Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

A new study has found that reducing rituximab dosage from 1,000 mg/6 months to 500 mg/6 months is a safe and stable choice for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

“Given its favorable cost-effectiveness profile, [rituximab] remains a valuable treatment option in the current landscape of MS treatments, even at the reduced dose,” wrote Giulio Disanto, MD, PhD, of the Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland in Lugano, and coauthors. The study was published in Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

To determine the clinical and radiologic effectiveness of deescalating rituximab dosage – along with assessing any adverse outcomes – this observational, single-center study examined 59 patients with MS who had been treated with rituximab at 1,000 mg for at least 1 year before the study began. Roughly 63% (n = 37) of the patients had relapsing remitting MS (RRMS), while the rest (n = 22) had secondary progressive disease (SPD). Their median age was 51, and nearly 75% were women.

All patients underwent neurologic examinations at baseline and then every 3 months for 1 year, with new symptoms, infections, or adverse events being assessed via the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). They also underwent brain and spinal MRI at baseline and at 12 months while blood samples were taken at baseline and then every 3 months for 1 year, with previous data for both collected when available.
 

Study results

All 59 patients completed 12-month follow-up, and no relapses occurred in the year after lowering rituximab dosage to 500 mg. No significant differences were observed when comparing EDSS scores at the start of the 1,000-mg dose with the start of the 500-mg dose (Wilcoxon P = .131) as well as from the start of the 500-mg dose to the end of follow-up (Wilcoxon P = .284). Analyzing RRMS and SPD patients separately also led to no differences in EDSS scores from the start of the 500-mg dose to the end of follow-up (Wilcoxon P = .531; Wilcoxon P = .408).

During the 1,000-mg treatment period the number of patients who developed at least one new T2 lesion on their brain or spine was 9 and 4, respectively. During the 500-mg period, just one patient developed a new T2 brain lesion and two patients developed new T2 spine lesions. IgG and IgM levels did not change from the start of 500-mg treatment, although total dose of rituximab was inversely associated with IgG concentrations when previous treatment with 1,000 mg was factored in (coefficient, −0.439; P = 0.041).

A total of 33 patients reported at least one adverse event during the 500-mg treatment period, with only three events being classified as serious: one pancreatitis, one coronary stenting, and one neutropenia.
 

Validating clinical experience

“This randomized trial is an important step,” said Timothy Vollmer, MD, of the Rocky Mountain MS Center in Westminster, Colo., in an interview. “It clearly supports that you can lessen the dose, which will allow us to use this revolutionary drug for a longer period of time in patients.”

Dr. Vollmer noted that, at his center, they have been using 500 mg of rituximab over a 6-month period since 2010 without a formal clinical trial and with no notable difference in adverse outcomes on MRIs or disability scales. “This validates what we’ve been doing, which we appreciate,” he said.

“The next thing you have to do is determine whether you really have to give it every 6 months,” he added, “because the treatment effect in most patients will last, in terms of B-cell depletion, about a year or more. What we should be testing next is giving the 500 mg and waiting until patients begin to recover B cells before we give them the next cycle, to see if that helps decrease the major side effect, which is a drop in IgG levels.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a moderate sample size, a short follow-up period after 500-mg dosage, and an inability to confirm consistency among 1,000-mg dose administration among all patients, which “may well influence efficacy and safety measures.”

The study was supported by the Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland. One author declared numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaker fees, research fees, and travel support, and serving on advisory boards for various foundations, universities, and pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Disanto G et al. Mult Scler J. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1177/1352458520952036.

A new study has found that reducing rituximab dosage from 1,000 mg/6 months to 500 mg/6 months is a safe and stable choice for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

“Given its favorable cost-effectiveness profile, [rituximab] remains a valuable treatment option in the current landscape of MS treatments, even at the reduced dose,” wrote Giulio Disanto, MD, PhD, of the Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland in Lugano, and coauthors. The study was published in Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

To determine the clinical and radiologic effectiveness of deescalating rituximab dosage – along with assessing any adverse outcomes – this observational, single-center study examined 59 patients with MS who had been treated with rituximab at 1,000 mg for at least 1 year before the study began. Roughly 63% (n = 37) of the patients had relapsing remitting MS (RRMS), while the rest (n = 22) had secondary progressive disease (SPD). Their median age was 51, and nearly 75% were women.

All patients underwent neurologic examinations at baseline and then every 3 months for 1 year, with new symptoms, infections, or adverse events being assessed via the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). They also underwent brain and spinal MRI at baseline and at 12 months while blood samples were taken at baseline and then every 3 months for 1 year, with previous data for both collected when available.
 

Study results

All 59 patients completed 12-month follow-up, and no relapses occurred in the year after lowering rituximab dosage to 500 mg. No significant differences were observed when comparing EDSS scores at the start of the 1,000-mg dose with the start of the 500-mg dose (Wilcoxon P = .131) as well as from the start of the 500-mg dose to the end of follow-up (Wilcoxon P = .284). Analyzing RRMS and SPD patients separately also led to no differences in EDSS scores from the start of the 500-mg dose to the end of follow-up (Wilcoxon P = .531; Wilcoxon P = .408).

During the 1,000-mg treatment period the number of patients who developed at least one new T2 lesion on their brain or spine was 9 and 4, respectively. During the 500-mg period, just one patient developed a new T2 brain lesion and two patients developed new T2 spine lesions. IgG and IgM levels did not change from the start of 500-mg treatment, although total dose of rituximab was inversely associated with IgG concentrations when previous treatment with 1,000 mg was factored in (coefficient, −0.439; P = 0.041).

A total of 33 patients reported at least one adverse event during the 500-mg treatment period, with only three events being classified as serious: one pancreatitis, one coronary stenting, and one neutropenia.
 

Validating clinical experience

“This randomized trial is an important step,” said Timothy Vollmer, MD, of the Rocky Mountain MS Center in Westminster, Colo., in an interview. “It clearly supports that you can lessen the dose, which will allow us to use this revolutionary drug for a longer period of time in patients.”

Dr. Vollmer noted that, at his center, they have been using 500 mg of rituximab over a 6-month period since 2010 without a formal clinical trial and with no notable difference in adverse outcomes on MRIs or disability scales. “This validates what we’ve been doing, which we appreciate,” he said.

“The next thing you have to do is determine whether you really have to give it every 6 months,” he added, “because the treatment effect in most patients will last, in terms of B-cell depletion, about a year or more. What we should be testing next is giving the 500 mg and waiting until patients begin to recover B cells before we give them the next cycle, to see if that helps decrease the major side effect, which is a drop in IgG levels.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a moderate sample size, a short follow-up period after 500-mg dosage, and an inability to confirm consistency among 1,000-mg dose administration among all patients, which “may well influence efficacy and safety measures.”

The study was supported by the Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland. One author declared numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaker fees, research fees, and travel support, and serving on advisory boards for various foundations, universities, and pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Disanto G et al. Mult Scler J. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1177/1352458520952036.

A new study has found that reducing rituximab dosage from 1,000 mg/6 months to 500 mg/6 months is a safe and stable choice for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

“Given its favorable cost-effectiveness profile, [rituximab] remains a valuable treatment option in the current landscape of MS treatments, even at the reduced dose,” wrote Giulio Disanto, MD, PhD, of the Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland in Lugano, and coauthors. The study was published in Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

To determine the clinical and radiologic effectiveness of deescalating rituximab dosage – along with assessing any adverse outcomes – this observational, single-center study examined 59 patients with MS who had been treated with rituximab at 1,000 mg for at least 1 year before the study began. Roughly 63% (n = 37) of the patients had relapsing remitting MS (RRMS), while the rest (n = 22) had secondary progressive disease (SPD). Their median age was 51, and nearly 75% were women.

All patients underwent neurologic examinations at baseline and then every 3 months for 1 year, with new symptoms, infections, or adverse events being assessed via the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). They also underwent brain and spinal MRI at baseline and at 12 months while blood samples were taken at baseline and then every 3 months for 1 year, with previous data for both collected when available.
 

Study results

All 59 patients completed 12-month follow-up, and no relapses occurred in the year after lowering rituximab dosage to 500 mg. No significant differences were observed when comparing EDSS scores at the start of the 1,000-mg dose with the start of the 500-mg dose (Wilcoxon P = .131) as well as from the start of the 500-mg dose to the end of follow-up (Wilcoxon P = .284). Analyzing RRMS and SPD patients separately also led to no differences in EDSS scores from the start of the 500-mg dose to the end of follow-up (Wilcoxon P = .531; Wilcoxon P = .408).

During the 1,000-mg treatment period the number of patients who developed at least one new T2 lesion on their brain or spine was 9 and 4, respectively. During the 500-mg period, just one patient developed a new T2 brain lesion and two patients developed new T2 spine lesions. IgG and IgM levels did not change from the start of 500-mg treatment, although total dose of rituximab was inversely associated with IgG concentrations when previous treatment with 1,000 mg was factored in (coefficient, −0.439; P = 0.041).

A total of 33 patients reported at least one adverse event during the 500-mg treatment period, with only three events being classified as serious: one pancreatitis, one coronary stenting, and one neutropenia.
 

Validating clinical experience

“This randomized trial is an important step,” said Timothy Vollmer, MD, of the Rocky Mountain MS Center in Westminster, Colo., in an interview. “It clearly supports that you can lessen the dose, which will allow us to use this revolutionary drug for a longer period of time in patients.”

Dr. Vollmer noted that, at his center, they have been using 500 mg of rituximab over a 6-month period since 2010 without a formal clinical trial and with no notable difference in adverse outcomes on MRIs or disability scales. “This validates what we’ve been doing, which we appreciate,” he said.

“The next thing you have to do is determine whether you really have to give it every 6 months,” he added, “because the treatment effect in most patients will last, in terms of B-cell depletion, about a year or more. What we should be testing next is giving the 500 mg and waiting until patients begin to recover B cells before we give them the next cycle, to see if that helps decrease the major side effect, which is a drop in IgG levels.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a moderate sample size, a short follow-up period after 500-mg dosage, and an inability to confirm consistency among 1,000-mg dose administration among all patients, which “may well influence efficacy and safety measures.”

The study was supported by the Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland. One author declared numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving speaker fees, research fees, and travel support, and serving on advisory boards for various foundations, universities, and pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Disanto G et al. Mult Scler J. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1177/1352458520952036.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Kirsch realized that until we have a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, we would be at the mercy of this virus. He realized that the fastest and most effective way to reduce COVID-19 fatalities would be to leverage existing drugs to treat patients at the onset of infection — before they become sick. A lack of funded research in this area prompted him to establish the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) with the purpose of funding outpatient clinical trials of promising repurposed drugs.

Medscape spoke with CETF’s chief medical advisor, Lisa Danzig, MD, about the organization’s aim to fund promising research on repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19.

What is CETF trying to do?

Two things: save lives, and get control of this pandemic.

We are facing perhaps the greatest crisis of our lifetime. Doctors who have taken care of patients with COVID are really frustrated about not having anything to offer; they just watch patients die. We want to change that. CETF was founded to find treatments that, when given early, could improve outcomes and avoid catastrophic complications in patients suffering from COVID-19. That means reducing hospitalizations, which can reduce mortality, but it also can mean reducing viral load, and that can have a profound impact on transmission within communities. We are a funding organization — a Band-Aid. We shouldn’t exist, but we do, aiming to close gaps until a coordinated response can get set up.

Tell us about drug repurposing and why you think existing drugs might have a role in mitigating COVID-19 or slowing its transmission.

This disease has two components — the viral infection, and the immunopathology. So the two promising categories of drugs are classical antivirals (or repurposed drugs with antiviral activity), and the immunomodulators. We are mechanism-agnostic. It doesn’t matter what kind of drug it is if it keeps people out of the hospital and prevents chronic morbidity and mortality.

Repurposed drugs are sort of the low-hanging fruit of clinical drugs. The QBI Coronavirus Research Group identified 69 compounds that have theoretical activity against SARS-CoV-2, 29 of which are already FDA-approved drugs. We thought, why don’t we start testing them?

Some people might call this a long shot. Does drug repurposing really work?

Drugmakers don’t test their drugs on every disease they might be effective for. Drug repurposing can work, but if we don’t look, we definitely won’t find anything. The classic repurposed drug is Viagra, a failed hypertension drug. When the studies ended because it didn’t work, the drug company asked patients to send back the unused drugs. The women all returned the drugs, but the men didn’t. And the rest is history.

There’s a long list of potential drugs that can be repurposed, but few are being tested. The famous poster child of a repurposed drug — hydroxychloroquine — has been the subject of more than 250 clinical trials, but the others weren’t getting much attention.

The beauty of a repurposed drug is that if you can get funding and start enrolling patients, you could potentially find out fairly quickly, as early as a few months, if that drug has an antiviral effect or not. These data would help prioritize drugs to be tested in larger confirmatory studies.

Your focus is on early treatment. What’s the rationale for that?

We are focusing on early treatment because it has been overlooked. The attention has been on vaccines and therapeutics for hospitalized patients. But if you are spending $20 billion on potential vaccines and billions more on diagnostics, we need to give proportional resources toward drugs that might actually work, when given early, in preventing severe disease and death.

Early treatment, if successful, would allow us to avoid the severe complications that we are seeing now. If we can find an early treatment with an existing drug, it would be the fastest, most clinically- and cost-effective way to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and get us on the road to recovery.

How do you get from a potential repurposed drug for COVID-19 to having a therapeutic agent that will save lives?

Most of the studies we are funding are smaller outpatient studies with virologic endpoints. We are looking for a signal that the drug has antiviral activity. We want to know whether a drug works before we spend the money on questions that take a much larger sample size to answer, for example, a big postexposure prophylaxis study. We’d like to see a meaningful signal in proof-of-concept studies, so we can look at a small group of patients with positive tests and see whether their viral load dropped by more than half if they got the drug compared with those who took the placebo. If the drug had an impact on the viral load and shortened the period of infectivity and was safe, these findings would provide justification to spend a lot of money on a large clinical trial. That would probably encourage the NIH and ACTIV [Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines] collaboration to prioritize the drug for one of their big platform trials. That›s what we are aiming for.

CETF isn’t a drug developer — we are a funder for a good proposal to study a repurposed drug. We want to help move the dial — can we get an early yes or an early no? In drug development, we say, “fail fast and fail early.” It’s a numbers game. Only 10% of early candidates will become approved drugs. The value is in the data, whether they are positive or negative — it doesn’t matter. If the study is a definitive “no,” that is just as helpful as a definitive “yes.” Of course, we all want the definitive “yes,” but there are so many things to look at, the “no’s” will help us redirect resources toward what may really help.

You first announced these funding opportunities in April. How is it going so far?

As soon as the website went up, we got 40 applications. Our scientific advisory board, which has expertise from medicinal chemistry and coronavirology to translational and clinical trial expertise, reviewed the applications and prioritized 11 fundable proposals. We are using milestone-based funding; in other words, funding those who are ready to go.

Which drugs are being tested in the funded studies?

One of the earliest grants we supported was Dr David Boulaware’s randomized controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine (NCT 04308668) in 821 asymptomatic patients within 4 days after a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure. That trial did not show any benefit of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19. This trial was important for another reason. It proved the feasibility of a no-contact trial design in the setting of COVID-19, and participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.

Camostat, a transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS2) inhibitor licensed for use in Japan to treat pancreatitis and esophagitis, combined with the antiandrogen bicalutamide, is being explored for early COVID-19 treatment. TMPRSS2 primes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to bind to the ACE2 receptor and gain entry to the cell, and has been shown to have antiviral activity. CETF has provided funding support to ongoing trials of Camostat at Yale University and Aarhus University in Denmark.

Another outpatient trial for fluvoxamine, a drug approved in the United States and routinely prescribed for depression, was also partially funded by a CETF grant to Washington University in St. Louis. Fluvoxamine is a serotonin regulator but also activates the sigma-1 receptor, which reduces the body’s immune response to prevent an overactive immune response or cytokine storm, a major cause of clinical deterioration, serious organ damage, and even death from COVID. This trial was recently completed, and the results have been submitted for publication.

Other promising drugs include niclosamide, doxazosin, favipiravir, leronlimab, interferon beta, interferon lambda, and other monoclonal antibodies. New compounds considered to have potential against COVID include a flu drug (MK-4482/EIDD-2801) and GS-441524, a metabolite of the antiviral drug, remdesivir.

Why not just put all of our resources into vaccine development?

We absolutely need a vaccine to control the outbreak and stop the pandemic. However, it’s a long road to finding an effective vaccine, and in the meantime, we need tools to keep people alive. If we can find an antiviral drug that acts early, we can reduce transmission and contribute to outbreak control. All these tools help us get back to normal while we are waiting for a vaccine. The vaccine is only good if we can give it to every susceptible person in the world — which will take longer than 3 years. And there are no guarantees. Remember, we are still waiting for an HIV vaccine.

You are calling on Americans to help. What do you want them to do?

Everyone must participate in the behavioral changes designed to control the outbreak — physical distancing, face-covering, and paying attention to case counts in local areas to enable them to take appropriate precautions. I know people are bored of that message, but we are going to repeat it until we have a vaccine or herd immunity.

This organism is ripping like wildfire through our unimmunized population. Personal behaviors might slow it down, but finding a drug that can be given to people after they’ve been exposed and test positive will have a meaningful impact on helping us get back to normal.

There’s a great spirit of volunteerism — people are constantly asking how they can help. Through us at CETF, we offer three ways that people can help. They can participate as subjects in clinical trials, many of which are ongoing, including clinical trials, surveillance studies, and follow-up studies. They can donate to our fund and help support the research needed to find an effective early treatment. We have a link on our website, TreatEarly.org. And finally, researchers can apply for funding. We think everybody can help in one of these ways by participating in trials, donating, or applying for funding. It’s an all-hands-on-deck moment for our country.

Danzig is the chief medical advisor of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. She has spent more than 20 years in the pharmaceutical industry developing vaccines, diagnostics, and drugs and is currently advising companies and investors.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Kirsch realized that until we have a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, we would be at the mercy of this virus. He realized that the fastest and most effective way to reduce COVID-19 fatalities would be to leverage existing drugs to treat patients at the onset of infection — before they become sick. A lack of funded research in this area prompted him to establish the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) with the purpose of funding outpatient clinical trials of promising repurposed drugs.

Medscape spoke with CETF’s chief medical advisor, Lisa Danzig, MD, about the organization’s aim to fund promising research on repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19.

What is CETF trying to do?

Two things: save lives, and get control of this pandemic.

We are facing perhaps the greatest crisis of our lifetime. Doctors who have taken care of patients with COVID are really frustrated about not having anything to offer; they just watch patients die. We want to change that. CETF was founded to find treatments that, when given early, could improve outcomes and avoid catastrophic complications in patients suffering from COVID-19. That means reducing hospitalizations, which can reduce mortality, but it also can mean reducing viral load, and that can have a profound impact on transmission within communities. We are a funding organization — a Band-Aid. We shouldn’t exist, but we do, aiming to close gaps until a coordinated response can get set up.

Tell us about drug repurposing and why you think existing drugs might have a role in mitigating COVID-19 or slowing its transmission.

This disease has two components — the viral infection, and the immunopathology. So the two promising categories of drugs are classical antivirals (or repurposed drugs with antiviral activity), and the immunomodulators. We are mechanism-agnostic. It doesn’t matter what kind of drug it is if it keeps people out of the hospital and prevents chronic morbidity and mortality.

Repurposed drugs are sort of the low-hanging fruit of clinical drugs. The QBI Coronavirus Research Group identified 69 compounds that have theoretical activity against SARS-CoV-2, 29 of which are already FDA-approved drugs. We thought, why don’t we start testing them?

Some people might call this a long shot. Does drug repurposing really work?

Drugmakers don’t test their drugs on every disease they might be effective for. Drug repurposing can work, but if we don’t look, we definitely won’t find anything. The classic repurposed drug is Viagra, a failed hypertension drug. When the studies ended because it didn’t work, the drug company asked patients to send back the unused drugs. The women all returned the drugs, but the men didn’t. And the rest is history.

There’s a long list of potential drugs that can be repurposed, but few are being tested. The famous poster child of a repurposed drug — hydroxychloroquine — has been the subject of more than 250 clinical trials, but the others weren’t getting much attention.

The beauty of a repurposed drug is that if you can get funding and start enrolling patients, you could potentially find out fairly quickly, as early as a few months, if that drug has an antiviral effect or not. These data would help prioritize drugs to be tested in larger confirmatory studies.

Your focus is on early treatment. What’s the rationale for that?

We are focusing on early treatment because it has been overlooked. The attention has been on vaccines and therapeutics for hospitalized patients. But if you are spending $20 billion on potential vaccines and billions more on diagnostics, we need to give proportional resources toward drugs that might actually work, when given early, in preventing severe disease and death.

Early treatment, if successful, would allow us to avoid the severe complications that we are seeing now. If we can find an early treatment with an existing drug, it would be the fastest, most clinically- and cost-effective way to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and get us on the road to recovery.

How do you get from a potential repurposed drug for COVID-19 to having a therapeutic agent that will save lives?

Most of the studies we are funding are smaller outpatient studies with virologic endpoints. We are looking for a signal that the drug has antiviral activity. We want to know whether a drug works before we spend the money on questions that take a much larger sample size to answer, for example, a big postexposure prophylaxis study. We’d like to see a meaningful signal in proof-of-concept studies, so we can look at a small group of patients with positive tests and see whether their viral load dropped by more than half if they got the drug compared with those who took the placebo. If the drug had an impact on the viral load and shortened the period of infectivity and was safe, these findings would provide justification to spend a lot of money on a large clinical trial. That would probably encourage the NIH and ACTIV [Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines] collaboration to prioritize the drug for one of their big platform trials. That›s what we are aiming for.

CETF isn’t a drug developer — we are a funder for a good proposal to study a repurposed drug. We want to help move the dial — can we get an early yes or an early no? In drug development, we say, “fail fast and fail early.” It’s a numbers game. Only 10% of early candidates will become approved drugs. The value is in the data, whether they are positive or negative — it doesn’t matter. If the study is a definitive “no,” that is just as helpful as a definitive “yes.” Of course, we all want the definitive “yes,” but there are so many things to look at, the “no’s” will help us redirect resources toward what may really help.

You first announced these funding opportunities in April. How is it going so far?

As soon as the website went up, we got 40 applications. Our scientific advisory board, which has expertise from medicinal chemistry and coronavirology to translational and clinical trial expertise, reviewed the applications and prioritized 11 fundable proposals. We are using milestone-based funding; in other words, funding those who are ready to go.

Which drugs are being tested in the funded studies?

One of the earliest grants we supported was Dr David Boulaware’s randomized controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine (NCT 04308668) in 821 asymptomatic patients within 4 days after a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure. That trial did not show any benefit of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19. This trial was important for another reason. It proved the feasibility of a no-contact trial design in the setting of COVID-19, and participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.

Camostat, a transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS2) inhibitor licensed for use in Japan to treat pancreatitis and esophagitis, combined with the antiandrogen bicalutamide, is being explored for early COVID-19 treatment. TMPRSS2 primes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to bind to the ACE2 receptor and gain entry to the cell, and has been shown to have antiviral activity. CETF has provided funding support to ongoing trials of Camostat at Yale University and Aarhus University in Denmark.

Another outpatient trial for fluvoxamine, a drug approved in the United States and routinely prescribed for depression, was also partially funded by a CETF grant to Washington University in St. Louis. Fluvoxamine is a serotonin regulator but also activates the sigma-1 receptor, which reduces the body’s immune response to prevent an overactive immune response or cytokine storm, a major cause of clinical deterioration, serious organ damage, and even death from COVID. This trial was recently completed, and the results have been submitted for publication.

Other promising drugs include niclosamide, doxazosin, favipiravir, leronlimab, interferon beta, interferon lambda, and other monoclonal antibodies. New compounds considered to have potential against COVID include a flu drug (MK-4482/EIDD-2801) and GS-441524, a metabolite of the antiviral drug, remdesivir.

Why not just put all of our resources into vaccine development?

We absolutely need a vaccine to control the outbreak and stop the pandemic. However, it’s a long road to finding an effective vaccine, and in the meantime, we need tools to keep people alive. If we can find an antiviral drug that acts early, we can reduce transmission and contribute to outbreak control. All these tools help us get back to normal while we are waiting for a vaccine. The vaccine is only good if we can give it to every susceptible person in the world — which will take longer than 3 years. And there are no guarantees. Remember, we are still waiting for an HIV vaccine.

You are calling on Americans to help. What do you want them to do?

Everyone must participate in the behavioral changes designed to control the outbreak — physical distancing, face-covering, and paying attention to case counts in local areas to enable them to take appropriate precautions. I know people are bored of that message, but we are going to repeat it until we have a vaccine or herd immunity.

This organism is ripping like wildfire through our unimmunized population. Personal behaviors might slow it down, but finding a drug that can be given to people after they’ve been exposed and test positive will have a meaningful impact on helping us get back to normal.

There’s a great spirit of volunteerism — people are constantly asking how they can help. Through us at CETF, we offer three ways that people can help. They can participate as subjects in clinical trials, many of which are ongoing, including clinical trials, surveillance studies, and follow-up studies. They can donate to our fund and help support the research needed to find an effective early treatment. We have a link on our website, TreatEarly.org. And finally, researchers can apply for funding. We think everybody can help in one of these ways by participating in trials, donating, or applying for funding. It’s an all-hands-on-deck moment for our country.

Danzig is the chief medical advisor of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. She has spent more than 20 years in the pharmaceutical industry developing vaccines, diagnostics, and drugs and is currently advising companies and investors.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, entrepreneur and philanthropist Steve Kirsch realized that until we have a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, we would be at the mercy of this virus. He realized that the fastest and most effective way to reduce COVID-19 fatalities would be to leverage existing drugs to treat patients at the onset of infection — before they become sick. A lack of funded research in this area prompted him to establish the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) with the purpose of funding outpatient clinical trials of promising repurposed drugs.

Medscape spoke with CETF’s chief medical advisor, Lisa Danzig, MD, about the organization’s aim to fund promising research on repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19.

What is CETF trying to do?

Two things: save lives, and get control of this pandemic.

We are facing perhaps the greatest crisis of our lifetime. Doctors who have taken care of patients with COVID are really frustrated about not having anything to offer; they just watch patients die. We want to change that. CETF was founded to find treatments that, when given early, could improve outcomes and avoid catastrophic complications in patients suffering from COVID-19. That means reducing hospitalizations, which can reduce mortality, but it also can mean reducing viral load, and that can have a profound impact on transmission within communities. We are a funding organization — a Band-Aid. We shouldn’t exist, but we do, aiming to close gaps until a coordinated response can get set up.

Tell us about drug repurposing and why you think existing drugs might have a role in mitigating COVID-19 or slowing its transmission.

This disease has two components — the viral infection, and the immunopathology. So the two promising categories of drugs are classical antivirals (or repurposed drugs with antiviral activity), and the immunomodulators. We are mechanism-agnostic. It doesn’t matter what kind of drug it is if it keeps people out of the hospital and prevents chronic morbidity and mortality.

Repurposed drugs are sort of the low-hanging fruit of clinical drugs. The QBI Coronavirus Research Group identified 69 compounds that have theoretical activity against SARS-CoV-2, 29 of which are already FDA-approved drugs. We thought, why don’t we start testing them?

Some people might call this a long shot. Does drug repurposing really work?

Drugmakers don’t test their drugs on every disease they might be effective for. Drug repurposing can work, but if we don’t look, we definitely won’t find anything. The classic repurposed drug is Viagra, a failed hypertension drug. When the studies ended because it didn’t work, the drug company asked patients to send back the unused drugs. The women all returned the drugs, but the men didn’t. And the rest is history.

There’s a long list of potential drugs that can be repurposed, but few are being tested. The famous poster child of a repurposed drug — hydroxychloroquine — has been the subject of more than 250 clinical trials, but the others weren’t getting much attention.

The beauty of a repurposed drug is that if you can get funding and start enrolling patients, you could potentially find out fairly quickly, as early as a few months, if that drug has an antiviral effect or not. These data would help prioritize drugs to be tested in larger confirmatory studies.

Your focus is on early treatment. What’s the rationale for that?

We are focusing on early treatment because it has been overlooked. The attention has been on vaccines and therapeutics for hospitalized patients. But if you are spending $20 billion on potential vaccines and billions more on diagnostics, we need to give proportional resources toward drugs that might actually work, when given early, in preventing severe disease and death.

Early treatment, if successful, would allow us to avoid the severe complications that we are seeing now. If we can find an early treatment with an existing drug, it would be the fastest, most clinically- and cost-effective way to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and get us on the road to recovery.

How do you get from a potential repurposed drug for COVID-19 to having a therapeutic agent that will save lives?

Most of the studies we are funding are smaller outpatient studies with virologic endpoints. We are looking for a signal that the drug has antiviral activity. We want to know whether a drug works before we spend the money on questions that take a much larger sample size to answer, for example, a big postexposure prophylaxis study. We’d like to see a meaningful signal in proof-of-concept studies, so we can look at a small group of patients with positive tests and see whether their viral load dropped by more than half if they got the drug compared with those who took the placebo. If the drug had an impact on the viral load and shortened the period of infectivity and was safe, these findings would provide justification to spend a lot of money on a large clinical trial. That would probably encourage the NIH and ACTIV [Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines] collaboration to prioritize the drug for one of their big platform trials. That›s what we are aiming for.

CETF isn’t a drug developer — we are a funder for a good proposal to study a repurposed drug. We want to help move the dial — can we get an early yes or an early no? In drug development, we say, “fail fast and fail early.” It’s a numbers game. Only 10% of early candidates will become approved drugs. The value is in the data, whether they are positive or negative — it doesn’t matter. If the study is a definitive “no,” that is just as helpful as a definitive “yes.” Of course, we all want the definitive “yes,” but there are so many things to look at, the “no’s” will help us redirect resources toward what may really help.

You first announced these funding opportunities in April. How is it going so far?

As soon as the website went up, we got 40 applications. Our scientific advisory board, which has expertise from medicinal chemistry and coronavirology to translational and clinical trial expertise, reviewed the applications and prioritized 11 fundable proposals. We are using milestone-based funding; in other words, funding those who are ready to go.

Which drugs are being tested in the funded studies?

One of the earliest grants we supported was Dr David Boulaware’s randomized controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine (NCT 04308668) in 821 asymptomatic patients within 4 days after a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure. That trial did not show any benefit of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis against COVID-19. This trial was important for another reason. It proved the feasibility of a no-contact trial design in the setting of COVID-19, and participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.

Camostat, a transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS2) inhibitor licensed for use in Japan to treat pancreatitis and esophagitis, combined with the antiandrogen bicalutamide, is being explored for early COVID-19 treatment. TMPRSS2 primes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to bind to the ACE2 receptor and gain entry to the cell, and has been shown to have antiviral activity. CETF has provided funding support to ongoing trials of Camostat at Yale University and Aarhus University in Denmark.

Another outpatient trial for fluvoxamine, a drug approved in the United States and routinely prescribed for depression, was also partially funded by a CETF grant to Washington University in St. Louis. Fluvoxamine is a serotonin regulator but also activates the sigma-1 receptor, which reduces the body’s immune response to prevent an overactive immune response or cytokine storm, a major cause of clinical deterioration, serious organ damage, and even death from COVID. This trial was recently completed, and the results have been submitted for publication.

Other promising drugs include niclosamide, doxazosin, favipiravir, leronlimab, interferon beta, interferon lambda, and other monoclonal antibodies. New compounds considered to have potential against COVID include a flu drug (MK-4482/EIDD-2801) and GS-441524, a metabolite of the antiviral drug, remdesivir.

Why not just put all of our resources into vaccine development?

We absolutely need a vaccine to control the outbreak and stop the pandemic. However, it’s a long road to finding an effective vaccine, and in the meantime, we need tools to keep people alive. If we can find an antiviral drug that acts early, we can reduce transmission and contribute to outbreak control. All these tools help us get back to normal while we are waiting for a vaccine. The vaccine is only good if we can give it to every susceptible person in the world — which will take longer than 3 years. And there are no guarantees. Remember, we are still waiting for an HIV vaccine.

You are calling on Americans to help. What do you want them to do?

Everyone must participate in the behavioral changes designed to control the outbreak — physical distancing, face-covering, and paying attention to case counts in local areas to enable them to take appropriate precautions. I know people are bored of that message, but we are going to repeat it until we have a vaccine or herd immunity.

This organism is ripping like wildfire through our unimmunized population. Personal behaviors might slow it down, but finding a drug that can be given to people after they’ve been exposed and test positive will have a meaningful impact on helping us get back to normal.

There’s a great spirit of volunteerism — people are constantly asking how they can help. Through us at CETF, we offer three ways that people can help. They can participate as subjects in clinical trials, many of which are ongoing, including clinical trials, surveillance studies, and follow-up studies. They can donate to our fund and help support the research needed to find an effective early treatment. We have a link on our website, TreatEarly.org. And finally, researchers can apply for funding. We think everybody can help in one of these ways by participating in trials, donating, or applying for funding. It’s an all-hands-on-deck moment for our country.

Danzig is the chief medical advisor of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. She has spent more than 20 years in the pharmaceutical industry developing vaccines, diagnostics, and drugs and is currently advising companies and investors.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome caused by COVID-19 typically seem to avoid coronary artery dilation early on, but they may be prone to cardiac injury and dysfunction longer term that requires a more discerning diagnostic approach to sort out.

The findings were revealed in a study of 28 children with COVID-19–related multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The study reported that cardiac injury and dysfunction are common in these patients – even those who have preserved ejection fraction – and that diastolic dysfunction is persistent. For comparison, the study also included 20 healthy controls and 20 patients with classic Kawasaki disease (KD).

The study analyzed echocardiography findings in the patients, reporting left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function were worse than in classic Kawasaki disease (KD), which MIS-C mimics. Lead author Daisuke Matsubara, MD, PhD, and colleagues reported that four markers – LV global longitudinal strain, LV circumferential strain rate, right ventricular strain, and left atrial strain – were the strongest predictors of myocardial injury in these patients. After the acute phase, systolic function tended to recover, but diastolic dysfunction persisted.
 

‘Strain’ measurement boosts accuracy

While echocardiography has been reported to be valuable in evaluating coronary artery function in MIS-C patients, Dr. Matsubara of the division of cardiology at CHOP, said in an interview that study is the first to use the newer echocardiography indexes, known as “strain,” to assess heart function.

“Strain is a more sensitive tool than more conventional indexes and can detect subtle decrease in heart function, even when ejection fraction is preserved,” he said. “Numerous publications have reached conclusions that strain improves the prognostic and diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography in a wide variety of cardiac pathologies causing LV dysfunction.”

Dr. Matsubara noted that the coronary arteries were mostly unaffected in the acute stage of MIS-C, as only one patient in their MIS-C cohort had coronary artery involvement, which normalized during early follow-up. “On the other hand, 20% of our classic KD patients had coronary abnormalities, including two with aneurysms.”

By using positive troponin I or elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) to assess cardiac injury, they found a “high” (60%) incidence of myocardial injury in their MIS-C cohort. During early follow-up, most of the MIS-C patients showed normalization of systolic function, although diastolic dysfunction persisted.

When compared with the classic KD group, MIS-C patients had higher rates of mitral regurgitation (46% vs. 15%, P = .06), more pericardial effusion (32% vs. 15%, P = 0.46), and more pleural effusion (39% vs. 0%, P = .004). MIS-C patients with suspected myocardial injury show these findings more frequently than those with actual myocardial injury.

Compared with the healthy controls, the MIS-C patients showed both LV systolic and diastolic dysfunction as well as significantly lower left atrium (LA) strain and peak right ventricle (RV) free-wall longitudinal strain.

“In addition to the left ventricle, two other chambers of the heart, the LA and the RV that are often labeled as the ‘forgotten chambers’ of the heart, were also affected by MIS-C,” Dr. Matsubara said. “Both LA and RV strains were markedly reduced in MIS-C patients, compared to normal and KD patients.”

The study also indicates that elevated troponin I levels may not be as dire in children as they are in adults. Dr. Matsubara cited a study of more than 2,700 adult COVID-19 patients that found that even mild increases in troponin I level were associated with increased death during hospitalization (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:533-46).

However, most of the patients in the CHOP study, even those with elevated troponin I levels, recovered systolic function quickly. “We speculate that the elevation in cardiac troponins may have less dire implications in children, likely due to a more transient type of cardiac injury and less comorbidities in children,” he said. “Clearly further studies are needed before a definitive statement can be made.”

Dr. Matsubara added that recovered COVID-19 patients may be able to participate in sports as some schools reopen. “We are not saying restrict sport participation, but we are merely urging caution.”

Comprehensive LV evaluation needed

The findings reinforce that myocardial involvement is more frequent and sometimes more severe in MIS-C than previously thought, said Kevin G. Friedman, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an attending physician in the department of cardiology at Boston Children’s Hospital. “We are underestimating it by using just traditional measures like ejection fraction. It requires a comprehensive evaluation of left ventricular function; it really affects all aspects of the ventricle, both the systolic function and the diastolic function.”

This study supports that MIS-C patients should have a more detailed analysis than EF on echocardiography, including strain imaging. “Probably these patients should all be followed at centers where they can evaluate a more detailed analysis of the LV and RV function,” he said. Patients with ongoing CA enlargement and LV dysfunction should have follow-up cardiac care indefinitely. Patients who have no cardiac symptoms during the acute phase probably don’t need long-term follow-up.

“We’re just trying to learn more about this disease, and it’s certainly concerning that so many kids are having cardiac involvement,” Dr. Friedman said. “Fortunately they’re getting better; we’re just trying to find out what this means for the long term.”

Dr. Matsubara and Dr. Friedman have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Matsubara D et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Sep 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.056.

Patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome caused by COVID-19 typically seem to avoid coronary artery dilation early on, but they may be prone to cardiac injury and dysfunction longer term that requires a more discerning diagnostic approach to sort out.

The findings were revealed in a study of 28 children with COVID-19–related multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The study reported that cardiac injury and dysfunction are common in these patients – even those who have preserved ejection fraction – and that diastolic dysfunction is persistent. For comparison, the study also included 20 healthy controls and 20 patients with classic Kawasaki disease (KD).

The study analyzed echocardiography findings in the patients, reporting left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function were worse than in classic Kawasaki disease (KD), which MIS-C mimics. Lead author Daisuke Matsubara, MD, PhD, and colleagues reported that four markers – LV global longitudinal strain, LV circumferential strain rate, right ventricular strain, and left atrial strain – were the strongest predictors of myocardial injury in these patients. After the acute phase, systolic function tended to recover, but diastolic dysfunction persisted.
 

‘Strain’ measurement boosts accuracy

While echocardiography has been reported to be valuable in evaluating coronary artery function in MIS-C patients, Dr. Matsubara of the division of cardiology at CHOP, said in an interview that study is the first to use the newer echocardiography indexes, known as “strain,” to assess heart function.

“Strain is a more sensitive tool than more conventional indexes and can detect subtle decrease in heart function, even when ejection fraction is preserved,” he said. “Numerous publications have reached conclusions that strain improves the prognostic and diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography in a wide variety of cardiac pathologies causing LV dysfunction.”

Dr. Matsubara noted that the coronary arteries were mostly unaffected in the acute stage of MIS-C, as only one patient in their MIS-C cohort had coronary artery involvement, which normalized during early follow-up. “On the other hand, 20% of our classic KD patients had coronary abnormalities, including two with aneurysms.”

By using positive troponin I or elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) to assess cardiac injury, they found a “high” (60%) incidence of myocardial injury in their MIS-C cohort. During early follow-up, most of the MIS-C patients showed normalization of systolic function, although diastolic dysfunction persisted.

When compared with the classic KD group, MIS-C patients had higher rates of mitral regurgitation (46% vs. 15%, P = .06), more pericardial effusion (32% vs. 15%, P = 0.46), and more pleural effusion (39% vs. 0%, P = .004). MIS-C patients with suspected myocardial injury show these findings more frequently than those with actual myocardial injury.

Compared with the healthy controls, the MIS-C patients showed both LV systolic and diastolic dysfunction as well as significantly lower left atrium (LA) strain and peak right ventricle (RV) free-wall longitudinal strain.

“In addition to the left ventricle, two other chambers of the heart, the LA and the RV that are often labeled as the ‘forgotten chambers’ of the heart, were also affected by MIS-C,” Dr. Matsubara said. “Both LA and RV strains were markedly reduced in MIS-C patients, compared to normal and KD patients.”

The study also indicates that elevated troponin I levels may not be as dire in children as they are in adults. Dr. Matsubara cited a study of more than 2,700 adult COVID-19 patients that found that even mild increases in troponin I level were associated with increased death during hospitalization (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:533-46).

However, most of the patients in the CHOP study, even those with elevated troponin I levels, recovered systolic function quickly. “We speculate that the elevation in cardiac troponins may have less dire implications in children, likely due to a more transient type of cardiac injury and less comorbidities in children,” he said. “Clearly further studies are needed before a definitive statement can be made.”

Dr. Matsubara added that recovered COVID-19 patients may be able to participate in sports as some schools reopen. “We are not saying restrict sport participation, but we are merely urging caution.”

Comprehensive LV evaluation needed

The findings reinforce that myocardial involvement is more frequent and sometimes more severe in MIS-C than previously thought, said Kevin G. Friedman, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an attending physician in the department of cardiology at Boston Children’s Hospital. “We are underestimating it by using just traditional measures like ejection fraction. It requires a comprehensive evaluation of left ventricular function; it really affects all aspects of the ventricle, both the systolic function and the diastolic function.”

This study supports that MIS-C patients should have a more detailed analysis than EF on echocardiography, including strain imaging. “Probably these patients should all be followed at centers where they can evaluate a more detailed analysis of the LV and RV function,” he said. Patients with ongoing CA enlargement and LV dysfunction should have follow-up cardiac care indefinitely. Patients who have no cardiac symptoms during the acute phase probably don’t need long-term follow-up.

“We’re just trying to learn more about this disease, and it’s certainly concerning that so many kids are having cardiac involvement,” Dr. Friedman said. “Fortunately they’re getting better; we’re just trying to find out what this means for the long term.”

Dr. Matsubara and Dr. Friedman have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Matsubara D et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Sep 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.056.

Patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome caused by COVID-19 typically seem to avoid coronary artery dilation early on, but they may be prone to cardiac injury and dysfunction longer term that requires a more discerning diagnostic approach to sort out.

The findings were revealed in a study of 28 children with COVID-19–related multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The study reported that cardiac injury and dysfunction are common in these patients – even those who have preserved ejection fraction – and that diastolic dysfunction is persistent. For comparison, the study also included 20 healthy controls and 20 patients with classic Kawasaki disease (KD).

The study analyzed echocardiography findings in the patients, reporting left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function were worse than in classic Kawasaki disease (KD), which MIS-C mimics. Lead author Daisuke Matsubara, MD, PhD, and colleagues reported that four markers – LV global longitudinal strain, LV circumferential strain rate, right ventricular strain, and left atrial strain – were the strongest predictors of myocardial injury in these patients. After the acute phase, systolic function tended to recover, but diastolic dysfunction persisted.
 

‘Strain’ measurement boosts accuracy

While echocardiography has been reported to be valuable in evaluating coronary artery function in MIS-C patients, Dr. Matsubara of the division of cardiology at CHOP, said in an interview that study is the first to use the newer echocardiography indexes, known as “strain,” to assess heart function.

“Strain is a more sensitive tool than more conventional indexes and can detect subtle decrease in heart function, even when ejection fraction is preserved,” he said. “Numerous publications have reached conclusions that strain improves the prognostic and diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography in a wide variety of cardiac pathologies causing LV dysfunction.”

Dr. Matsubara noted that the coronary arteries were mostly unaffected in the acute stage of MIS-C, as only one patient in their MIS-C cohort had coronary artery involvement, which normalized during early follow-up. “On the other hand, 20% of our classic KD patients had coronary abnormalities, including two with aneurysms.”

By using positive troponin I or elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) to assess cardiac injury, they found a “high” (60%) incidence of myocardial injury in their MIS-C cohort. During early follow-up, most of the MIS-C patients showed normalization of systolic function, although diastolic dysfunction persisted.

When compared with the classic KD group, MIS-C patients had higher rates of mitral regurgitation (46% vs. 15%, P = .06), more pericardial effusion (32% vs. 15%, P = 0.46), and more pleural effusion (39% vs. 0%, P = .004). MIS-C patients with suspected myocardial injury show these findings more frequently than those with actual myocardial injury.

Compared with the healthy controls, the MIS-C patients showed both LV systolic and diastolic dysfunction as well as significantly lower left atrium (LA) strain and peak right ventricle (RV) free-wall longitudinal strain.

“In addition to the left ventricle, two other chambers of the heart, the LA and the RV that are often labeled as the ‘forgotten chambers’ of the heart, were also affected by MIS-C,” Dr. Matsubara said. “Both LA and RV strains were markedly reduced in MIS-C patients, compared to normal and KD patients.”

The study also indicates that elevated troponin I levels may not be as dire in children as they are in adults. Dr. Matsubara cited a study of more than 2,700 adult COVID-19 patients that found that even mild increases in troponin I level were associated with increased death during hospitalization (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:533-46).

However, most of the patients in the CHOP study, even those with elevated troponin I levels, recovered systolic function quickly. “We speculate that the elevation in cardiac troponins may have less dire implications in children, likely due to a more transient type of cardiac injury and less comorbidities in children,” he said. “Clearly further studies are needed before a definitive statement can be made.”

Dr. Matsubara added that recovered COVID-19 patients may be able to participate in sports as some schools reopen. “We are not saying restrict sport participation, but we are merely urging caution.”

Comprehensive LV evaluation needed

The findings reinforce that myocardial involvement is more frequent and sometimes more severe in MIS-C than previously thought, said Kevin G. Friedman, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an attending physician in the department of cardiology at Boston Children’s Hospital. “We are underestimating it by using just traditional measures like ejection fraction. It requires a comprehensive evaluation of left ventricular function; it really affects all aspects of the ventricle, both the systolic function and the diastolic function.”

This study supports that MIS-C patients should have a more detailed analysis than EF on echocardiography, including strain imaging. “Probably these patients should all be followed at centers where they can evaluate a more detailed analysis of the LV and RV function,” he said. Patients with ongoing CA enlargement and LV dysfunction should have follow-up cardiac care indefinitely. Patients who have no cardiac symptoms during the acute phase probably don’t need long-term follow-up.

“We’re just trying to learn more about this disease, and it’s certainly concerning that so many kids are having cardiac involvement,” Dr. Friedman said. “Fortunately they’re getting better; we’re just trying to find out what this means for the long term.”

Dr. Matsubara and Dr. Friedman have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Matsubara D et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Sep 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.056.

The immune system overactivation known as a “cytokine storm” does not play a major role in more severe COVID-19 outcomes, according to unexpected findings in new research. The findings stand in direct contrast to many previous reports.

“We were indeed surprised by the results of our study,” senior study author Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

In a unique approach, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues compared cytokine levels in critically ill people with COVID-19 with those in patients with bacterial sepsis, trauma, and after cardiac arrest.

“For the first time, we measured the cytokines in different diseases using the same methods. Our results convincingly show that the circulating cytokine concentrations are not higher, but lower, compared to other diseases,” said Dr. Pickkers, who is affiliated with the department of intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The team’s research was published online on Sept. 3 in a letter in JAMA.
 

Cytokines lower than expected

Normally, cytokines trigger inflammation and promote healing after trauma, infection, or other conditions.

Although a cytokine storm remains ill defined, the authors noted, many researchers have implicated a hyperinflammatory response involving these small proteins in the pathophysiology of COVID-19.

The question remains, however, whether all cytokine storms strike people with different conditions the same way.

Dr. Pickkers, lead author Matthijs Kox, PhD, and colleagues studied 46 people with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were admitted to the ICU at Radboud University Medical Center. All participants underwent mechanical ventilation and were treated between March 11 and April 27, 2020.

The investigators measured plasma levels of cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-6, and IL-8. They compared results in this group with those in 51 patients who experienced septic shock and ARDS, 15 patients with septic shock without ARDS, 30 people with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 62 people who experienced multiple traumas. They used historical data for the non–COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Conditional findings

Compared with patients with septic shock and ARDS, the COVID-19 cohort had lower levels of TNF, IL-6, and IL-8. The differences were statistically significant for TNF (P < .01), as well as for IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations (for both, P < .001).

In addition, the COVID-19 group had significantly lower IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations compared with the patients who had septic shock without ARDS.

The researchers likewise found lower concentrations of IL-8 in patients with COVID-19, compared with the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. IL-8 levels did not differ between the COVID-19 and trauma groups.

Furthermore, the researchers found no differences in IL-6 concentrations between patients with COVID-19 and those who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or trauma.

However, levels of TNF in people with COVID-19 were higher than in trauma patients.

The small sample sizes and single-center study design are limitations.

“The findings of this preliminary analysis suggest COVID-19 may not be characterized by cytokine storm,” the researchers noted. However, they added, “whether anticytokine therapies will benefit patients with COVID-19 remains to be determined.”

Going forward, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues are investigating the effectiveness of different treatments to lower cytokine levels. They are treating people with COVID-19, for example, with the IL-1 cytokine inhibitor anakinra and steroids.

They also plan to assess the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the immune system. “Following an infection, it is known that the immune system may be suppressed for a longer period of time, and we are determining to what extent this is also present in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Pickkers said.
 

Enough to cause a storm?

The study “is quite interesting, and data in this paper are consistent with our data,” Tadamitsu Kishimoto, MD, PhD, of the department of immune regulation at the Immunology Frontier Research Center at Osaka (Japan) University, said in an interview.

His study, published online August 21 in PNAS, also revealed lower serum IL-6 levels among people with COVID-19, compared with patients with bacterial ARDS or sepsis.

Dr. Kishimoto drew a distinction, however: COVID-19 patients can develop severe respiratory failure, suggesting a distinct immune reaction, compared with patients with bacterial sepsis. SARS-CoV-2 directly infects and activates endothelial cells rather than macrophages, as occurs in sepsis.

For this reason, Dr. Kishimoto said, “SARS-CoV-2 infection causes critical illness and severe dysfunction in respiratory organs and induces a cytokine storm,” even in the setting of lower but still elevated serum IL-6 levels.

Dr. Pickkers and Dr. Kishimoto reported no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The immune system overactivation known as a “cytokine storm” does not play a major role in more severe COVID-19 outcomes, according to unexpected findings in new research. The findings stand in direct contrast to many previous reports.

“We were indeed surprised by the results of our study,” senior study author Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

In a unique approach, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues compared cytokine levels in critically ill people with COVID-19 with those in patients with bacterial sepsis, trauma, and after cardiac arrest.

“For the first time, we measured the cytokines in different diseases using the same methods. Our results convincingly show that the circulating cytokine concentrations are not higher, but lower, compared to other diseases,” said Dr. Pickkers, who is affiliated with the department of intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The team’s research was published online on Sept. 3 in a letter in JAMA.
 

Cytokines lower than expected

Normally, cytokines trigger inflammation and promote healing after trauma, infection, or other conditions.

Although a cytokine storm remains ill defined, the authors noted, many researchers have implicated a hyperinflammatory response involving these small proteins in the pathophysiology of COVID-19.

The question remains, however, whether all cytokine storms strike people with different conditions the same way.

Dr. Pickkers, lead author Matthijs Kox, PhD, and colleagues studied 46 people with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were admitted to the ICU at Radboud University Medical Center. All participants underwent mechanical ventilation and were treated between March 11 and April 27, 2020.

The investigators measured plasma levels of cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-6, and IL-8. They compared results in this group with those in 51 patients who experienced septic shock and ARDS, 15 patients with septic shock without ARDS, 30 people with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 62 people who experienced multiple traumas. They used historical data for the non–COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Conditional findings

Compared with patients with septic shock and ARDS, the COVID-19 cohort had lower levels of TNF, IL-6, and IL-8. The differences were statistically significant for TNF (P < .01), as well as for IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations (for both, P < .001).

In addition, the COVID-19 group had significantly lower IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations compared with the patients who had septic shock without ARDS.

The researchers likewise found lower concentrations of IL-8 in patients with COVID-19, compared with the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. IL-8 levels did not differ between the COVID-19 and trauma groups.

Furthermore, the researchers found no differences in IL-6 concentrations between patients with COVID-19 and those who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or trauma.

However, levels of TNF in people with COVID-19 were higher than in trauma patients.

The small sample sizes and single-center study design are limitations.

“The findings of this preliminary analysis suggest COVID-19 may not be characterized by cytokine storm,” the researchers noted. However, they added, “whether anticytokine therapies will benefit patients with COVID-19 remains to be determined.”

Going forward, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues are investigating the effectiveness of different treatments to lower cytokine levels. They are treating people with COVID-19, for example, with the IL-1 cytokine inhibitor anakinra and steroids.

They also plan to assess the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the immune system. “Following an infection, it is known that the immune system may be suppressed for a longer period of time, and we are determining to what extent this is also present in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Pickkers said.
 

Enough to cause a storm?

The study “is quite interesting, and data in this paper are consistent with our data,” Tadamitsu Kishimoto, MD, PhD, of the department of immune regulation at the Immunology Frontier Research Center at Osaka (Japan) University, said in an interview.

His study, published online August 21 in PNAS, also revealed lower serum IL-6 levels among people with COVID-19, compared with patients with bacterial ARDS or sepsis.

Dr. Kishimoto drew a distinction, however: COVID-19 patients can develop severe respiratory failure, suggesting a distinct immune reaction, compared with patients with bacterial sepsis. SARS-CoV-2 directly infects and activates endothelial cells rather than macrophages, as occurs in sepsis.

For this reason, Dr. Kishimoto said, “SARS-CoV-2 infection causes critical illness and severe dysfunction in respiratory organs and induces a cytokine storm,” even in the setting of lower but still elevated serum IL-6 levels.

Dr. Pickkers and Dr. Kishimoto reported no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The immune system overactivation known as a “cytokine storm” does not play a major role in more severe COVID-19 outcomes, according to unexpected findings in new research. The findings stand in direct contrast to many previous reports.

“We were indeed surprised by the results of our study,” senior study author Peter Pickkers, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

In a unique approach, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues compared cytokine levels in critically ill people with COVID-19 with those in patients with bacterial sepsis, trauma, and after cardiac arrest.

“For the first time, we measured the cytokines in different diseases using the same methods. Our results convincingly show that the circulating cytokine concentrations are not higher, but lower, compared to other diseases,” said Dr. Pickkers, who is affiliated with the department of intensive care medicine at Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The team’s research was published online on Sept. 3 in a letter in JAMA.
 

Cytokines lower than expected

Normally, cytokines trigger inflammation and promote healing after trauma, infection, or other conditions.

Although a cytokine storm remains ill defined, the authors noted, many researchers have implicated a hyperinflammatory response involving these small proteins in the pathophysiology of COVID-19.

The question remains, however, whether all cytokine storms strike people with different conditions the same way.

Dr. Pickkers, lead author Matthijs Kox, PhD, and colleagues studied 46 people with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were admitted to the ICU at Radboud University Medical Center. All participants underwent mechanical ventilation and were treated between March 11 and April 27, 2020.

The investigators measured plasma levels of cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin-6, and IL-8. They compared results in this group with those in 51 patients who experienced septic shock and ARDS, 15 patients with septic shock without ARDS, 30 people with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 62 people who experienced multiple traumas. They used historical data for the non–COVID-19 cohorts.
 

Conditional findings

Compared with patients with septic shock and ARDS, the COVID-19 cohort had lower levels of TNF, IL-6, and IL-8. The differences were statistically significant for TNF (P < .01), as well as for IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations (for both, P < .001).

In addition, the COVID-19 group had significantly lower IL-6 and IL-8 concentrations compared with the patients who had septic shock without ARDS.

The researchers likewise found lower concentrations of IL-8 in patients with COVID-19, compared with the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. IL-8 levels did not differ between the COVID-19 and trauma groups.

Furthermore, the researchers found no differences in IL-6 concentrations between patients with COVID-19 and those who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or trauma.

However, levels of TNF in people with COVID-19 were higher than in trauma patients.

The small sample sizes and single-center study design are limitations.

“The findings of this preliminary analysis suggest COVID-19 may not be characterized by cytokine storm,” the researchers noted. However, they added, “whether anticytokine therapies will benefit patients with COVID-19 remains to be determined.”

Going forward, Dr. Pickkers and colleagues are investigating the effectiveness of different treatments to lower cytokine levels. They are treating people with COVID-19, for example, with the IL-1 cytokine inhibitor anakinra and steroids.

They also plan to assess the long-term effects of COVID-19 on the immune system. “Following an infection, it is known that the immune system may be suppressed for a longer period of time, and we are determining to what extent this is also present in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Pickkers said.
 

Enough to cause a storm?

The study “is quite interesting, and data in this paper are consistent with our data,” Tadamitsu Kishimoto, MD, PhD, of the department of immune regulation at the Immunology Frontier Research Center at Osaka (Japan) University, said in an interview.

His study, published online August 21 in PNAS, also revealed lower serum IL-6 levels among people with COVID-19, compared with patients with bacterial ARDS or sepsis.

Dr. Kishimoto drew a distinction, however: COVID-19 patients can develop severe respiratory failure, suggesting a distinct immune reaction, compared with patients with bacterial sepsis. SARS-CoV-2 directly infects and activates endothelial cells rather than macrophages, as occurs in sepsis.

For this reason, Dr. Kishimoto said, “SARS-CoV-2 infection causes critical illness and severe dysfunction in respiratory organs and induces a cytokine storm,” even in the setting of lower but still elevated serum IL-6 levels.

Dr. Pickkers and Dr. Kishimoto reported no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus paclitaxel is ineffective in patients with previously untreated, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), according to an alert from the Food and Drug Administration.

The FDA said the phase 3 IMpassion131 trial showed that atezolizumab plus paclitaxel did not significantly reduce the risk of cancer progression and death, when compared with paclitaxel plus placebo, in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive patients.

“Additionally, interim overall survival results favored paclitaxel plus placebo over paclitaxel plus atezolizumab in both the PD-L1-positive population and total population,” the FDA noted.

As a result, “health care professionals should not replace paclitaxel protein-bound (Abraxane) with paclitaxel in clinical practice,” the FDA advised.

Atezolizumab is approved for use in combination with protein-bound paclitaxel, also known as nanoparticle albumin–bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel), to treat patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1, as detected by an FDA-approved test. The combination was granted accelerated approval for this indication last year.

Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel is the combination most often used in PD-L1-positive TNBC, as opposed to atezolizumab and unbound paclitaxel, said Melinda L. Telli, MD, an associate professor of medicine and director of the Stanford Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Program at Stanford (Calif.) University.

However, as the FDA noted, “continued approval of atezolizumab in combination with [nab-paclitaxel] may be contingent on proven benefit of the treatment in additional trials.”

Dr. Telli explained that atezolizumab was granted accelerated approval for the treatment of PD-L1-positive TNBC based on results of the phase 3 IMpassion130 trial, which compared nab-paclitaxel plus atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel plus placebo.

“Additional data from IMpassion131 was hoped to be used to support the conversion of the accelerated approval to a full approval. Since IMpassion131 was negative, it unfortunately places the status of atezolizumab in [TNBC] in jeopardy as the benefits were not corroborated. The FDA may move to revoke the approval of atezolizumab for [TNBC],” Dr. Telli said.

In its alert, the FDA stated that it “will review the findings of IMpassion131 and will communicate new information regarding the IMpassion131 results and any potential changes to prescribing information.”

“We need to wait for full presentation and publication of the study results, but, in my assessment, the negative results in IMpassion131 are most likely due to differences in patient selection [from IMpassion130],” Dr. Telli said.

Results from IMpassion131 are scheduled to be presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020.

The IMpassion trials were funded by Roche, maker of atezolizumab. Dr. Telli disclosed relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Merck, PharmaMar, Pfizer, and Tesaro.
 

[email protected]

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus paclitaxel is ineffective in patients with previously untreated, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), according to an alert from the Food and Drug Administration.

The FDA said the phase 3 IMpassion131 trial showed that atezolizumab plus paclitaxel did not significantly reduce the risk of cancer progression and death, when compared with paclitaxel plus placebo, in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive patients.

“Additionally, interim overall survival results favored paclitaxel plus placebo over paclitaxel plus atezolizumab in both the PD-L1-positive population and total population,” the FDA noted.

As a result, “health care professionals should not replace paclitaxel protein-bound (Abraxane) with paclitaxel in clinical practice,” the FDA advised.

Atezolizumab is approved for use in combination with protein-bound paclitaxel, also known as nanoparticle albumin–bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel), to treat patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1, as detected by an FDA-approved test. The combination was granted accelerated approval for this indication last year.

Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel is the combination most often used in PD-L1-positive TNBC, as opposed to atezolizumab and unbound paclitaxel, said Melinda L. Telli, MD, an associate professor of medicine and director of the Stanford Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Program at Stanford (Calif.) University.

However, as the FDA noted, “continued approval of atezolizumab in combination with [nab-paclitaxel] may be contingent on proven benefit of the treatment in additional trials.”

Dr. Telli explained that atezolizumab was granted accelerated approval for the treatment of PD-L1-positive TNBC based on results of the phase 3 IMpassion130 trial, which compared nab-paclitaxel plus atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel plus placebo.

“Additional data from IMpassion131 was hoped to be used to support the conversion of the accelerated approval to a full approval. Since IMpassion131 was negative, it unfortunately places the status of atezolizumab in [TNBC] in jeopardy as the benefits were not corroborated. The FDA may move to revoke the approval of atezolizumab for [TNBC],” Dr. Telli said.

In its alert, the FDA stated that it “will review the findings of IMpassion131 and will communicate new information regarding the IMpassion131 results and any potential changes to prescribing information.”

“We need to wait for full presentation and publication of the study results, but, in my assessment, the negative results in IMpassion131 are most likely due to differences in patient selection [from IMpassion130],” Dr. Telli said.

Results from IMpassion131 are scheduled to be presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020.

The IMpassion trials were funded by Roche, maker of atezolizumab. Dr. Telli disclosed relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Merck, PharmaMar, Pfizer, and Tesaro.
 

[email protected]

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus paclitaxel is ineffective in patients with previously untreated, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), according to an alert from the Food and Drug Administration.

The FDA said the phase 3 IMpassion131 trial showed that atezolizumab plus paclitaxel did not significantly reduce the risk of cancer progression and death, when compared with paclitaxel plus placebo, in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive patients.

“Additionally, interim overall survival results favored paclitaxel plus placebo over paclitaxel plus atezolizumab in both the PD-L1-positive population and total population,” the FDA noted.

As a result, “health care professionals should not replace paclitaxel protein-bound (Abraxane) with paclitaxel in clinical practice,” the FDA advised.

Atezolizumab is approved for use in combination with protein-bound paclitaxel, also known as nanoparticle albumin–bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel), to treat patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1, as detected by an FDA-approved test. The combination was granted accelerated approval for this indication last year.

Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel is the combination most often used in PD-L1-positive TNBC, as opposed to atezolizumab and unbound paclitaxel, said Melinda L. Telli, MD, an associate professor of medicine and director of the Stanford Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Program at Stanford (Calif.) University.

However, as the FDA noted, “continued approval of atezolizumab in combination with [nab-paclitaxel] may be contingent on proven benefit of the treatment in additional trials.”

Dr. Telli explained that atezolizumab was granted accelerated approval for the treatment of PD-L1-positive TNBC based on results of the phase 3 IMpassion130 trial, which compared nab-paclitaxel plus atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel plus placebo.

“Additional data from IMpassion131 was hoped to be used to support the conversion of the accelerated approval to a full approval. Since IMpassion131 was negative, it unfortunately places the status of atezolizumab in [TNBC] in jeopardy as the benefits were not corroborated. The FDA may move to revoke the approval of atezolizumab for [TNBC],” Dr. Telli said.

In its alert, the FDA stated that it “will review the findings of IMpassion131 and will communicate new information regarding the IMpassion131 results and any potential changes to prescribing information.”

“We need to wait for full presentation and publication of the study results, but, in my assessment, the negative results in IMpassion131 are most likely due to differences in patient selection [from IMpassion130],” Dr. Telli said.

Results from IMpassion131 are scheduled to be presented at the ESMO Virtual Congress 2020.

The IMpassion trials were funded by Roche, maker of atezolizumab. Dr. Telli disclosed relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Merck, PharmaMar, Pfizer, and Tesaro.
 

[email protected]

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Knowing it may be met with some skepticism, the Trump administration Thursday announced a sweeping plan that officials say will transform health care in rural America.

Even before the coronavirus pandemic reached into the nation’s less-populated regions, rural Americans were sicker, poorer, and older than the rest of the country. Hospitals are shuttering at record rates, and health care experts have long called for changes.

The new plan, released by the Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar, II, acknowledges the gaps in health care and other problems facing rural America. It lists a litany of projects and directives, with many already underway or announced within federal agencies.

“We cannot just tinker around the edges of a rural healthcare system that has struggled for too long,” Azar said in a prepared statement.

Yet, that is exactly what experts say the administration continues to do.

“They tinker around the edges,” said Tommy Barnhart, former president of the National Rural Health Association. And he added, “there’s a lot of political hype” that has happened under President Trump, as well as previous presidents.

In the past few months, rural health care has increasingly become a focus for Mr. Trump, whose polling numbers are souring as COVID-19 kills hundreds of Americans every day, drives down restaurant demand for some farm products, and spreads through meatpacking plants. Rural states including Iowa and the Dakotas are reporting the latest surges in cases.

This announcement comes in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order last month calling for improved rural health and telehealth access. Earlier this week, three federal agencies also announced they would team up to address gaps in rural broadband service – a key need because large portions of the plan seek to expand telehealth.

The plan is more than 70 pages long and the word “telehealth” appears more than 90 times, with a focus on projects across HHS, including the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Mr. Barnhart said CMS has passed some public health emergency waivers since the beginning of the pandemic that helped rural facilities get more funding, including one that specifically was designed to provide additional money for telehealth services. However, those waivers are set to expire when the coronavirus emergency ends. Officials have not yet set a date for when the federal emergency will end.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor to the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, a private foundation that works to ensure greater Internet access, said there are multiple challenges with implementing telehealth across the nation. Many initiatives for robust telehealth programs need fast bandwidth, yet getting the money and setting up the necessary infrastructure is very difficult, he said.

“It will be a long time before this kind of technology will be readily available to much of the country,” he said.

Ge Bai, associate professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, noted that telehealth was short on funding in the HHS initiative. However, she said, the focus on telehealth, as well as a proposed shift in payment for small rural hospitals and changing workforce licensing requirements, had good potential.

“We are so close to the election that this is probably more of a messaging issue to cater to rural residents,” Ms. Bai said. “But it doesn’t matter who will be president. This report will give the next administration useful guidance.”

The American Hospital Association, representing 5,000 hospitals nationwide, sent a letter to Mr. Trump last week recommending a host of steps the administration could take. As of late Thursday, AHA was still reviewing the HHS plan but said it was “encouraged by the increased attention on rural health care.”

Buried within the HHS announcement are technical initiatives, such as a contract to help clinics and hospitals integrate care, and detailed efforts to address gaps in care, including a proposal to increase funding for school-based mental health programs in the president’s 2021 budget.

A senior HHS official said that, while some actions have been taken in recent months to improve rural health — such as the $11 billion provided to rural hospitals through coronavirus relief funding — more is needed.

“We’re putting our stake in the ground that the time for talk is over,” he said. “We’re going to move forward.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

One of every 10 pregnant or recently pregnant women in hospital was diagnosed with COVID-19, yet up to three-quarters were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis, according to a living systematic review from the PregCOV-19 Living Systematic Review Consortium.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

The study, published in BMJ, shows an increased risk of preterm delivery, as well as the need for invasive ventilation in these women, wrote John Allotey, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The findings “will produce a strong evidence base for living guidelines on COVID-19 and pregnancy,” they noted.

The systematic review included 77 studies, one-third each from the United States and China, with the remaining studies from Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The studies included women with COVID-19, of whom 13,118 were either pregnant or in the postpartum or postabortion period and 83,486 were of reproductive age but not pregnant. Some studies also included healthy pregnant women for comparison.

In the pregnant and recently pregnant women, the most common COVID-19 symptoms were fever (40%) and cough (39%), with lymphopenia (35%) and raised C reactive protein levels (49%) being the most common laboratory findings. Pregnant and recently pregnant women with COVID-19 were less likely to have fever (odds ratio, 0.43) and myalgia (OR, 0.48), compared with nonpregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19, reported the authors.

The overall preterm and spontaneous preterm birth rates in the COVID-19–positive women were 17% and 6% respectively. Dr. Allotey and authors noted that “these preterm births could be medically indicated, as the overall rates of spontaneous preterm births in pregnant women with COVID-19 was broadly similar to those observed in the pre-pandemic period.” There were 18 stillbirths and 6 neonatal deaths in the COVID-19 cohort.

Overall, 73 (0.1%) of pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 died from any cause, and severe COVID-19 infection was diagnosed in 13%. Maternal risk factors associated with severe infection included older age (OR, 1.78), high body mass index (OR, 2.3), chronic hypertension (OR, 2.0), and preexisting diabetes (OR, 2.51). Compared with nonpregnant women with COVID-19, pregnant or recently pregnant women with the infection were at increased risk of admission to intensive care (OR, 1.62) and needing invasive ventilation (OR, 1.88).

The report included studies published between December 1, 2019, and June 26, 2020, but the living systematic review will involve weekly search updates, with analysis performed every 2-4 weeks and reported through a dedicated website.
 

The value of a living meta-analysis

Asked to comment on the findings, Torri Metz, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, expressed surprise at the 10% rate of infection in the pregnant or recently pregnant population. “This is higher than currently observed at many hospitals in the United States,” she said in an interview. “This may overestimate the actual risk as many of these studies were published early in the pandemic and did not universally sample women who were pregnant for SARS-CoV-2.”

She noted the value of a living meta-analysis in that it will be updated on a regular basis as new evidence emerges. “During this time of rapidly accumulating publications about COVID-19 infection, clinicians will find it useful to have a resource in which the available data can be combined in one source.”

And there are still some outstanding questions that new studies hopefully will shed light on, she added. “The authors found that many of the risk factors for severe disease, like diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure, in nonpregnant adults are the same in the pregnant population. What remains unknown is if pregnant patients with COVID-19 infection are at higher risk than those who are not pregnant. The authors note that this information is still limited and largely influenced in this published analysis by a CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] study in which the majority of patients had unknown pregnancy status. We also do not know if COVID-19 infection is associated with any birth defects since the majority of women with COVID-19 infection in the first trimester have not yet delivered.”

Malavika Prabhu, MD, an obstetetrician/gyneologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City added that “this systematic review and meta analysis, which is a compilation of other studies done around the globe, confirms that pregnant women with preexisting medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and that pregnant women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of invasive ventilation, compared to nonpregnant women with COVID-19, particularly if they have a preexisting medical condition.”

She said the preterm delivery rate of COVID-positive women is “challenging to interpret given that the total preterm birth rate potentially included many medically indicated preterm deliveries – which is to be expected – and there is no comparison group for spontaneous preterm birth presented”.

Other outstanding questions about COVID-19 pregnancies include whether they are associated with preeclampsia or smaller/growth restricted infants and why the cesarean delivery rate is high, she said. “But some of these questions are tough to answer with this data because it primarily reflects a COVID infection close to the delivery, not one that occurred several months prior to a delivery.”

Deborah Money, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, medicine, and the school of population and public health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, commented that “this is a group that have been doing ongoing living systematic reviews of the literature scanning for pregnancy outcomes. They post their information in real time on their website, so many of us in this area follow these postings as their methodology is robust and they work hard to only include high-quality literature and avoid duplication of cases in multiple papers. There has been a problem of re-reporting the same severe cases of COVID-19 in the literature.”

This “amplifies the importance of collecting Canadian-specific data to ensure that we understand if these kind of outcomes will also be found in Canada. The data presented in this paper represent outcomes from a broad range of countries with different methods of collecting information on pregnancy and highly variable prenatal care systems. This makes our pan-Canadian study of outcomes of COVID-19 for pregnant women and their infants, CANCOVID-Preg, even more important,” she said.

“Globally, we all must continue to monitor outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy to minimize adverse impact on women and their infants,” said Dr. Money, who was not involved in the study.

The study was partially funded by the World Health Organization and supported by Katie’s Team, a dedicated patient and public involvement group in Women’s Health. Dr. Metz is principal investigator for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network COVID-19 study; the study is funded by NICHD and enrollment is ongoing. Dr. Prabhu had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Money received funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada and received a small grant from theBC Women’s Foundation for COVID-19 in pregnancy research.

SOURCE: Allotey J et al. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320.

One of every 10 pregnant or recently pregnant women in hospital was diagnosed with COVID-19, yet up to three-quarters were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis, according to a living systematic review from the PregCOV-19 Living Systematic Review Consortium.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

The study, published in BMJ, shows an increased risk of preterm delivery, as well as the need for invasive ventilation in these women, wrote John Allotey, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The findings “will produce a strong evidence base for living guidelines on COVID-19 and pregnancy,” they noted.

The systematic review included 77 studies, one-third each from the United States and China, with the remaining studies from Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The studies included women with COVID-19, of whom 13,118 were either pregnant or in the postpartum or postabortion period and 83,486 were of reproductive age but not pregnant. Some studies also included healthy pregnant women for comparison.

In the pregnant and recently pregnant women, the most common COVID-19 symptoms were fever (40%) and cough (39%), with lymphopenia (35%) and raised C reactive protein levels (49%) being the most common laboratory findings. Pregnant and recently pregnant women with COVID-19 were less likely to have fever (odds ratio, 0.43) and myalgia (OR, 0.48), compared with nonpregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19, reported the authors.

The overall preterm and spontaneous preterm birth rates in the COVID-19–positive women were 17% and 6% respectively. Dr. Allotey and authors noted that “these preterm births could be medically indicated, as the overall rates of spontaneous preterm births in pregnant women with COVID-19 was broadly similar to those observed in the pre-pandemic period.” There were 18 stillbirths and 6 neonatal deaths in the COVID-19 cohort.

Overall, 73 (0.1%) of pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 died from any cause, and severe COVID-19 infection was diagnosed in 13%. Maternal risk factors associated with severe infection included older age (OR, 1.78), high body mass index (OR, 2.3), chronic hypertension (OR, 2.0), and preexisting diabetes (OR, 2.51). Compared with nonpregnant women with COVID-19, pregnant or recently pregnant women with the infection were at increased risk of admission to intensive care (OR, 1.62) and needing invasive ventilation (OR, 1.88).

The report included studies published between December 1, 2019, and June 26, 2020, but the living systematic review will involve weekly search updates, with analysis performed every 2-4 weeks and reported through a dedicated website.
 

The value of a living meta-analysis

Asked to comment on the findings, Torri Metz, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, expressed surprise at the 10% rate of infection in the pregnant or recently pregnant population. “This is higher than currently observed at many hospitals in the United States,” she said in an interview. “This may overestimate the actual risk as many of these studies were published early in the pandemic and did not universally sample women who were pregnant for SARS-CoV-2.”

She noted the value of a living meta-analysis in that it will be updated on a regular basis as new evidence emerges. “During this time of rapidly accumulating publications about COVID-19 infection, clinicians will find it useful to have a resource in which the available data can be combined in one source.”

And there are still some outstanding questions that new studies hopefully will shed light on, she added. “The authors found that many of the risk factors for severe disease, like diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure, in nonpregnant adults are the same in the pregnant population. What remains unknown is if pregnant patients with COVID-19 infection are at higher risk than those who are not pregnant. The authors note that this information is still limited and largely influenced in this published analysis by a CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] study in which the majority of patients had unknown pregnancy status. We also do not know if COVID-19 infection is associated with any birth defects since the majority of women with COVID-19 infection in the first trimester have not yet delivered.”

Malavika Prabhu, MD, an obstetetrician/gyneologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City added that “this systematic review and meta analysis, which is a compilation of other studies done around the globe, confirms that pregnant women with preexisting medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and that pregnant women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of invasive ventilation, compared to nonpregnant women with COVID-19, particularly if they have a preexisting medical condition.”

She said the preterm delivery rate of COVID-positive women is “challenging to interpret given that the total preterm birth rate potentially included many medically indicated preterm deliveries – which is to be expected – and there is no comparison group for spontaneous preterm birth presented”.

Other outstanding questions about COVID-19 pregnancies include whether they are associated with preeclampsia or smaller/growth restricted infants and why the cesarean delivery rate is high, she said. “But some of these questions are tough to answer with this data because it primarily reflects a COVID infection close to the delivery, not one that occurred several months prior to a delivery.”

Deborah Money, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, medicine, and the school of population and public health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, commented that “this is a group that have been doing ongoing living systematic reviews of the literature scanning for pregnancy outcomes. They post their information in real time on their website, so many of us in this area follow these postings as their methodology is robust and they work hard to only include high-quality literature and avoid duplication of cases in multiple papers. There has been a problem of re-reporting the same severe cases of COVID-19 in the literature.”

This “amplifies the importance of collecting Canadian-specific data to ensure that we understand if these kind of outcomes will also be found in Canada. The data presented in this paper represent outcomes from a broad range of countries with different methods of collecting information on pregnancy and highly variable prenatal care systems. This makes our pan-Canadian study of outcomes of COVID-19 for pregnant women and their infants, CANCOVID-Preg, even more important,” she said.

“Globally, we all must continue to monitor outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy to minimize adverse impact on women and their infants,” said Dr. Money, who was not involved in the study.

The study was partially funded by the World Health Organization and supported by Katie’s Team, a dedicated patient and public involvement group in Women’s Health. Dr. Metz is principal investigator for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network COVID-19 study; the study is funded by NICHD and enrollment is ongoing. Dr. Prabhu had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Money received funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada and received a small grant from theBC Women’s Foundation for COVID-19 in pregnancy research.

SOURCE: Allotey J et al. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320.

One of every 10 pregnant or recently pregnant women in hospital was diagnosed with COVID-19, yet up to three-quarters were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis, according to a living systematic review from the PregCOV-19 Living Systematic Review Consortium.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

The study, published in BMJ, shows an increased risk of preterm delivery, as well as the need for invasive ventilation in these women, wrote John Allotey, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The findings “will produce a strong evidence base for living guidelines on COVID-19 and pregnancy,” they noted.

The systematic review included 77 studies, one-third each from the United States and China, with the remaining studies from Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The studies included women with COVID-19, of whom 13,118 were either pregnant or in the postpartum or postabortion period and 83,486 were of reproductive age but not pregnant. Some studies also included healthy pregnant women for comparison.

In the pregnant and recently pregnant women, the most common COVID-19 symptoms were fever (40%) and cough (39%), with lymphopenia (35%) and raised C reactive protein levels (49%) being the most common laboratory findings. Pregnant and recently pregnant women with COVID-19 were less likely to have fever (odds ratio, 0.43) and myalgia (OR, 0.48), compared with nonpregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19, reported the authors.

The overall preterm and spontaneous preterm birth rates in the COVID-19–positive women were 17% and 6% respectively. Dr. Allotey and authors noted that “these preterm births could be medically indicated, as the overall rates of spontaneous preterm births in pregnant women with COVID-19 was broadly similar to those observed in the pre-pandemic period.” There were 18 stillbirths and 6 neonatal deaths in the COVID-19 cohort.

Overall, 73 (0.1%) of pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 died from any cause, and severe COVID-19 infection was diagnosed in 13%. Maternal risk factors associated with severe infection included older age (OR, 1.78), high body mass index (OR, 2.3), chronic hypertension (OR, 2.0), and preexisting diabetes (OR, 2.51). Compared with nonpregnant women with COVID-19, pregnant or recently pregnant women with the infection were at increased risk of admission to intensive care (OR, 1.62) and needing invasive ventilation (OR, 1.88).

The report included studies published between December 1, 2019, and June 26, 2020, but the living systematic review will involve weekly search updates, with analysis performed every 2-4 weeks and reported through a dedicated website.
 

The value of a living meta-analysis

Asked to comment on the findings, Torri Metz, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, expressed surprise at the 10% rate of infection in the pregnant or recently pregnant population. “This is higher than currently observed at many hospitals in the United States,” she said in an interview. “This may overestimate the actual risk as many of these studies were published early in the pandemic and did not universally sample women who were pregnant for SARS-CoV-2.”

She noted the value of a living meta-analysis in that it will be updated on a regular basis as new evidence emerges. “During this time of rapidly accumulating publications about COVID-19 infection, clinicians will find it useful to have a resource in which the available data can be combined in one source.”

And there are still some outstanding questions that new studies hopefully will shed light on, she added. “The authors found that many of the risk factors for severe disease, like diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure, in nonpregnant adults are the same in the pregnant population. What remains unknown is if pregnant patients with COVID-19 infection are at higher risk than those who are not pregnant. The authors note that this information is still limited and largely influenced in this published analysis by a CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] study in which the majority of patients had unknown pregnancy status. We also do not know if COVID-19 infection is associated with any birth defects since the majority of women with COVID-19 infection in the first trimester have not yet delivered.”

Malavika Prabhu, MD, an obstetetrician/gyneologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City added that “this systematic review and meta analysis, which is a compilation of other studies done around the globe, confirms that pregnant women with preexisting medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and that pregnant women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of invasive ventilation, compared to nonpregnant women with COVID-19, particularly if they have a preexisting medical condition.”

She said the preterm delivery rate of COVID-positive women is “challenging to interpret given that the total preterm birth rate potentially included many medically indicated preterm deliveries – which is to be expected – and there is no comparison group for spontaneous preterm birth presented”.

Other outstanding questions about COVID-19 pregnancies include whether they are associated with preeclampsia or smaller/growth restricted infants and why the cesarean delivery rate is high, she said. “But some of these questions are tough to answer with this data because it primarily reflects a COVID infection close to the delivery, not one that occurred several months prior to a delivery.”

Deborah Money, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, medicine, and the school of population and public health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, commented that “this is a group that have been doing ongoing living systematic reviews of the literature scanning for pregnancy outcomes. They post their information in real time on their website, so many of us in this area follow these postings as their methodology is robust and they work hard to only include high-quality literature and avoid duplication of cases in multiple papers. There has been a problem of re-reporting the same severe cases of COVID-19 in the literature.”

This “amplifies the importance of collecting Canadian-specific data to ensure that we understand if these kind of outcomes will also be found in Canada. The data presented in this paper represent outcomes from a broad range of countries with different methods of collecting information on pregnancy and highly variable prenatal care systems. This makes our pan-Canadian study of outcomes of COVID-19 for pregnant women and their infants, CANCOVID-Preg, even more important,” she said.

“Globally, we all must continue to monitor outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy to minimize adverse impact on women and their infants,” said Dr. Money, who was not involved in the study.

The study was partially funded by the World Health Organization and supported by Katie’s Team, a dedicated patient and public involvement group in Women’s Health. Dr. Metz is principal investigator for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network COVID-19 study; the study is funded by NICHD and enrollment is ongoing. Dr. Prabhu had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Money received funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada and received a small grant from theBC Women’s Foundation for COVID-19 in pregnancy research.

SOURCE: Allotey J et al. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320.

A second drug is now available in the United States for use in the treatment of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that tests positive for rearranged during transfection (RET) fusions.

The new drug is pralsetinib (Gavreto). The Food and Drug Administration granted it an accelerated approval for this indication on the basis of response rate data. Continued approval for this indication depends on clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.

Pralsetinib joins selpercatinib (Retevmo), which was approved in the United States in May 2020 as the first RET-targeted therapy. Selpercatinib is also indicated for use in RET+ NSCLC and was approved for use in RET+ medullary thyroid cancer and RET+ thyroid cancer.

Pralsetinib is still awaiting approval for these thyroid cancer indications.

Both drugs are taken orally; pralsetinib is taken once daily, and selpercatinib is taken twice daily.

For both drugs, before treatment is initiated, laboratory testing is needed to show that a RET gene alteration is present in the tumor.

RET fusions are found in approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC.

They are the latest of a number of tumor-specific gene alterations found in NSCLC that are targeted with an approved drug.

“Targeted therapies have dramatically improved care for patients with non–small cell lung cancer driven by oncogenes, including EGFR and ALK, and the approval of the selective RET inhibitor pralsetinib, or Gavreto, marks another milestone in a paradigm shift toward precision medicine,” Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a press release.

Dr. Subbiah was an investigator of the phase 1/2 clinical trial known as ARROW, which provided the data on which the accelerated approval was based. In this trial, patients with RET+ NSCLC were found by testing with next-generation sequencing, FISH (fluorescence in situ hybridization), or other methods.

The ARROW trial involved one cohort of 87 patients who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. In these patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 57%, the complete response (CR) rate was 5.7%, and the median duration of response (DOR) was not estimable, according to the manufacturer, Blueprint Medicines.

The trial also involved 27 treatment-naive patients who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy per the study protocol. In this group, the ORR was 70%, and the CR rate was 11%. The median DOR was 9.0 months.

“Patients treated with [pralsetinib] had durable clinical responses, with a subset achieving complete responses characterized by the resolution of all target lesions, an uncommon outcome in metastatic lung cancer,” Dr. Subbiah commented.

“We observed this activity with or without prior therapy and regardless of RET fusion partner or the presence of brain metastases. This approval represents an important advance with the potential to change standards of care for patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC, who have historically had limited treatment options,” Dr. Subbiah added.

Product information for pralsetinib has warnings and precautions of interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hypertension, hepatotoxicity, hemorrhagic events, risk for impaired wound healing, and risk for embryo-fetal toxicity.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A second drug is now available in the United States for use in the treatment of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that tests positive for rearranged during transfection (RET) fusions.

The new drug is pralsetinib (Gavreto). The Food and Drug Administration granted it an accelerated approval for this indication on the basis of response rate data. Continued approval for this indication depends on clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.

Pralsetinib joins selpercatinib (Retevmo), which was approved in the United States in May 2020 as the first RET-targeted therapy. Selpercatinib is also indicated for use in RET+ NSCLC and was approved for use in RET+ medullary thyroid cancer and RET+ thyroid cancer.

Pralsetinib is still awaiting approval for these thyroid cancer indications.

Both drugs are taken orally; pralsetinib is taken once daily, and selpercatinib is taken twice daily.

For both drugs, before treatment is initiated, laboratory testing is needed to show that a RET gene alteration is present in the tumor.

RET fusions are found in approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC.

They are the latest of a number of tumor-specific gene alterations found in NSCLC that are targeted with an approved drug.

“Targeted therapies have dramatically improved care for patients with non–small cell lung cancer driven by oncogenes, including EGFR and ALK, and the approval of the selective RET inhibitor pralsetinib, or Gavreto, marks another milestone in a paradigm shift toward precision medicine,” Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a press release.

Dr. Subbiah was an investigator of the phase 1/2 clinical trial known as ARROW, which provided the data on which the accelerated approval was based. In this trial, patients with RET+ NSCLC were found by testing with next-generation sequencing, FISH (fluorescence in situ hybridization), or other methods.

The ARROW trial involved one cohort of 87 patients who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. In these patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 57%, the complete response (CR) rate was 5.7%, and the median duration of response (DOR) was not estimable, according to the manufacturer, Blueprint Medicines.

The trial also involved 27 treatment-naive patients who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy per the study protocol. In this group, the ORR was 70%, and the CR rate was 11%. The median DOR was 9.0 months.

“Patients treated with [pralsetinib] had durable clinical responses, with a subset achieving complete responses characterized by the resolution of all target lesions, an uncommon outcome in metastatic lung cancer,” Dr. Subbiah commented.

“We observed this activity with or without prior therapy and regardless of RET fusion partner or the presence of brain metastases. This approval represents an important advance with the potential to change standards of care for patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC, who have historically had limited treatment options,” Dr. Subbiah added.

Product information for pralsetinib has warnings and precautions of interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hypertension, hepatotoxicity, hemorrhagic events, risk for impaired wound healing, and risk for embryo-fetal toxicity.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A second drug is now available in the United States for use in the treatment of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that tests positive for rearranged during transfection (RET) fusions.

The new drug is pralsetinib (Gavreto). The Food and Drug Administration granted it an accelerated approval for this indication on the basis of response rate data. Continued approval for this indication depends on clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.

Pralsetinib joins selpercatinib (Retevmo), which was approved in the United States in May 2020 as the first RET-targeted therapy. Selpercatinib is also indicated for use in RET+ NSCLC and was approved for use in RET+ medullary thyroid cancer and RET+ thyroid cancer.

Pralsetinib is still awaiting approval for these thyroid cancer indications.

Both drugs are taken orally; pralsetinib is taken once daily, and selpercatinib is taken twice daily.

For both drugs, before treatment is initiated, laboratory testing is needed to show that a RET gene alteration is present in the tumor.

RET fusions are found in approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC.

They are the latest of a number of tumor-specific gene alterations found in NSCLC that are targeted with an approved drug.

“Targeted therapies have dramatically improved care for patients with non–small cell lung cancer driven by oncogenes, including EGFR and ALK, and the approval of the selective RET inhibitor pralsetinib, or Gavreto, marks another milestone in a paradigm shift toward precision medicine,” Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in a press release.

Dr. Subbiah was an investigator of the phase 1/2 clinical trial known as ARROW, which provided the data on which the accelerated approval was based. In this trial, patients with RET+ NSCLC were found by testing with next-generation sequencing, FISH (fluorescence in situ hybridization), or other methods.

The ARROW trial involved one cohort of 87 patients who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. In these patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 57%, the complete response (CR) rate was 5.7%, and the median duration of response (DOR) was not estimable, according to the manufacturer, Blueprint Medicines.

The trial also involved 27 treatment-naive patients who were ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy per the study protocol. In this group, the ORR was 70%, and the CR rate was 11%. The median DOR was 9.0 months.

“Patients treated with [pralsetinib] had durable clinical responses, with a subset achieving complete responses characterized by the resolution of all target lesions, an uncommon outcome in metastatic lung cancer,” Dr. Subbiah commented.

“We observed this activity with or without prior therapy and regardless of RET fusion partner or the presence of brain metastases. This approval represents an important advance with the potential to change standards of care for patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC, who have historically had limited treatment options,” Dr. Subbiah added.

Product information for pralsetinib has warnings and precautions of interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hypertension, hepatotoxicity, hemorrhagic events, risk for impaired wound healing, and risk for embryo-fetal toxicity.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment with a fixed-dose combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol (AMX0035, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals) slows the rate of decline in physical function in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), according to results of the phase 2/3 CENTAUR study.

Patients with a fast-progressing form of ALS who were treated with AMX0035 “retained higher levels of physical function over 6 months compared with those who received placebo,” reported principal investigator Sabrina Paganoni, MD, PhD, of the Sean M. Healey and AMG Center for ALS at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“This is very hopeful news for people affected by ALS, especially because we were able to see a treatment effect in a relatively short period of time,” Dr. Paganoni said.

The study was published online Sept. 3 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In this study, AMX0035 demonstrated a “clinically meaningful benefit and a favorable safety profile for people living with ALS,” Josh Cohen, co-CEO, chairman, and cofounder at Amylyx, said in a news release. The company is “working collaboratively and expeditiously with agencies worldwide to bring this potential new treatment option forward.”

“The data ... makes a clear and compelling case that AMX0035 should be made available to people with ALS as soon as possible,” Calaneet Balas, president and CEO of The ALS Association, said in the release.

The CENTAUR trial

Sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol have been found to reduce neuronal death in experimental models. AMX0035 combines 3 g sodium phenylbutyrate and 1 g of taurursodiol.

The CENTAUR trial tested AMX0035 against placebo in 137 ALS patients with symptom onset within the prior 18 months, with 89 patients in the AMX0035 group and 48 in the placebo group. AMX0035 or matching placebo were administered once daily for 3 weeks and then twice daily for a planned duration of 24 weeks.

In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the mean rate of change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) score was −1.24 points per month with AMX0035 and −1.66 points per month with placebo (difference, 0.42 points per month; 95% CI, 0.03 - 0.81; P = .03). After 24 weeks, patients treated with AMX0035 scored on average 2.32 points higher on the ALSFRS-R than their peers on placebo group (P = .03).

“The score, consisting of four subdomains, showed a change that was most prominent for the fine-motor subscale and less apparent for the other subscales,” the investigators said.

Treatment with AMX0035 led to slowing of disease progression in a population in which many participants were receiving riluzole (Tiglutik), edaravone (Radicava) or both, they pointed out.

The secondary outcomes were rate of decline in isometric muscle strength and breathing function; change in plasma phosphorylated axonal neurofilament H subunit (pNF-H) levels; and the time to composite events of death, tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, and hospitalization. These outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Open-label extension ongoing

AMX0035 was generally well tolerated. Nearly all patients in both groups had one or more adverse events. Events occurring at 2% or greater frequency in the AMX0035 group were primarily gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, salivary hypersecretion, and abdominal discomfort). Serious adverse events were more common in the placebo group (19% vs. 12%). The incidence of respiratory serious adverse events was 8% in the placebo group and 3% in the AMX0035 group.

More patients on active treatment than placebo (19% vs. 8%) stopped the trial regimen early owing to adverse events. The most common adverse events leading to discontinuation of the trial regimen were diarrhea and respiratory failure.

The trial was “too short for us to detect an effect on survival,” Dr. Paganoni said in an interview. Most of the participants who completed the trial elected to enroll in an open-label extension study and receive AMX0035 long-term. “This is important because it will teach us about the impact of AMX0035 on survival,” said Dr. Paganoni.

Interim data from the ongoing open-label extension study are being submitted to a peer-reviewed journal shortly and will be published in the coming months.
 

A cause for hope

“There has been understandable frustration with the slow pace of development of therapy for ALS,” Michael Benatar, MD, PhD, University of Miami, and Michael McDermott, PhD, University of Rochester (N.Y.), said in an accompanying editorial.

“Despite dozens of trials, few pharmacologic agents have emerged that affect functional decline or survival – and all only modestly so. Although the effects of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol are similarly modest, the incremental gains that they provide in the battle against ALS are a cause for hope,” they wrote.

They caution, however, that this study was enriched for patients with more rapidly progressive disease, which “raises questions about generalizability to the broader population of patients with ALS.

“Although the patients who were enrolled in the trial may not be biologically different from the broader population of patients with ALS, the magnitude of therapeutic effect may be smaller in the latter,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott noted.

They said that in light of “residual questions about efficacy and the ability of patients to continue taking the drug,” they agree with the authors’ conclusion that “longer and larger trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol in persons with ALS.”

Given these “tantalizing preliminary data,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott said they look forward to “a confirmatory phase 3 trial.” 

The study was supported by Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, the ALS Finding a Cure Foundation, and the ALS Association. Dr. Paganoni has received grants from Revalesio, Ra Pharma, Biohaven, Clene, and Prilenia. A complete list of disclosures for authors and editorialists is available with the original article.

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

Treatment with a fixed-dose combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol (AMX0035, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals) slows the rate of decline in physical function in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), according to results of the phase 2/3 CENTAUR study.

Patients with a fast-progressing form of ALS who were treated with AMX0035 “retained higher levels of physical function over 6 months compared with those who received placebo,” reported principal investigator Sabrina Paganoni, MD, PhD, of the Sean M. Healey and AMG Center for ALS at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“This is very hopeful news for people affected by ALS, especially because we were able to see a treatment effect in a relatively short period of time,” Dr. Paganoni said.

The study was published online Sept. 3 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In this study, AMX0035 demonstrated a “clinically meaningful benefit and a favorable safety profile for people living with ALS,” Josh Cohen, co-CEO, chairman, and cofounder at Amylyx, said in a news release. The company is “working collaboratively and expeditiously with agencies worldwide to bring this potential new treatment option forward.”

“The data ... makes a clear and compelling case that AMX0035 should be made available to people with ALS as soon as possible,” Calaneet Balas, president and CEO of The ALS Association, said in the release.

The CENTAUR trial

Sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol have been found to reduce neuronal death in experimental models. AMX0035 combines 3 g sodium phenylbutyrate and 1 g of taurursodiol.

The CENTAUR trial tested AMX0035 against placebo in 137 ALS patients with symptom onset within the prior 18 months, with 89 patients in the AMX0035 group and 48 in the placebo group. AMX0035 or matching placebo were administered once daily for 3 weeks and then twice daily for a planned duration of 24 weeks.

In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the mean rate of change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) score was −1.24 points per month with AMX0035 and −1.66 points per month with placebo (difference, 0.42 points per month; 95% CI, 0.03 - 0.81; P = .03). After 24 weeks, patients treated with AMX0035 scored on average 2.32 points higher on the ALSFRS-R than their peers on placebo group (P = .03).

“The score, consisting of four subdomains, showed a change that was most prominent for the fine-motor subscale and less apparent for the other subscales,” the investigators said.

Treatment with AMX0035 led to slowing of disease progression in a population in which many participants were receiving riluzole (Tiglutik), edaravone (Radicava) or both, they pointed out.

The secondary outcomes were rate of decline in isometric muscle strength and breathing function; change in plasma phosphorylated axonal neurofilament H subunit (pNF-H) levels; and the time to composite events of death, tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, and hospitalization. These outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Open-label extension ongoing

AMX0035 was generally well tolerated. Nearly all patients in both groups had one or more adverse events. Events occurring at 2% or greater frequency in the AMX0035 group were primarily gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, salivary hypersecretion, and abdominal discomfort). Serious adverse events were more common in the placebo group (19% vs. 12%). The incidence of respiratory serious adverse events was 8% in the placebo group and 3% in the AMX0035 group.

More patients on active treatment than placebo (19% vs. 8%) stopped the trial regimen early owing to adverse events. The most common adverse events leading to discontinuation of the trial regimen were diarrhea and respiratory failure.

The trial was “too short for us to detect an effect on survival,” Dr. Paganoni said in an interview. Most of the participants who completed the trial elected to enroll in an open-label extension study and receive AMX0035 long-term. “This is important because it will teach us about the impact of AMX0035 on survival,” said Dr. Paganoni.

Interim data from the ongoing open-label extension study are being submitted to a peer-reviewed journal shortly and will be published in the coming months.
 

A cause for hope

“There has been understandable frustration with the slow pace of development of therapy for ALS,” Michael Benatar, MD, PhD, University of Miami, and Michael McDermott, PhD, University of Rochester (N.Y.), said in an accompanying editorial.

“Despite dozens of trials, few pharmacologic agents have emerged that affect functional decline or survival – and all only modestly so. Although the effects of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol are similarly modest, the incremental gains that they provide in the battle against ALS are a cause for hope,” they wrote.

They caution, however, that this study was enriched for patients with more rapidly progressive disease, which “raises questions about generalizability to the broader population of patients with ALS.

“Although the patients who were enrolled in the trial may not be biologically different from the broader population of patients with ALS, the magnitude of therapeutic effect may be smaller in the latter,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott noted.

They said that in light of “residual questions about efficacy and the ability of patients to continue taking the drug,” they agree with the authors’ conclusion that “longer and larger trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol in persons with ALS.”

Given these “tantalizing preliminary data,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott said they look forward to “a confirmatory phase 3 trial.” 

The study was supported by Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, the ALS Finding a Cure Foundation, and the ALS Association. Dr. Paganoni has received grants from Revalesio, Ra Pharma, Biohaven, Clene, and Prilenia. A complete list of disclosures for authors and editorialists is available with the original article.

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

Treatment with a fixed-dose combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol (AMX0035, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals) slows the rate of decline in physical function in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), according to results of the phase 2/3 CENTAUR study.

Patients with a fast-progressing form of ALS who were treated with AMX0035 “retained higher levels of physical function over 6 months compared with those who received placebo,” reported principal investigator Sabrina Paganoni, MD, PhD, of the Sean M. Healey and AMG Center for ALS at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“This is very hopeful news for people affected by ALS, especially because we were able to see a treatment effect in a relatively short period of time,” Dr. Paganoni said.

The study was published online Sept. 3 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In this study, AMX0035 demonstrated a “clinically meaningful benefit and a favorable safety profile for people living with ALS,” Josh Cohen, co-CEO, chairman, and cofounder at Amylyx, said in a news release. The company is “working collaboratively and expeditiously with agencies worldwide to bring this potential new treatment option forward.”

“The data ... makes a clear and compelling case that AMX0035 should be made available to people with ALS as soon as possible,” Calaneet Balas, president and CEO of The ALS Association, said in the release.

The CENTAUR trial

Sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol have been found to reduce neuronal death in experimental models. AMX0035 combines 3 g sodium phenylbutyrate and 1 g of taurursodiol.

The CENTAUR trial tested AMX0035 against placebo in 137 ALS patients with symptom onset within the prior 18 months, with 89 patients in the AMX0035 group and 48 in the placebo group. AMX0035 or matching placebo were administered once daily for 3 weeks and then twice daily for a planned duration of 24 weeks.

In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the mean rate of change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) score was −1.24 points per month with AMX0035 and −1.66 points per month with placebo (difference, 0.42 points per month; 95% CI, 0.03 - 0.81; P = .03). After 24 weeks, patients treated with AMX0035 scored on average 2.32 points higher on the ALSFRS-R than their peers on placebo group (P = .03).

“The score, consisting of four subdomains, showed a change that was most prominent for the fine-motor subscale and less apparent for the other subscales,” the investigators said.

Treatment with AMX0035 led to slowing of disease progression in a population in which many participants were receiving riluzole (Tiglutik), edaravone (Radicava) or both, they pointed out.

The secondary outcomes were rate of decline in isometric muscle strength and breathing function; change in plasma phosphorylated axonal neurofilament H subunit (pNF-H) levels; and the time to composite events of death, tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, and hospitalization. These outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Open-label extension ongoing

AMX0035 was generally well tolerated. Nearly all patients in both groups had one or more adverse events. Events occurring at 2% or greater frequency in the AMX0035 group were primarily gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, salivary hypersecretion, and abdominal discomfort). Serious adverse events were more common in the placebo group (19% vs. 12%). The incidence of respiratory serious adverse events was 8% in the placebo group and 3% in the AMX0035 group.

More patients on active treatment than placebo (19% vs. 8%) stopped the trial regimen early owing to adverse events. The most common adverse events leading to discontinuation of the trial regimen were diarrhea and respiratory failure.

The trial was “too short for us to detect an effect on survival,” Dr. Paganoni said in an interview. Most of the participants who completed the trial elected to enroll in an open-label extension study and receive AMX0035 long-term. “This is important because it will teach us about the impact of AMX0035 on survival,” said Dr. Paganoni.

Interim data from the ongoing open-label extension study are being submitted to a peer-reviewed journal shortly and will be published in the coming months.
 

A cause for hope

“There has been understandable frustration with the slow pace of development of therapy for ALS,” Michael Benatar, MD, PhD, University of Miami, and Michael McDermott, PhD, University of Rochester (N.Y.), said in an accompanying editorial.

“Despite dozens of trials, few pharmacologic agents have emerged that affect functional decline or survival – and all only modestly so. Although the effects of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol are similarly modest, the incremental gains that they provide in the battle against ALS are a cause for hope,” they wrote.

They caution, however, that this study was enriched for patients with more rapidly progressive disease, which “raises questions about generalizability to the broader population of patients with ALS.

“Although the patients who were enrolled in the trial may not be biologically different from the broader population of patients with ALS, the magnitude of therapeutic effect may be smaller in the latter,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott noted.

They said that in light of “residual questions about efficacy and the ability of patients to continue taking the drug,” they agree with the authors’ conclusion that “longer and larger trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol in persons with ALS.”

Given these “tantalizing preliminary data,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott said they look forward to “a confirmatory phase 3 trial.” 

The study was supported by Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, the ALS Finding a Cure Foundation, and the ALS Association. Dr. Paganoni has received grants from Revalesio, Ra Pharma, Biohaven, Clene, and Prilenia. A complete list of disclosures for authors and editorialists is available with the original article.

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

“Nomophobia” – the fear of being without a mobile phone or out of mobile phone contact – is extremely prevalent among college students and is associated with poor sleep habits and fatigue. In a study of more than 300 college students, nearly 9 in 10 (89%) were classified as having moderate to severe nomophobia. Greater levels of nomophobia were significantly linked to daytime sleepiness and more behaviors associated with poor sleep hygiene.

“My undergraduate research team came up with the idea for this study,” said study investigator Jennifer Peszka, PhD, professor of psychology at Hendrix College, Conway, Ark. She explained that her students had been looking at the impact of technology use in the 2 hours before bed, and hypothesized that ‘cell phone addiction’ might play a role in sleep problems.

Incidentally, “that group of students were all pretty high on nomophobia themselves so they were really interested in the outcome,” Dr. Peszka said.

The study findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

A likely suspect

The study involved 327 undergraduates (mean age, 19.7 years) recruited from introductory psychology courses and campus newsletters. They completed several questionnaires, including the Nomophobia Questionnaire, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and the Sleep Hygiene Index.

Nomophobia was prevalent, with mild, moderate, and severe nomophobia reported by 10%, 83%, and 7% of students, respectively. Only one student reported no nomophobia at all. Dr. Peszka said the fact that 89% of students had moderate or severe nomophobia is “concerning,” given a 2012 study suggesting that 77% of 18- to 24-year-olds had nomophobia. This phobia “very well may be on a rapid rise,” she lamented.

Greater severity of nomophobia was significantly correlated with greater sleepiness measured by both the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (P < .05) and the Associated Features of Poor Sleep Hygiene daytime sleepiness item (P < .05). More severe nomophobia was also related to decreased motivation (a commonly reported symptom of insufficient sleep) and with more maladaptive sleep hygiene behaviors (including using technology during sleep time, long daytime naps, inconsistent wake and bed times, using bed for nonsleep purposes, uncomfortable bed, and bedtime cognitive rumination).

Prior research has shown that smartphones may lead to compulsive “checking” habits, compulsive usage, increased distress, and potentially addictive behaviors. Active phone use at bedtime has also been implicated in disrupted sleep. Nomophobia is likely to be an important consideration when treating sleep disorders and/or making any sleep hygiene recommendations, Dr. Peszka said.
 

Proliferation of ‘night owls’

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this is a “very timely study with COVID-19. Right now, more than ever, technology is a double-edged sword. I’m a father of three kids and, for now, technology is the only way some kids are going to be socializing and learning.”

Yet a foundation of good sleep hygiene is keeping a nightly sleep routine, said Dr. Dasgupta, who was not involved in the study. “Right now, it seems like all my sleep patients are becoming night owls and sleep time is becoming more and more delayed because there is so much news to keep up with. Also, you may be stressed at night and you may not have the motivation to wake up early in the morning.”

He said it is important to counsel patients to “put technology away at night. That goes for kids and adults.”

Support for the study was provided by Hendrix College Charles Brewer Fund for Psychology. Dr. Peszka and Dr. Dasgupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Nomophobia” – the fear of being without a mobile phone or out of mobile phone contact – is extremely prevalent among college students and is associated with poor sleep habits and fatigue. In a study of more than 300 college students, nearly 9 in 10 (89%) were classified as having moderate to severe nomophobia. Greater levels of nomophobia were significantly linked to daytime sleepiness and more behaviors associated with poor sleep hygiene.

“My undergraduate research team came up with the idea for this study,” said study investigator Jennifer Peszka, PhD, professor of psychology at Hendrix College, Conway, Ark. She explained that her students had been looking at the impact of technology use in the 2 hours before bed, and hypothesized that ‘cell phone addiction’ might play a role in sleep problems.

Incidentally, “that group of students were all pretty high on nomophobia themselves so they were really interested in the outcome,” Dr. Peszka said.

The study findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

A likely suspect

The study involved 327 undergraduates (mean age, 19.7 years) recruited from introductory psychology courses and campus newsletters. They completed several questionnaires, including the Nomophobia Questionnaire, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and the Sleep Hygiene Index.

Nomophobia was prevalent, with mild, moderate, and severe nomophobia reported by 10%, 83%, and 7% of students, respectively. Only one student reported no nomophobia at all. Dr. Peszka said the fact that 89% of students had moderate or severe nomophobia is “concerning,” given a 2012 study suggesting that 77% of 18- to 24-year-olds had nomophobia. This phobia “very well may be on a rapid rise,” she lamented.

Greater severity of nomophobia was significantly correlated with greater sleepiness measured by both the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (P < .05) and the Associated Features of Poor Sleep Hygiene daytime sleepiness item (P < .05). More severe nomophobia was also related to decreased motivation (a commonly reported symptom of insufficient sleep) and with more maladaptive sleep hygiene behaviors (including using technology during sleep time, long daytime naps, inconsistent wake and bed times, using bed for nonsleep purposes, uncomfortable bed, and bedtime cognitive rumination).

Prior research has shown that smartphones may lead to compulsive “checking” habits, compulsive usage, increased distress, and potentially addictive behaviors. Active phone use at bedtime has also been implicated in disrupted sleep. Nomophobia is likely to be an important consideration when treating sleep disorders and/or making any sleep hygiene recommendations, Dr. Peszka said.
 

Proliferation of ‘night owls’

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this is a “very timely study with COVID-19. Right now, more than ever, technology is a double-edged sword. I’m a father of three kids and, for now, technology is the only way some kids are going to be socializing and learning.”

Yet a foundation of good sleep hygiene is keeping a nightly sleep routine, said Dr. Dasgupta, who was not involved in the study. “Right now, it seems like all my sleep patients are becoming night owls and sleep time is becoming more and more delayed because there is so much news to keep up with. Also, you may be stressed at night and you may not have the motivation to wake up early in the morning.”

He said it is important to counsel patients to “put technology away at night. That goes for kids and adults.”

Support for the study was provided by Hendrix College Charles Brewer Fund for Psychology. Dr. Peszka and Dr. Dasgupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Nomophobia” – the fear of being without a mobile phone or out of mobile phone contact – is extremely prevalent among college students and is associated with poor sleep habits and fatigue. In a study of more than 300 college students, nearly 9 in 10 (89%) were classified as having moderate to severe nomophobia. Greater levels of nomophobia were significantly linked to daytime sleepiness and more behaviors associated with poor sleep hygiene.

“My undergraduate research team came up with the idea for this study,” said study investigator Jennifer Peszka, PhD, professor of psychology at Hendrix College, Conway, Ark. She explained that her students had been looking at the impact of technology use in the 2 hours before bed, and hypothesized that ‘cell phone addiction’ might play a role in sleep problems.

Incidentally, “that group of students were all pretty high on nomophobia themselves so they were really interested in the outcome,” Dr. Peszka said.

The study findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

A likely suspect

The study involved 327 undergraduates (mean age, 19.7 years) recruited from introductory psychology courses and campus newsletters. They completed several questionnaires, including the Nomophobia Questionnaire, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and the Sleep Hygiene Index.

Nomophobia was prevalent, with mild, moderate, and severe nomophobia reported by 10%, 83%, and 7% of students, respectively. Only one student reported no nomophobia at all. Dr. Peszka said the fact that 89% of students had moderate or severe nomophobia is “concerning,” given a 2012 study suggesting that 77% of 18- to 24-year-olds had nomophobia. This phobia “very well may be on a rapid rise,” she lamented.

Greater severity of nomophobia was significantly correlated with greater sleepiness measured by both the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (P < .05) and the Associated Features of Poor Sleep Hygiene daytime sleepiness item (P < .05). More severe nomophobia was also related to decreased motivation (a commonly reported symptom of insufficient sleep) and with more maladaptive sleep hygiene behaviors (including using technology during sleep time, long daytime naps, inconsistent wake and bed times, using bed for nonsleep purposes, uncomfortable bed, and bedtime cognitive rumination).

Prior research has shown that smartphones may lead to compulsive “checking” habits, compulsive usage, increased distress, and potentially addictive behaviors. Active phone use at bedtime has also been implicated in disrupted sleep. Nomophobia is likely to be an important consideration when treating sleep disorders and/or making any sleep hygiene recommendations, Dr. Peszka said.
 

Proliferation of ‘night owls’

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this is a “very timely study with COVID-19. Right now, more than ever, technology is a double-edged sword. I’m a father of three kids and, for now, technology is the only way some kids are going to be socializing and learning.”

Yet a foundation of good sleep hygiene is keeping a nightly sleep routine, said Dr. Dasgupta, who was not involved in the study. “Right now, it seems like all my sleep patients are becoming night owls and sleep time is becoming more and more delayed because there is so much news to keep up with. Also, you may be stressed at night and you may not have the motivation to wake up early in the morning.”

He said it is important to counsel patients to “put technology away at night. That goes for kids and adults.”

Support for the study was provided by Hendrix College Charles Brewer Fund for Psychology. Dr. Peszka and Dr. Dasgupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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