collection box, as well as answering questions. Participants also had the option to receive a flu vaccine at the event.
 

Results

Among 335 registered participants, 80 (23.9%) did not ultimately attend an event, and 63 (18.8%) were deemed ineligible.

So 192 patients attended a Drive By Flu-FIT event and received a FIT (57.3%). Patients with symptoms/signs and family history of CRC were referred for colonoscopy.

Among patients who received a FIT, the mean age was 58.9 years, 60.4% were female, 93.8% self-identified as Black, 1.6% self-identified as Hispanic, 15.5% were uninsured, and 54.6% had been previously screened for CRC.

The researchers found that scores on the knowledge questionnaire increased after the video intervention (P = .0006), as did the intention to screen scores (P = .007).

“Baseline knowledge about CRC was high, with the exception of four items related to risk factors, frequency of FIT, Lynch syndrome, and the relationship between physical activity and the risk for CRC,” Ms. Washington explained. “All knowledge scores increased after the video, except for one item related to the early discovery of CRC and its relationship to survival.”

Among the 192 participants who received a FIT, 38 (19.7%) did not return it, 141 (73.4%) had a negative FIT result, and 13 (6.7%) had a positive FIT result and were referred to colonoscopy. The colonoscopy results are pending.

“Overall, we believe that this research shows that a social-distanced, Drive By Flu-FIT program is feasible, acceptable, and effective in engaging the community in CRC education and screening during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Washington said.

During a live discussion, Ms. Washington also noted that most patients opted to receive both the FIT test and the flu vaccine.

“This was certainly great work, especially with the outreach that was done,” commented moderator Ana Maria Lopez, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

The researchers plan to use the results of this pilot study to test and evaluate a Drive By COVID-19 vaccine-FIT model in spring 2021.

Ms. Washington and Dr. Lopez disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute.  The FITs were donated by Polymedco Inc., and the flu vaccines were donated by the Philadelphia Public Health Department.

A novel community-based testing model has shown promise for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The model is a socially distanced version of the Flu-Fecal Immunochemical Test (Flu-FIT) program, called Drive By Flu-FIT.

The original Flu-FIT program was designed to increase access to CRC screening by offering home FIT tests to patients at the time of their annual flu shots. The program has been shown to increase CRC screening in diverse populations.

Researchers wanted to determine if a drive-by version of Flu-FIT could counteract the decrease in CRC screening seen during the pandemic, so they conducted a pilot study.

“FIT-based CRC screening overcomes many of the challenges to colonoscopy-based screening due to COVID-19, [such as] not requiring an office visit, thereby overcoming workforce disruptions and many patient concerns,” explained investigator Armenta Washington of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Ms. Washington presented results with Drive By Flu-FIT at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S02-04).
 

About the study

The pilot study of Drive By Flu-FIT was conducted in collaboration with the Einstein Healthcare Network and Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church, the largest Baptist church in the Philadelphia region.

The program enrolled community members into one of three Drive By Flu-FIT events, which took place between October and November 2020. Eligible participants were aged 45-75 years and at average risk for CRC.

Interested candidates completed eligibility, registration, and demographic questionnaires electronically prior to enrollment.

Patients who enrolled watched a 7-minute CRC educational video and completed two questionnaires – one on CRC screening knowledge and one on screening intentions – before and after watching the video.

At the events, participants remained in their cars while physicians in personal protective equipment provided instructions on how to use the FIT and how to return the completed test to a medical collection box, as well as answering questions. Participants also had the option to receive a flu vaccine at the event.
 

Results

Among 335 registered participants, 80 (23.9%) did not ultimately attend an event, and 63 (18.8%) were deemed ineligible.

So 192 patients attended a Drive By Flu-FIT event and received a FIT (57.3%). Patients with symptoms/signs and family history of CRC were referred for colonoscopy.

Among patients who received a FIT, the mean age was 58.9 years, 60.4% were female, 93.8% self-identified as Black, 1.6% self-identified as Hispanic, 15.5% were uninsured, and 54.6% had been previously screened for CRC.

The researchers found that scores on the knowledge questionnaire increased after the video intervention (P = .0006), as did the intention to screen scores (P = .007).

“Baseline knowledge about CRC was high, with the exception of four items related to risk factors, frequency of FIT, Lynch syndrome, and the relationship between physical activity and the risk for CRC,” Ms. Washington explained. “All knowledge scores increased after the video, except for one item related to the early discovery of CRC and its relationship to survival.”

Among the 192 participants who received a FIT, 38 (19.7%) did not return it, 141 (73.4%) had a negative FIT result, and 13 (6.7%) had a positive FIT result and were referred to colonoscopy. The colonoscopy results are pending.

“Overall, we believe that this research shows that a social-distanced, Drive By Flu-FIT program is feasible, acceptable, and effective in engaging the community in CRC education and screening during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Washington said.

During a live discussion, Ms. Washington also noted that most patients opted to receive both the FIT test and the flu vaccine.

“This was certainly great work, especially with the outreach that was done,” commented moderator Ana Maria Lopez, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

The researchers plan to use the results of this pilot study to test and evaluate a Drive By COVID-19 vaccine-FIT model in spring 2021.

Ms. Washington and Dr. Lopez disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute.  The FITs were donated by Polymedco Inc., and the flu vaccines were donated by the Philadelphia Public Health Department.

Patients who received telemedicine in an intensive care unit were less likely to die and more likely to have a shorter hospital stay than those who received standard ICU care without a 24-hour intensivist on-site, new data suggest.

Chiedozie I. Udeh, MD, staff intensivist with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, presented results of a retrospective study of 153,987 consecutive ICU patients at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. .

Among the statistically significant findings were that 30-day mortality decreased by 18% (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.87) and length of stay in the ICU decreased by 1.6 days in the telehealth model (95% CI, 1.5-1.7), compared with the traditional model. The total length of the average hospital stay was reduced by 2.1 days (95% CI, 1.9-2.4).

Patients in the study received ICU care at one of nine Cleveland Clinic hospitals between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2019. Overall, 108,482 (70%) received ICU-telemedicine care during hours when an intensivist was not on-site.

Dr. Udeh said in an interview that only the largest academic centers typically have an intensivist on-site 24 hours a day. In the traditional model, critical care specialists may be on-site during the day but on call after hours.

In the tele-ICU model, in contrast, an intensivist – perhaps at a command center serving several hospitals – can observe and order treatments for patients remotely. The specialist has access to the patient’s medical record and test results, can monitor vital signs and visible changes, and can talk with both the patient and the nurse or other provider in the room.

Dr. Udeh said he suspects the 18% drop in mortality risk and the shorter hospital stay come from time saved. The physician doesn’t have to ask the nurse to look up health information and with constant monitoring can spot problems sooner or prevent them.

“You reduce a lot of the time from event to intervention or prevent an event by being more proactive,” Dr. Udeh said.

Ben Scott, MD, associate professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview that his institution uses the tele-ICU model in several of the smaller hospitals there and is not surprised that Dr. Udeh’s team found such positive results. Dr. Scott was not involved in Dr. Udeh’s study.

“Most of us who have been working in this area and studying the results believe that these programs can make a big difference,” said Dr. Scott, vice chair for the SCCM tele-critical-care committee.

The smaller UC hospitals have ICU capability but not the census numbers to warrant 24-hour intensivist coverage. Of course, they do have 24-hour nursing coverage, and they typically use telemedicine when an intensivist is needed during the night, Dr. Scott said.
 

Hard to pinpoint telemedicine’s role

Dr. Scott said it’s hard to determine from studies how much telemedicine is influencing outcomes, compared with potentially confounding factors. A hospital with several ICUs might choose to send a patient to a certain ICU for a particular reason, which could confound comparisons.

The statistical techniques Dr. Udeh’s team used, however, helped account for confounding, Dr. Scott said. The extended years for the study and large patient sample also strengthen confidence in the results, he said.

The researchers found that several factors can increase an ICU patient’s risk of dying, including the reason for admission (such as cardiac arrest or sepsis), being admitted on a weekend, and the patient’s race. But they found that telemedicine might mitigate the effects of weekend admissions; the telemedicine patients admitted on a weekend in this study were no more likely to die than those admitted on a weekday.

The telemedicine model is especially important in areas without intensivists.

“If my only recourse is to send my patient out of town or out of state to another hospital, it’s a win-win,” Dr. Udeh said.

Regardless of the resources of individual hospitals, the national picture is clear, he said. “We just don’t have enough people trained in critical care to place an intensivist in every ICU 24/7.”

In late January, Santa Cruz Valley Regional Hospital in Green Valley, Ariz., temporarily shut down its ICU. The hospital CEO said the closure came because the hospital was unable to hire a pulmonologist.
 

Balancing cost issues

Cost issues with the tele-ICU have been a barrier for widespread adoption, Dr. Udeh said. He estimated that only about 15%-20% of hospitals incorporate the model.

Hospitals must pay for hardware and the telehealth service while still needing to have someone on staff available to come in if a physician’s presence is needed. And so far, those costs are not generally reimbursable by payers.

Hospitals must balance the costs with the potential for better outcomes and shorter stays, he said.

The model has benefits for the provider as well.

Dr. Udeh recounted being awakened by a call in the middle of the night and fighting off grogginess to quickly process information and make critical decisions.

But with the tele-ICU model, providers are awake for a specified shift and are periodically rounding on patients electronically with real-time access to health information.

Dr. Udeh said many of the tele-ICU platforms have decision support built in, with various degrees of complexity, so that the system might flag when a patient’s blood pressure is trending down, for example.

Although this research used prepandemic data, COVID-19 has highlighted the need for solutions to stretch ICU workforces.

Dr. Scott pointed out that in the pandemic, many hospitals that don’t have regular critical care services have had to take care of critically ill patients.

Having a telemedicine program can help bring that expertise to the bedside, he said.

Dr. Udeh, his coinvestigators, and Dr. Scott have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who received telemedicine in an intensive care unit were less likely to die and more likely to have a shorter hospital stay than those who received standard ICU care without a 24-hour intensivist on-site, new data suggest.

Chiedozie I. Udeh, MD, staff intensivist with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, presented results of a retrospective study of 153,987 consecutive ICU patients at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. .

Among the statistically significant findings were that 30-day mortality decreased by 18% (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.87) and length of stay in the ICU decreased by 1.6 days in the telehealth model (95% CI, 1.5-1.7), compared with the traditional model. The total length of the average hospital stay was reduced by 2.1 days (95% CI, 1.9-2.4).

Patients in the study received ICU care at one of nine Cleveland Clinic hospitals between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2019. Overall, 108,482 (70%) received ICU-telemedicine care during hours when an intensivist was not on-site.

Dr. Udeh said in an interview that only the largest academic centers typically have an intensivist on-site 24 hours a day. In the traditional model, critical care specialists may be on-site during the day but on call after hours.

In the tele-ICU model, in contrast, an intensivist – perhaps at a command center serving several hospitals – can observe and order treatments for patients remotely. The specialist has access to the patient’s medical record and test results, can monitor vital signs and visible changes, and can talk with both the patient and the nurse or other provider in the room.

Dr. Udeh said he suspects the 18% drop in mortality risk and the shorter hospital stay come from time saved. The physician doesn’t have to ask the nurse to look up health information and with constant monitoring can spot problems sooner or prevent them.

“You reduce a lot of the time from event to intervention or prevent an event by being more proactive,” Dr. Udeh said.

Ben Scott, MD, associate professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview that his institution uses the tele-ICU model in several of the smaller hospitals there and is not surprised that Dr. Udeh’s team found such positive results. Dr. Scott was not involved in Dr. Udeh’s study.

“Most of us who have been working in this area and studying the results believe that these programs can make a big difference,” said Dr. Scott, vice chair for the SCCM tele-critical-care committee.

The smaller UC hospitals have ICU capability but not the census numbers to warrant 24-hour intensivist coverage. Of course, they do have 24-hour nursing coverage, and they typically use telemedicine when an intensivist is needed during the night, Dr. Scott said.
 

Hard to pinpoint telemedicine’s role

Dr. Scott said it’s hard to determine from studies how much telemedicine is influencing outcomes, compared with potentially confounding factors. A hospital with several ICUs might choose to send a patient to a certain ICU for a particular reason, which could confound comparisons.

The statistical techniques Dr. Udeh’s team used, however, helped account for confounding, Dr. Scott said. The extended years for the study and large patient sample also strengthen confidence in the results, he said.

The researchers found that several factors can increase an ICU patient’s risk of dying, including the reason for admission (such as cardiac arrest or sepsis), being admitted on a weekend, and the patient’s race. But they found that telemedicine might mitigate the effects of weekend admissions; the telemedicine patients admitted on a weekend in this study were no more likely to die than those admitted on a weekday.

The telemedicine model is especially important in areas without intensivists.

“If my only recourse is to send my patient out of town or out of state to another hospital, it’s a win-win,” Dr. Udeh said.

Regardless of the resources of individual hospitals, the national picture is clear, he said. “We just don’t have enough people trained in critical care to place an intensivist in every ICU 24/7.”

In late January, Santa Cruz Valley Regional Hospital in Green Valley, Ariz., temporarily shut down its ICU. The hospital CEO said the closure came because the hospital was unable to hire a pulmonologist.
 

Balancing cost issues

Cost issues with the tele-ICU have been a barrier for widespread adoption, Dr. Udeh said. He estimated that only about 15%-20% of hospitals incorporate the model.

Hospitals must pay for hardware and the telehealth service while still needing to have someone on staff available to come in if a physician’s presence is needed. And so far, those costs are not generally reimbursable by payers.

Hospitals must balance the costs with the potential for better outcomes and shorter stays, he said.

The model has benefits for the provider as well.

Dr. Udeh recounted being awakened by a call in the middle of the night and fighting off grogginess to quickly process information and make critical decisions.

But with the tele-ICU model, providers are awake for a specified shift and are periodically rounding on patients electronically with real-time access to health information.

Dr. Udeh said many of the tele-ICU platforms have decision support built in, with various degrees of complexity, so that the system might flag when a patient’s blood pressure is trending down, for example.

Although this research used prepandemic data, COVID-19 has highlighted the need for solutions to stretch ICU workforces.

Dr. Scott pointed out that in the pandemic, many hospitals that don’t have regular critical care services have had to take care of critically ill patients.

Having a telemedicine program can help bring that expertise to the bedside, he said.

Dr. Udeh, his coinvestigators, and Dr. Scott have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who received telemedicine in an intensive care unit were less likely to die and more likely to have a shorter hospital stay than those who received standard ICU care without a 24-hour intensivist on-site, new data suggest.

Chiedozie I. Udeh, MD, staff intensivist with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, presented results of a retrospective study of 153,987 consecutive ICU patients at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. .

Among the statistically significant findings were that 30-day mortality decreased by 18% (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.87) and length of stay in the ICU decreased by 1.6 days in the telehealth model (95% CI, 1.5-1.7), compared with the traditional model. The total length of the average hospital stay was reduced by 2.1 days (95% CI, 1.9-2.4).

Patients in the study received ICU care at one of nine Cleveland Clinic hospitals between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2019. Overall, 108,482 (70%) received ICU-telemedicine care during hours when an intensivist was not on-site.

Dr. Udeh said in an interview that only the largest academic centers typically have an intensivist on-site 24 hours a day. In the traditional model, critical care specialists may be on-site during the day but on call after hours.

In the tele-ICU model, in contrast, an intensivist – perhaps at a command center serving several hospitals – can observe and order treatments for patients remotely. The specialist has access to the patient’s medical record and test results, can monitor vital signs and visible changes, and can talk with both the patient and the nurse or other provider in the room.

Dr. Udeh said he suspects the 18% drop in mortality risk and the shorter hospital stay come from time saved. The physician doesn’t have to ask the nurse to look up health information and with constant monitoring can spot problems sooner or prevent them.

“You reduce a lot of the time from event to intervention or prevent an event by being more proactive,” Dr. Udeh said.

Ben Scott, MD, associate professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview that his institution uses the tele-ICU model in several of the smaller hospitals there and is not surprised that Dr. Udeh’s team found such positive results. Dr. Scott was not involved in Dr. Udeh’s study.

“Most of us who have been working in this area and studying the results believe that these programs can make a big difference,” said Dr. Scott, vice chair for the SCCM tele-critical-care committee.

The smaller UC hospitals have ICU capability but not the census numbers to warrant 24-hour intensivist coverage. Of course, they do have 24-hour nursing coverage, and they typically use telemedicine when an intensivist is needed during the night, Dr. Scott said.
 

Hard to pinpoint telemedicine’s role

Dr. Scott said it’s hard to determine from studies how much telemedicine is influencing outcomes, compared with potentially confounding factors. A hospital with several ICUs might choose to send a patient to a certain ICU for a particular reason, which could confound comparisons.

The statistical techniques Dr. Udeh’s team used, however, helped account for confounding, Dr. Scott said. The extended years for the study and large patient sample also strengthen confidence in the results, he said.

The researchers found that several factors can increase an ICU patient’s risk of dying, including the reason for admission (such as cardiac arrest or sepsis), being admitted on a weekend, and the patient’s race. But they found that telemedicine might mitigate the effects of weekend admissions; the telemedicine patients admitted on a weekend in this study were no more likely to die than those admitted on a weekday.

The telemedicine model is especially important in areas without intensivists.

“If my only recourse is to send my patient out of town or out of state to another hospital, it’s a win-win,” Dr. Udeh said.

Regardless of the resources of individual hospitals, the national picture is clear, he said. “We just don’t have enough people trained in critical care to place an intensivist in every ICU 24/7.”

In late January, Santa Cruz Valley Regional Hospital in Green Valley, Ariz., temporarily shut down its ICU. The hospital CEO said the closure came because the hospital was unable to hire a pulmonologist.
 

Balancing cost issues

Cost issues with the tele-ICU have been a barrier for widespread adoption, Dr. Udeh said. He estimated that only about 15%-20% of hospitals incorporate the model.

Hospitals must pay for hardware and the telehealth service while still needing to have someone on staff available to come in if a physician’s presence is needed. And so far, those costs are not generally reimbursable by payers.

Hospitals must balance the costs with the potential for better outcomes and shorter stays, he said.

The model has benefits for the provider as well.

Dr. Udeh recounted being awakened by a call in the middle of the night and fighting off grogginess to quickly process information and make critical decisions.

But with the tele-ICU model, providers are awake for a specified shift and are periodically rounding on patients electronically with real-time access to health information.

Dr. Udeh said many of the tele-ICU platforms have decision support built in, with various degrees of complexity, so that the system might flag when a patient’s blood pressure is trending down, for example.

Although this research used prepandemic data, COVID-19 has highlighted the need for solutions to stretch ICU workforces.

Dr. Scott pointed out that in the pandemic, many hospitals that don’t have regular critical care services have had to take care of critically ill patients.

Having a telemedicine program can help bring that expertise to the bedside, he said.

Dr. Udeh, his coinvestigators, and Dr. Scott have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has extended the review period for aducanumab, the investigational amyloid-clearing treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, by 3 months, the drug’s manufacturers have announced. The updated prescription drug user fee act (PDUFA) action date has been pushed forward from March 7 to June 7, 2021.

“As part of the ongoing review, Biogen submitted a response to an information request by the FDA, including additional analyses and clinical data, which the FDA considered a major amendment to the application that will require additional time for review,” Biogen and Eisai said in a statement.

“We are committed to working with the FDA as it completes its review of the aducanumab application. We want to thank the FDA for its continued diligence during the review,” said Biogen CEO Michel Vounatsos.

Biogen submitted the aducanumab application for approval to the FDA in July 2020. The FDA accepted it in August and granted priority review.

Aducanumab is a recombinant human monoclonal antibody targeting beta-amyloid (Abeta). If approved, it would be the first disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.

However, the road to approval has been bumpy. In November, despite high expectations and pleas from patients, caregivers, and advocacy groups, an FDA advisory panel declined to recommend approval of aducanumab.

As previously reported by this news organization, members of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee determined that results from Biogen’s one large positive trial did not provide strong enough evidence of efficacy for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has extended the review period for aducanumab, the investigational amyloid-clearing treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, by 3 months, the drug’s manufacturers have announced. The updated prescription drug user fee act (PDUFA) action date has been pushed forward from March 7 to June 7, 2021.

“As part of the ongoing review, Biogen submitted a response to an information request by the FDA, including additional analyses and clinical data, which the FDA considered a major amendment to the application that will require additional time for review,” Biogen and Eisai said in a statement.

“We are committed to working with the FDA as it completes its review of the aducanumab application. We want to thank the FDA for its continued diligence during the review,” said Biogen CEO Michel Vounatsos.

Biogen submitted the aducanumab application for approval to the FDA in July 2020. The FDA accepted it in August and granted priority review.

Aducanumab is a recombinant human monoclonal antibody targeting beta-amyloid (Abeta). If approved, it would be the first disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.

However, the road to approval has been bumpy. In November, despite high expectations and pleas from patients, caregivers, and advocacy groups, an FDA advisory panel declined to recommend approval of aducanumab.

As previously reported by this news organization, members of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee determined that results from Biogen’s one large positive trial did not provide strong enough evidence of efficacy for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has extended the review period for aducanumab, the investigational amyloid-clearing treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, by 3 months, the drug’s manufacturers have announced. The updated prescription drug user fee act (PDUFA) action date has been pushed forward from March 7 to June 7, 2021.

“As part of the ongoing review, Biogen submitted a response to an information request by the FDA, including additional analyses and clinical data, which the FDA considered a major amendment to the application that will require additional time for review,” Biogen and Eisai said in a statement.

“We are committed to working with the FDA as it completes its review of the aducanumab application. We want to thank the FDA for its continued diligence during the review,” said Biogen CEO Michel Vounatsos.

Biogen submitted the aducanumab application for approval to the FDA in July 2020. The FDA accepted it in August and granted priority review.

Aducanumab is a recombinant human monoclonal antibody targeting beta-amyloid (Abeta). If approved, it would be the first disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.

However, the road to approval has been bumpy. In November, despite high expectations and pleas from patients, caregivers, and advocacy groups, an FDA advisory panel declined to recommend approval of aducanumab.

As previously reported by this news organization, members of the FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee determined that results from Biogen’s one large positive trial did not provide strong enough evidence of efficacy for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. 

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

Machine learning models that use routine data present in the electronic health record have identified new risk factors for early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a new study.

Copyright University of Florida

The models found that hypertension, cough, and asthma, among other factors, were important in explaining the risk of early-onset CRC. For some factors, associations emerged up to 5 years before diagnosis.

These findings were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (Abstract PR-10).

“The incidence of early-onset CRC has been rising 2% annually since 1994,” noted Michael B. Quillen, one of the study authors and a medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Inherited genetic syndromes and predisposing conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease account for about half of cases in this age group, but factors explaining the other half remain a mystery.

To shed light in this area, the investigators undertook a study of patients aged 50 years or younger from the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium who had at least 2 years of EHR data. This included 783 cases with CRC and 8,981 incidence density-matched controls, with both groups having a mean age of 36 years.

The patients were split into colon cancer and rectal cancer cohorts, and then further divided into four prediction windows, Mr. Quillen explained. Each prediction window started with the patient’s first recorded encounter date in the EHR and ended at 0, 1, 3, or 5 years before the date of diagnosis.

The investigators used machine-learning models to determine what features (e.g., diagnoses, procedures, demographics) were important in determining risk.

Results were expressed in charts that ranked the features by their SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) values, which reflect the average impact of a feature on the magnitude of model output.
 

Results: Top models and features

The top-performing models had areas under the curve of 0.61-0.75 for colon cancer risk, and 0.62-0.73 for rectal cancer risk, reported T. Maxwell Parker, another study author and medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Copyright University of Florida

For colon cancer, the top features for the 0-year cohort included some highly specific symptoms that would be expected in patients close to the diagnostic date: abdominal pain, anemia, blood in the stool, and various procedures such as CT scans. “These do not need a machine learning algorithm to identify,” Mr. Parker acknowledged.

However, there were also two noteworthy features present – cough and primary hypertension – that became the top features in the 1-year and 3-year cohorts, then dropped out in the 5-year cohort.

Other features that became important moving farther out from the diagnostic date of colon cancer, across the windows studied, were chronic sinusitis, atopic dermatitis, asthma, and upper-respiratory infection.

For rectal cancer, some previously identified factors – immune conditions related to infectious disease (HIV and anogenital warts associated with human papillomavirus) as well as amoxicillin therapy – were prominent in the 0-year cohort and became increasingly important going farther out from the diagnostic date.

Obesity was the top feature in the 3-year cohort, and asthma became important in that cohort as well.

None of the rectal cancer models tested performed well at identifying important features in the 5-year cohort.

The investigators are exploring hypotheses to explain how the identified features, especially the new ones such as hypertension and cough, might contribute to CRC carcinogenesis in young adults, according to Mr. Parker. As inclusion of older patients could confound associations, research restricted to those aged 50 years and younger may be necessary.

“We would like to validate these model findings in a second independent data set, and if they are validated, we would consider a prospective cohort study with those features,” Mr. Parker said. The team also plans to refine the models with the aim of improving their areas under the curve.

Thereafter, the team hopes to explore ways for implementing the findings clinically to support screening, which will require consideration of the context, Mr. Parker concluded. “Should we use high-sensitivity or low-specificity models for screening, or do we use the balance of both? Also, different models may be suitable for different situations,” he said.

Mr. Parker and Mr. Quillen disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

Machine learning models that use routine data present in the electronic health record have identified new risk factors for early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a new study.

Copyright University of Florida

The models found that hypertension, cough, and asthma, among other factors, were important in explaining the risk of early-onset CRC. For some factors, associations emerged up to 5 years before diagnosis.

These findings were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (Abstract PR-10).

“The incidence of early-onset CRC has been rising 2% annually since 1994,” noted Michael B. Quillen, one of the study authors and a medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Inherited genetic syndromes and predisposing conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease account for about half of cases in this age group, but factors explaining the other half remain a mystery.

To shed light in this area, the investigators undertook a study of patients aged 50 years or younger from the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium who had at least 2 years of EHR data. This included 783 cases with CRC and 8,981 incidence density-matched controls, with both groups having a mean age of 36 years.

The patients were split into colon cancer and rectal cancer cohorts, and then further divided into four prediction windows, Mr. Quillen explained. Each prediction window started with the patient’s first recorded encounter date in the EHR and ended at 0, 1, 3, or 5 years before the date of diagnosis.

The investigators used machine-learning models to determine what features (e.g., diagnoses, procedures, demographics) were important in determining risk.

Results were expressed in charts that ranked the features by their SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) values, which reflect the average impact of a feature on the magnitude of model output.
 

Results: Top models and features

The top-performing models had areas under the curve of 0.61-0.75 for colon cancer risk, and 0.62-0.73 for rectal cancer risk, reported T. Maxwell Parker, another study author and medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Copyright University of Florida

For colon cancer, the top features for the 0-year cohort included some highly specific symptoms that would be expected in patients close to the diagnostic date: abdominal pain, anemia, blood in the stool, and various procedures such as CT scans. “These do not need a machine learning algorithm to identify,” Mr. Parker acknowledged.

However, there were also two noteworthy features present – cough and primary hypertension – that became the top features in the 1-year and 3-year cohorts, then dropped out in the 5-year cohort.

Other features that became important moving farther out from the diagnostic date of colon cancer, across the windows studied, were chronic sinusitis, atopic dermatitis, asthma, and upper-respiratory infection.

For rectal cancer, some previously identified factors – immune conditions related to infectious disease (HIV and anogenital warts associated with human papillomavirus) as well as amoxicillin therapy – were prominent in the 0-year cohort and became increasingly important going farther out from the diagnostic date.

Obesity was the top feature in the 3-year cohort, and asthma became important in that cohort as well.

None of the rectal cancer models tested performed well at identifying important features in the 5-year cohort.

The investigators are exploring hypotheses to explain how the identified features, especially the new ones such as hypertension and cough, might contribute to CRC carcinogenesis in young adults, according to Mr. Parker. As inclusion of older patients could confound associations, research restricted to those aged 50 years and younger may be necessary.

“We would like to validate these model findings in a second independent data set, and if they are validated, we would consider a prospective cohort study with those features,” Mr. Parker said. The team also plans to refine the models with the aim of improving their areas under the curve.

Thereafter, the team hopes to explore ways for implementing the findings clinically to support screening, which will require consideration of the context, Mr. Parker concluded. “Should we use high-sensitivity or low-specificity models for screening, or do we use the balance of both? Also, different models may be suitable for different situations,” he said.

Mr. Parker and Mr. Quillen disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

Machine learning models that use routine data present in the electronic health record have identified new risk factors for early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a new study.

Copyright University of Florida

The models found that hypertension, cough, and asthma, among other factors, were important in explaining the risk of early-onset CRC. For some factors, associations emerged up to 5 years before diagnosis.

These findings were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (Abstract PR-10).

“The incidence of early-onset CRC has been rising 2% annually since 1994,” noted Michael B. Quillen, one of the study authors and a medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Inherited genetic syndromes and predisposing conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease account for about half of cases in this age group, but factors explaining the other half remain a mystery.

To shed light in this area, the investigators undertook a study of patients aged 50 years or younger from the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium who had at least 2 years of EHR data. This included 783 cases with CRC and 8,981 incidence density-matched controls, with both groups having a mean age of 36 years.

The patients were split into colon cancer and rectal cancer cohorts, and then further divided into four prediction windows, Mr. Quillen explained. Each prediction window started with the patient’s first recorded encounter date in the EHR and ended at 0, 1, 3, or 5 years before the date of diagnosis.

The investigators used machine-learning models to determine what features (e.g., diagnoses, procedures, demographics) were important in determining risk.

Results were expressed in charts that ranked the features by their SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) values, which reflect the average impact of a feature on the magnitude of model output.
 

Results: Top models and features

The top-performing models had areas under the curve of 0.61-0.75 for colon cancer risk, and 0.62-0.73 for rectal cancer risk, reported T. Maxwell Parker, another study author and medical student at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Copyright University of Florida

For colon cancer, the top features for the 0-year cohort included some highly specific symptoms that would be expected in patients close to the diagnostic date: abdominal pain, anemia, blood in the stool, and various procedures such as CT scans. “These do not need a machine learning algorithm to identify,” Mr. Parker acknowledged.

However, there were also two noteworthy features present – cough and primary hypertension – that became the top features in the 1-year and 3-year cohorts, then dropped out in the 5-year cohort.

Other features that became important moving farther out from the diagnostic date of colon cancer, across the windows studied, were chronic sinusitis, atopic dermatitis, asthma, and upper-respiratory infection.

For rectal cancer, some previously identified factors – immune conditions related to infectious disease (HIV and anogenital warts associated with human papillomavirus) as well as amoxicillin therapy – were prominent in the 0-year cohort and became increasingly important going farther out from the diagnostic date.

Obesity was the top feature in the 3-year cohort, and asthma became important in that cohort as well.

None of the rectal cancer models tested performed well at identifying important features in the 5-year cohort.

The investigators are exploring hypotheses to explain how the identified features, especially the new ones such as hypertension and cough, might contribute to CRC carcinogenesis in young adults, according to Mr. Parker. As inclusion of older patients could confound associations, research restricted to those aged 50 years and younger may be necessary.

“We would like to validate these model findings in a second independent data set, and if they are validated, we would consider a prospective cohort study with those features,” Mr. Parker said. The team also plans to refine the models with the aim of improving their areas under the curve.

Thereafter, the team hopes to explore ways for implementing the findings clinically to support screening, which will require consideration of the context, Mr. Parker concluded. “Should we use high-sensitivity or low-specificity models for screening, or do we use the balance of both? Also, different models may be suitable for different situations,” he said.

Mr. Parker and Mr. Quillen disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.