Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Belatedly, the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on patients of color is getting attention. By now, we’ve read the headlines. Black people in the United States make up about 13% of the population but account for almost three times (34%) as many deaths. This story repeats – in other countries and in other minority communities.

Early detection is critical both to initiate supportive care and to isolate affected individuals and limit spread. Skin manifestations of COVID-19, especially those that occur early in the disease (eg, vesicular eruptions) or have prognostic significance (livedo, retiform purpura, necrosis), are critical to this goal of early recognition.

In this context, a recent systematic literature review looked at all articles describing skin manifestations associated with COVID-19. The investigators identified 46 articles published between March and May 2020 which included a total of 130 clinical images.

The following findings from this study are striking:

• 92% of the published images of COVID-associated skin manifestations were in I-III.
• Only 6% of COVID skin lesions included in the articles were in patients with skin type IV.
• None showed COVID skin lesions in skin types V or VI.
• Only six of the articles reported race and ethnicity demographics. In those, 91% of the patients were White and 9% were Hispanic.

These results reveal a critical lack of representative clinical images of COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color. This deficiency is made all the more egregious given the fact that patients of color, including those who are Black, Latinx, and Native American, have been especially hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic and suffer disproportionate disease-related morbidity and mortality.
 

As the study authors point out, skin manifestations in people of color often differ significantly from findings in White skin (for example, look at the figure depicting the rash typical of Kawasaki disease in a dark-skinned child compared with a light-skinned child). It is not a stretch to suggest that skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 may look very different in darker skin.

These investigators have identified a damning lack of images of COVID-19–associated skin manifestations in patients with darker skin. This isn’t a new phenomenon. Almost half of dermatologists feel that they’ve had insufficient exposure to skin disease in darker skin types. Skin of color remains underrepresented in medical journals.

Like other forms of passive, institutional racism, this deficiency will only be improved if dermatologists and dermatology publications actively seek out COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color and prioritize sharing these images. A medical student in the United Kingdom has gotten the ball rolling, compiling a handbook of clinical signs in darker skin types as part of a student-staff partnership at St. George’s Hospital and the University of London. At this time, Mind the Gap is looking for a publisher.

Dr. Lipper is an assistant clinical professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and a staff physician in the department of dermatology at Danbury (Conn.) Hospital. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Belatedly, the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on patients of color is getting attention. By now, we’ve read the headlines. Black people in the United States make up about 13% of the population but account for almost three times (34%) as many deaths. This story repeats – in other countries and in other minority communities.

Early detection is critical both to initiate supportive care and to isolate affected individuals and limit spread. Skin manifestations of COVID-19, especially those that occur early in the disease (eg, vesicular eruptions) or have prognostic significance (livedo, retiform purpura, necrosis), are critical to this goal of early recognition.

In this context, a recent systematic literature review looked at all articles describing skin manifestations associated with COVID-19. The investigators identified 46 articles published between March and May 2020 which included a total of 130 clinical images.

The following findings from this study are striking:

• 92% of the published images of COVID-associated skin manifestations were in I-III.
• Only 6% of COVID skin lesions included in the articles were in patients with skin type IV.
• None showed COVID skin lesions in skin types V or VI.
• Only six of the articles reported race and ethnicity demographics. In those, 91% of the patients were White and 9% were Hispanic.

These results reveal a critical lack of representative clinical images of COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color. This deficiency is made all the more egregious given the fact that patients of color, including those who are Black, Latinx, and Native American, have been especially hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic and suffer disproportionate disease-related morbidity and mortality.
 

As the study authors point out, skin manifestations in people of color often differ significantly from findings in White skin (for example, look at the figure depicting the rash typical of Kawasaki disease in a dark-skinned child compared with a light-skinned child). It is not a stretch to suggest that skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 may look very different in darker skin.

These investigators have identified a damning lack of images of COVID-19–associated skin manifestations in patients with darker skin. This isn’t a new phenomenon. Almost half of dermatologists feel that they’ve had insufficient exposure to skin disease in darker skin types. Skin of color remains underrepresented in medical journals.

Like other forms of passive, institutional racism, this deficiency will only be improved if dermatologists and dermatology publications actively seek out COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color and prioritize sharing these images. A medical student in the United Kingdom has gotten the ball rolling, compiling a handbook of clinical signs in darker skin types as part of a student-staff partnership at St. George’s Hospital and the University of London. At this time, Mind the Gap is looking for a publisher.

Dr. Lipper is an assistant clinical professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and a staff physician in the department of dermatology at Danbury (Conn.) Hospital. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Belatedly, the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on patients of color is getting attention. By now, we’ve read the headlines. Black people in the United States make up about 13% of the population but account for almost three times (34%) as many deaths. This story repeats – in other countries and in other minority communities.

Early detection is critical both to initiate supportive care and to isolate affected individuals and limit spread. Skin manifestations of COVID-19, especially those that occur early in the disease (eg, vesicular eruptions) or have prognostic significance (livedo, retiform purpura, necrosis), are critical to this goal of early recognition.

In this context, a recent systematic literature review looked at all articles describing skin manifestations associated with COVID-19. The investigators identified 46 articles published between March and May 2020 which included a total of 130 clinical images.

The following findings from this study are striking:

• 92% of the published images of COVID-associated skin manifestations were in I-III.
• Only 6% of COVID skin lesions included in the articles were in patients with skin type IV.
• None showed COVID skin lesions in skin types V or VI.
• Only six of the articles reported race and ethnicity demographics. In those, 91% of the patients were White and 9% were Hispanic.

These results reveal a critical lack of representative clinical images of COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color. This deficiency is made all the more egregious given the fact that patients of color, including those who are Black, Latinx, and Native American, have been especially hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic and suffer disproportionate disease-related morbidity and mortality.
 

As the study authors point out, skin manifestations in people of color often differ significantly from findings in White skin (for example, look at the figure depicting the rash typical of Kawasaki disease in a dark-skinned child compared with a light-skinned child). It is not a stretch to suggest that skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 may look very different in darker skin.

These investigators have identified a damning lack of images of COVID-19–associated skin manifestations in patients with darker skin. This isn’t a new phenomenon. Almost half of dermatologists feel that they’ve had insufficient exposure to skin disease in darker skin types. Skin of color remains underrepresented in medical journals.

Like other forms of passive, institutional racism, this deficiency will only be improved if dermatologists and dermatology publications actively seek out COVID-associated skin manifestations in patients of color and prioritize sharing these images. A medical student in the United Kingdom has gotten the ball rolling, compiling a handbook of clinical signs in darker skin types as part of a student-staff partnership at St. George’s Hospital and the University of London. At this time, Mind the Gap is looking for a publisher.

Dr. Lipper is an assistant clinical professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and a staff physician in the department of dermatology at Danbury (Conn.) Hospital. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a dramatic increase in depression, anxiety, psychosis, and suicidality, new research shows.

The new data, released by Mental Health America (MHA), came from individuals who completed a voluntary online mental health screen.

As of the end of June, over 169,000 additional participants reported having moderate to severe depression or anxiety, compared with participants who completed the screen prior to the pandemic.

In June alone, 18,000 additional participants were found to be at risk for psychosis, continuing a rising pattern that began in May, when 16,000 reported psychosis risk.

“We continue to see staggering numbers that indicate increased rates in depression and anxiety because of COVID-19,” Paul Gionfriddo, president and CEO of MHA, said in a release.

“In fact, the problem is bigger than anyone imagined, making it clear how the pandemic is affecting people now and will continue to affect people who mourn loved ones and whose serious mental conditions are left untreated. So we need to take this very seriously,” Mr. Gionfriddo said in an interview.

Real-time data

MHA has been conducting online screenings for 6 years. To date, nearly 5.5 million screenings have been completed, making it the largest screening program of its kind in the United States, Mr. Gionfriddo reported.

“At the beginning of the pandemic, we were asked by a member of the media if we could offer any insight about how anxiety in particular was affecting people during the pandemic since we were the only ones with a database that could give quantitative detail,” he said.

The results of their screen could also help find that information “in real time,” he added.

More people are now undergoing mental health screenings, Mr. Gionfriddo noted.

At roughly 7,000 per day in May and June, the number of anxiety and depression screenings that were completed per day were 406% and 457% higher, respectively, than the number completed in January.

The youngest group of participants were those aged 11-17 years; the oldest age group consisted of individuals 65 years and older.

The Patient Health Questionnaire–9 was used to identify those at risk for depression, the General Anxiety Disorder–7 was used to identify those at risk for anxiety, and the Prodromal Questionnaire Brief Version was used to identify those at high risk for psychosis.

Current events

The most profound health problems were found among adults younger than 25 years. Roughly 90% screened positive for moderate to severe depression, and 80% screened positive for moderate to severe anxiety.

“Kids between the ages of 11 and 17 years have been the most stressed, but it seems to be easier to bear as you get older,” Mr. Gionfriddo said.

Loneliness and isolation were cited as contributors to depression and anxiety by the largest percentage of individuals with these conditions (74% and 65%, respectively).

In June, roughly one quarter of participants also cited grief or loss and financial concerns as contributors to anxiety (25.31% and 24.18%, respectively) and to depression (26.53% and 23.36%).

Current events were cited as an important contributor, leading to more mental health problems in June, compared with May (36.11% vs 29.41 for anxiety; 29.13% vs 21.77% for depression).

The June screen added the category of racism as a potential contributor. Close to 8% reported it as a reason for anxiety, and roughly 5% considered it a reason for depression.

“We will be releasing more data at the end of July, and it will be interesting to see how the racism category compares to data we collected at the end of June,” Mr. Gionfriddo noted.

Dramatic increase

The screen also showed a “dramatic increase” in the number of people who reported being at risk for psychosis, with 18,000 participants screening positive. This represented more than four times the baseline figures recorded through March.

“We were not surprised to see a spike in depression and anxiety, but why were we seeing a spike in psychosis in May/June?” Mr. Gionfriddo asked. He suggested that stress may play a role in driving this increased risk.

“These data, we hope, will get policymakers to pay attention, take it seriously, and intervene to prevent psychosis at an earlier stage before signs and symptoms emerge,” said Mr. Gionfriddo.

One of the most alarming findings was that in June, 25,498 participants who screened positive for depression reported thinking of suicide or self-harm on “more than half of days to nearly every day.” A total of 14,607 participants said they had these thoughts every day.

Overall, the results should reinforce the recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force to routinely screen for depression in any clinical setting on a regular basis, Mr. Gionfriddo said.

In addition, policymakers “need to balance reopening vs. quarantining and isolating, and we need to think about what the next 2-4 years look like in terms of balancing physical health risks and mental health risks,” he noted.

“We’ve been treating the pandemic like a sprint and now, 4 or 5 months into it, perhaps as a middle-distance run, when in fact it’s a marathon,” he added.

Advocates needed

The increase in anxiety and depression often centers on the changes and uncertainties in the college experience, such as whether classes will be held in person, online, or a hybrid of the two, said Dr. Ritchie, who was not involved with the research.

Additionally, some college students who have “left the nest” have been forced to “return to the nest,” which compounds stress, she said.

LGBTQ youngsters may be particularly affected because some have “come out of the closet” while away from home and now must negotiate going back to their home of record. They are uncertain whether or not “to go back into the closet,” added Dr. Ritchie, who is also vice chair of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington.

Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals should be advocates for “getting services to more people for the greatest good,” she noted.

For example, the MHA data “might be useful in advocating for keeping telehealth accessible and even promoting it,” she said.

The full report is available on MHA’s website.

Mr. Gionfriddo and Dr. Ritchie report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a dramatic increase in depression, anxiety, psychosis, and suicidality, new research shows.

The new data, released by Mental Health America (MHA), came from individuals who completed a voluntary online mental health screen.

As of the end of June, over 169,000 additional participants reported having moderate to severe depression or anxiety, compared with participants who completed the screen prior to the pandemic.

In June alone, 18,000 additional participants were found to be at risk for psychosis, continuing a rising pattern that began in May, when 16,000 reported psychosis risk.

“We continue to see staggering numbers that indicate increased rates in depression and anxiety because of COVID-19,” Paul Gionfriddo, president and CEO of MHA, said in a release.

“In fact, the problem is bigger than anyone imagined, making it clear how the pandemic is affecting people now and will continue to affect people who mourn loved ones and whose serious mental conditions are left untreated. So we need to take this very seriously,” Mr. Gionfriddo said in an interview.

Real-time data

MHA has been conducting online screenings for 6 years. To date, nearly 5.5 million screenings have been completed, making it the largest screening program of its kind in the United States, Mr. Gionfriddo reported.

“At the beginning of the pandemic, we were asked by a member of the media if we could offer any insight about how anxiety in particular was affecting people during the pandemic since we were the only ones with a database that could give quantitative detail,” he said.

The results of their screen could also help find that information “in real time,” he added.

More people are now undergoing mental health screenings, Mr. Gionfriddo noted.

At roughly 7,000 per day in May and June, the number of anxiety and depression screenings that were completed per day were 406% and 457% higher, respectively, than the number completed in January.

The youngest group of participants were those aged 11-17 years; the oldest age group consisted of individuals 65 years and older.

The Patient Health Questionnaire–9 was used to identify those at risk for depression, the General Anxiety Disorder–7 was used to identify those at risk for anxiety, and the Prodromal Questionnaire Brief Version was used to identify those at high risk for psychosis.

Current events

The most profound health problems were found among adults younger than 25 years. Roughly 90% screened positive for moderate to severe depression, and 80% screened positive for moderate to severe anxiety.

“Kids between the ages of 11 and 17 years have been the most stressed, but it seems to be easier to bear as you get older,” Mr. Gionfriddo said.

Loneliness and isolation were cited as contributors to depression and anxiety by the largest percentage of individuals with these conditions (74% and 65%, respectively).

In June, roughly one quarter of participants also cited grief or loss and financial concerns as contributors to anxiety (25.31% and 24.18%, respectively) and to depression (26.53% and 23.36%).

Current events were cited as an important contributor, leading to more mental health problems in June, compared with May (36.11% vs 29.41 for anxiety; 29.13% vs 21.77% for depression).

The June screen added the category of racism as a potential contributor. Close to 8% reported it as a reason for anxiety, and roughly 5% considered it a reason for depression.

“We will be releasing more data at the end of July, and it will be interesting to see how the racism category compares to data we collected at the end of June,” Mr. Gionfriddo noted.

Dramatic increase

The screen also showed a “dramatic increase” in the number of people who reported being at risk for psychosis, with 18,000 participants screening positive. This represented more than four times the baseline figures recorded through March.

“We were not surprised to see a spike in depression and anxiety, but why were we seeing a spike in psychosis in May/June?” Mr. Gionfriddo asked. He suggested that stress may play a role in driving this increased risk.

“These data, we hope, will get policymakers to pay attention, take it seriously, and intervene to prevent psychosis at an earlier stage before signs and symptoms emerge,” said Mr. Gionfriddo.

One of the most alarming findings was that in June, 25,498 participants who screened positive for depression reported thinking of suicide or self-harm on “more than half of days to nearly every day.” A total of 14,607 participants said they had these thoughts every day.

Overall, the results should reinforce the recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force to routinely screen for depression in any clinical setting on a regular basis, Mr. Gionfriddo said.

In addition, policymakers “need to balance reopening vs. quarantining and isolating, and we need to think about what the next 2-4 years look like in terms of balancing physical health risks and mental health risks,” he noted.

“We’ve been treating the pandemic like a sprint and now, 4 or 5 months into it, perhaps as a middle-distance run, when in fact it’s a marathon,” he added.

Advocates needed

The increase in anxiety and depression often centers on the changes and uncertainties in the college experience, such as whether classes will be held in person, online, or a hybrid of the two, said Dr. Ritchie, who was not involved with the research.

Additionally, some college students who have “left the nest” have been forced to “return to the nest,” which compounds stress, she said.

LGBTQ youngsters may be particularly affected because some have “come out of the closet” while away from home and now must negotiate going back to their home of record. They are uncertain whether or not “to go back into the closet,” added Dr. Ritchie, who is also vice chair of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington.

Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals should be advocates for “getting services to more people for the greatest good,” she noted.

For example, the MHA data “might be useful in advocating for keeping telehealth accessible and even promoting it,” she said.

The full report is available on MHA’s website.

Mr. Gionfriddo and Dr. Ritchie report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a dramatic increase in depression, anxiety, psychosis, and suicidality, new research shows.

The new data, released by Mental Health America (MHA), came from individuals who completed a voluntary online mental health screen.

As of the end of June, over 169,000 additional participants reported having moderate to severe depression or anxiety, compared with participants who completed the screen prior to the pandemic.

In June alone, 18,000 additional participants were found to be at risk for psychosis, continuing a rising pattern that began in May, when 16,000 reported psychosis risk.

“We continue to see staggering numbers that indicate increased rates in depression and anxiety because of COVID-19,” Paul Gionfriddo, president and CEO of MHA, said in a release.

“In fact, the problem is bigger than anyone imagined, making it clear how the pandemic is affecting people now and will continue to affect people who mourn loved ones and whose serious mental conditions are left untreated. So we need to take this very seriously,” Mr. Gionfriddo said in an interview.

Real-time data

MHA has been conducting online screenings for 6 years. To date, nearly 5.5 million screenings have been completed, making it the largest screening program of its kind in the United States, Mr. Gionfriddo reported.

“At the beginning of the pandemic, we were asked by a member of the media if we could offer any insight about how anxiety in particular was affecting people during the pandemic since we were the only ones with a database that could give quantitative detail,” he said.

The results of their screen could also help find that information “in real time,” he added.

More people are now undergoing mental health screenings, Mr. Gionfriddo noted.

At roughly 7,000 per day in May and June, the number of anxiety and depression screenings that were completed per day were 406% and 457% higher, respectively, than the number completed in January.

The youngest group of participants were those aged 11-17 years; the oldest age group consisted of individuals 65 years and older.

The Patient Health Questionnaire–9 was used to identify those at risk for depression, the General Anxiety Disorder–7 was used to identify those at risk for anxiety, and the Prodromal Questionnaire Brief Version was used to identify those at high risk for psychosis.

Current events

The most profound health problems were found among adults younger than 25 years. Roughly 90% screened positive for moderate to severe depression, and 80% screened positive for moderate to severe anxiety.

“Kids between the ages of 11 and 17 years have been the most stressed, but it seems to be easier to bear as you get older,” Mr. Gionfriddo said.

Loneliness and isolation were cited as contributors to depression and anxiety by the largest percentage of individuals with these conditions (74% and 65%, respectively).

In June, roughly one quarter of participants also cited grief or loss and financial concerns as contributors to anxiety (25.31% and 24.18%, respectively) and to depression (26.53% and 23.36%).

Current events were cited as an important contributor, leading to more mental health problems in June, compared with May (36.11% vs 29.41 for anxiety; 29.13% vs 21.77% for depression).

The June screen added the category of racism as a potential contributor. Close to 8% reported it as a reason for anxiety, and roughly 5% considered it a reason for depression.

“We will be releasing more data at the end of July, and it will be interesting to see how the racism category compares to data we collected at the end of June,” Mr. Gionfriddo noted.

Dramatic increase

The screen also showed a “dramatic increase” in the number of people who reported being at risk for psychosis, with 18,000 participants screening positive. This represented more than four times the baseline figures recorded through March.

“We were not surprised to see a spike in depression and anxiety, but why were we seeing a spike in psychosis in May/June?” Mr. Gionfriddo asked. He suggested that stress may play a role in driving this increased risk.

“These data, we hope, will get policymakers to pay attention, take it seriously, and intervene to prevent psychosis at an earlier stage before signs and symptoms emerge,” said Mr. Gionfriddo.

One of the most alarming findings was that in June, 25,498 participants who screened positive for depression reported thinking of suicide or self-harm on “more than half of days to nearly every day.” A total of 14,607 participants said they had these thoughts every day.

Overall, the results should reinforce the recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force to routinely screen for depression in any clinical setting on a regular basis, Mr. Gionfriddo said.

In addition, policymakers “need to balance reopening vs. quarantining and isolating, and we need to think about what the next 2-4 years look like in terms of balancing physical health risks and mental health risks,” he noted.

“We’ve been treating the pandemic like a sprint and now, 4 or 5 months into it, perhaps as a middle-distance run, when in fact it’s a marathon,” he added.

Advocates needed

The increase in anxiety and depression often centers on the changes and uncertainties in the college experience, such as whether classes will be held in person, online, or a hybrid of the two, said Dr. Ritchie, who was not involved with the research.

Additionally, some college students who have “left the nest” have been forced to “return to the nest,” which compounds stress, she said.

LGBTQ youngsters may be particularly affected because some have “come out of the closet” while away from home and now must negotiate going back to their home of record. They are uncertain whether or not “to go back into the closet,” added Dr. Ritchie, who is also vice chair of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington.

Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals should be advocates for “getting services to more people for the greatest good,” she noted.

For example, the MHA data “might be useful in advocating for keeping telehealth accessible and even promoting it,” she said.

The full report is available on MHA’s website.

Mr. Gionfriddo and Dr. Ritchie report no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among women with BRCA mutations who underwent risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, the procedure led to a cancer diagnosis in 3%, according to research presented at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

HRAUN/Getty Images

Of 269 patients, 8 (3%) received a cancer diagnosis. In five cases, the cancer was diagnosed on final pathology, and three had immediate conversion to staging.

The data suggest that gynecologists as well as gynecologic oncologists may perform the procedure, but gynecologists may be less likely to obtain pelvic washings in accordance with guidelines for this indication.

“It may not be necessary for oncologists alone to be performing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomies given that the overall incidence of cancer is low,” said study author Coralee Toal, MD, of UPMC Magee-Womans Hospital in Pittsburgh. “It is often a diagnosis that is found at the time of pathology, so the initial procedure would not have been changed either way.”

Still, doctors who perform the procedure should follow recommended practices such as obtaining pelvic washings and identifying patients for the procedure within target age ranges, Dr. Toal said.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations confer an increased risk of ovarian and breast cancer, but there is no effective form of ovarian cancer screening. Women with a known mutation may have a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy to reduce the risk of cancer. The recommended age range for the procedure is 35-40 years for women with BRCA1 mutations and 40-45 years for women with BRCA2 mutations.

When the procedure is performed for this indication, various recommendations apply that may differ from those when the procedure is performed under different circumstances.

During risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, the surgeon should thoroughly evaluate the abdominal cavity, obtain pelvic washings for cytology, remove at least 2 cm of the infundibulopelvic ligament, and divide the fallopian tube at the uterine cornua.

To assess the incidence of occult ovarian cancer at the time of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and surgeon adherence to recommended practices, Dr. Toal and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review.

They included patients who had a known BRCA mutation and underwent a risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy between July 2007 and September 2018. They excluded patients who had a suspicious adnexal mass before the procedure but not a known diagnosis, as well as patients with another malignancy or genetic syndrome.

The researchers evaluated adherence to recommendations by reviewing operative reports.

In all, they reviewed data from 269 patients. In 220 cases, a gynecologic oncologist performed the procedure, and in 49 cases a gynecologist performed the procedure.

Patients tended to be older than would be expected, said Dr. Toal. Patients with BRCA1 mutations had an average age of 46 years, and patients with BRCA2 mutations had an average age of 49 years.

Patients who received a cancer diagnosis were significantly older on average, compared with the other patients: 58 years versus 48 years.

Pelvic washings were performed during 95% of the procedures performed by a gynecologic oncologist, compared with 63% of the procedures performed by a gynecologist. In addition, patients who had the procedure performed by a gynecologist were significantly older than those who had the procedure performed by a gynecologic oncologist (49 vs. 47 years).

Miles Murphy, MD, president of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, asked how doctors should weigh the possibility of risk-reducing oophorectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy in patients without a family history of female cancer.

It could be that genetic testing would be appropriate for some of those patients, Dr. Toal said. It is “important to take a thorough family history to make sure that you are identifying anybody who may benefit from genetic counseling and genetic testing, where you might identify an otherwise not known mutation prior to an otherwise benign or routine surgery,” Dr. Toal said. “Then you would have the opportunity to perform this.”

For patients without known mutations, however, “we do know the benefit of ovaries remaining in situ ... including cardiac health,” she said. “You have to remember that people can die of a broken hip as well. The risk of osteoporosis and those things is not zero and in fact may be much higher than their ovarian cancer risk.”

One of the study authors is a surgeon educator for Covidien and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Newcomb LK et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 18.

Among women with BRCA mutations who underwent risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, the procedure led to a cancer diagnosis in 3%, according to research presented at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

HRAUN/Getty Images

Of 269 patients, 8 (3%) received a cancer diagnosis. In five cases, the cancer was diagnosed on final pathology, and three had immediate conversion to staging.

The data suggest that gynecologists as well as gynecologic oncologists may perform the procedure, but gynecologists may be less likely to obtain pelvic washings in accordance with guidelines for this indication.

“It may not be necessary for oncologists alone to be performing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomies given that the overall incidence of cancer is low,” said study author Coralee Toal, MD, of UPMC Magee-Womans Hospital in Pittsburgh. “It is often a diagnosis that is found at the time of pathology, so the initial procedure would not have been changed either way.”

Still, doctors who perform the procedure should follow recommended practices such as obtaining pelvic washings and identifying patients for the procedure within target age ranges, Dr. Toal said.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations confer an increased risk of ovarian and breast cancer, but there is no effective form of ovarian cancer screening. Women with a known mutation may have a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy to reduce the risk of cancer. The recommended age range for the procedure is 35-40 years for women with BRCA1 mutations and 40-45 years for women with BRCA2 mutations.

When the procedure is performed for this indication, various recommendations apply that may differ from those when the procedure is performed under different circumstances.

During risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, the surgeon should thoroughly evaluate the abdominal cavity, obtain pelvic washings for cytology, remove at least 2 cm of the infundibulopelvic ligament, and divide the fallopian tube at the uterine cornua.

To assess the incidence of occult ovarian cancer at the time of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and surgeon adherence to recommended practices, Dr. Toal and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review.

They included patients who had a known BRCA mutation and underwent a risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy between July 2007 and September 2018. They excluded patients who had a suspicious adnexal mass before the procedure but not a known diagnosis, as well as patients with another malignancy or genetic syndrome.

The researchers evaluated adherence to recommendations by reviewing operative reports.

In all, they reviewed data from 269 patients. In 220 cases, a gynecologic oncologist performed the procedure, and in 49 cases a gynecologist performed the procedure.

Patients tended to be older than would be expected, said Dr. Toal. Patients with BRCA1 mutations had an average age of 46 years, and patients with BRCA2 mutations had an average age of 49 years.

Patients who received a cancer diagnosis were significantly older on average, compared with the other patients: 58 years versus 48 years.

Pelvic washings were performed during 95% of the procedures performed by a gynecologic oncologist, compared with 63% of the procedures performed by a gynecologist. In addition, patients who had the procedure performed by a gynecologist were significantly older than those who had the procedure performed by a gynecologic oncologist (49 vs. 47 years).

Miles Murphy, MD, president of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, asked how doctors should weigh the possibility of risk-reducing oophorectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy in patients without a family history of female cancer.

It could be that genetic testing would be appropriate for some of those patients, Dr. Toal said. It is “important to take a thorough family history to make sure that you are identifying anybody who may benefit from genetic counseling and genetic testing, where you might identify an otherwise not known mutation prior to an otherwise benign or routine surgery,” Dr. Toal said. “Then you would have the opportunity to perform this.”

For patients without known mutations, however, “we do know the benefit of ovaries remaining in situ ... including cardiac health,” she said. “You have to remember that people can die of a broken hip as well. The risk of osteoporosis and those things is not zero and in fact may be much higher than their ovarian cancer risk.”

One of the study authors is a surgeon educator for Covidien and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Newcomb LK et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 18.

Among women with BRCA mutations who underwent risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, the procedure led to a cancer diagnosis in 3%, according to research presented at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

HRAUN/Getty Images

Of 269 patients, 8 (3%) received a cancer diagnosis. In five cases, the cancer was diagnosed on final pathology, and three had immediate conversion to staging.

The data suggest that gynecologists as well as gynecologic oncologists may perform the procedure, but gynecologists may be less likely to obtain pelvic washings in accordance with guidelines for this indication.

“It may not be necessary for oncologists alone to be performing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomies given that the overall incidence of cancer is low,” said study author Coralee Toal, MD, of UPMC Magee-Womans Hospital in Pittsburgh. “It is often a diagnosis that is found at the time of pathology, so the initial procedure would not have been changed either way.”

Still, doctors who perform the procedure should follow recommended practices such as obtaining pelvic washings and identifying patients for the procedure within target age ranges, Dr. Toal said.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations confer an increased risk of ovarian and breast cancer, but there is no effective form of ovarian cancer screening. Women with a known mutation may have a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy to reduce the risk of cancer. The recommended age range for the procedure is 35-40 years for women with BRCA1 mutations and 40-45 years for women with BRCA2 mutations.

When the procedure is performed for this indication, various recommendations apply that may differ from those when the procedure is performed under different circumstances.

During risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, the surgeon should thoroughly evaluate the abdominal cavity, obtain pelvic washings for cytology, remove at least 2 cm of the infundibulopelvic ligament, and divide the fallopian tube at the uterine cornua.

To assess the incidence of occult ovarian cancer at the time of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and surgeon adherence to recommended practices, Dr. Toal and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review.

They included patients who had a known BRCA mutation and underwent a risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy between July 2007 and September 2018. They excluded patients who had a suspicious adnexal mass before the procedure but not a known diagnosis, as well as patients with another malignancy or genetic syndrome.

The researchers evaluated adherence to recommendations by reviewing operative reports.

In all, they reviewed data from 269 patients. In 220 cases, a gynecologic oncologist performed the procedure, and in 49 cases a gynecologist performed the procedure.

Patients tended to be older than would be expected, said Dr. Toal. Patients with BRCA1 mutations had an average age of 46 years, and patients with BRCA2 mutations had an average age of 49 years.

Patients who received a cancer diagnosis were significantly older on average, compared with the other patients: 58 years versus 48 years.

Pelvic washings were performed during 95% of the procedures performed by a gynecologic oncologist, compared with 63% of the procedures performed by a gynecologist. In addition, patients who had the procedure performed by a gynecologist were significantly older than those who had the procedure performed by a gynecologic oncologist (49 vs. 47 years).

Miles Murphy, MD, president of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, asked how doctors should weigh the possibility of risk-reducing oophorectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy in patients without a family history of female cancer.

It could be that genetic testing would be appropriate for some of those patients, Dr. Toal said. It is “important to take a thorough family history to make sure that you are identifying anybody who may benefit from genetic counseling and genetic testing, where you might identify an otherwise not known mutation prior to an otherwise benign or routine surgery,” Dr. Toal said. “Then you would have the opportunity to perform this.”

For patients without known mutations, however, “we do know the benefit of ovaries remaining in situ ... including cardiac health,” she said. “You have to remember that people can die of a broken hip as well. The risk of osteoporosis and those things is not zero and in fact may be much higher than their ovarian cancer risk.”

One of the study authors is a surgeon educator for Covidien and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Newcomb LK et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 18.

Higher continence rates were seen after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) than after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in the first large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized trial to compare the two surgical approaches.

At 3 months, 54.3% of prostate cancer patients who underwent RARP and 45.6% of those who had LRP were continent after catheter removal (P = .027).

“We did use a very strong definition for continence, meaning no pad or safety pad; patients wearing one pad per day we’re not classified as continent,” said study investigator Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg, MD, PhD, professor and head of urology at the University of Leipzig Hospital in Germany.

Dr. Stolzenburg presented these findings at the European Association of Urology virtual annual congress.

The findings fit with previous research showing higher continence rates with RARP (69%-80%) than with LRP (62%-63%), although those studies did not always find the difference to be statistically significant, and higher quality evidence was needed (J Sex Med. 2011 May;8[5]:1503-12; Eur Urol. 2013 Apr;63[4]:606-14). “Up to now, there are only two randomized studies published in the literature comparing robotic and classical laparoscopic prostatectomy, and my point of view is that there are strong limitations of both studies,” Dr. Stolzenburg said.

“First of all, both studies are based on the single experience of surgeons, so only one surgeon has performed surgery. The second limitation is the limited numbers of patients included,” he observed. One study had 64 patients in each arm, and the other had 60 patients in each arm.
 

Providing higher quality evidence

Dr. Stolzenburg presented results of the LAP-01 study, which was designed to close the knowledge gap and determine if there really was an advantage for RARP over LRP for preserving continence.

The trial was conducted at three academic centers and one public hospital in Germany. The final analysis included 718 patients with prostate cancer referred for prostate surgery. They were randomized, in a ratio of three to one, to undergo RARP (n = 530) or LRP (n = 188), being unaware themselves of which surgery they would be having until the 3-month primary endpoint.

In addition to improved continence over LRP, RARP was associated with significantly better erectile function at 3 months (P = .016), as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF).

That said, erectile function was still severely affected by both surgical procedures. Total IIEF scores were 6.0 with RARP and 4.7 with LRP, compared with 15.9 and 16.2, respectively, at baseline.

A higher percentage of men who had nerve-sparing procedures reported having an erection suitable for sexual intercourse at 2 months in the RARP group than in the LRP group (17.7% vs. 6.7%, P = .007).

The complication rate was “a little bit higher” in the LRP group than in the RARP group, “but the difference was not statistically significant,” Dr. Stolzenburg said. He added that “the most frequent complication was anastomotic leakage, and most complications overall were low-grade complications in both groups.”
 

Multicenter experience

The potential for prostatectomy to have effects on urinary continence and sexual function are important issues that need to be discussed upfront with patients, observed Alexandre de la Taille, MD, PhD, who was invited to discuss the study.

Current European guidance says “there is no surgical approach – open, laparoscopic, or robotic radical prostatectomy – that has proven superiority in terms of functional or oncological results,” he said. However, the LAP-01 study “found that the continence rate was better when we use a robotic approach compared to a laparoscopic approach.”

Dr. de la Taille, who is professor and chair of the urology service at CHU Mondor in Cretéil, France, also highlighted that this result was achieved with no increase in the morbidity profile or compromise of cancer control.

“My very first impression is that we are missing a little bit, some granularity of the data in terms of one key question, which is volume of surgery,” said the chair of the session Alberto Briganti, MD, PhD, associate professor of urology at Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, and deputy director of the Urological Research Institute of IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, both in Milan.

“We know that recovery of outcomes is volume-dependent, both in the laparoscopic and robotic setting,” Dr. Briganti added.

“This is really a multicenter study including a lot of surgeons,” Dr. de la Taille countered, agreeing that the volume of surgeries might be something the LAP-01 study investigators could look at in a sub-analysis.

“Of course, some of them have a huge experience in the robotic approach and some of them a lower experience of the robotic approach, but when you put all together, there is a better continence recovery at 3 months when compared to the laparoscopic approach,” Dr. de la Taille said.

Calling the study a “real-life practice study,” he noted that urinary continence at 12 months might be a stronger endpoint, and the difference between the two surgical approaches may become less with time.

“But for the patient, again, daily practice, it’s better to have early urinary continence recovery compared to a late recovery,” Dr. de la Taille said.

This study was funded by the University of Leipzig via a German Cancer Aid grant. All speakers declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Stolzenburg J-E. EAU20, Abstract.

Higher continence rates were seen after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) than after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in the first large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized trial to compare the two surgical approaches.

At 3 months, 54.3% of prostate cancer patients who underwent RARP and 45.6% of those who had LRP were continent after catheter removal (P = .027).

“We did use a very strong definition for continence, meaning no pad or safety pad; patients wearing one pad per day we’re not classified as continent,” said study investigator Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg, MD, PhD, professor and head of urology at the University of Leipzig Hospital in Germany.

Dr. Stolzenburg presented these findings at the European Association of Urology virtual annual congress.

The findings fit with previous research showing higher continence rates with RARP (69%-80%) than with LRP (62%-63%), although those studies did not always find the difference to be statistically significant, and higher quality evidence was needed (J Sex Med. 2011 May;8[5]:1503-12; Eur Urol. 2013 Apr;63[4]:606-14). “Up to now, there are only two randomized studies published in the literature comparing robotic and classical laparoscopic prostatectomy, and my point of view is that there are strong limitations of both studies,” Dr. Stolzenburg said.

“First of all, both studies are based on the single experience of surgeons, so only one surgeon has performed surgery. The second limitation is the limited numbers of patients included,” he observed. One study had 64 patients in each arm, and the other had 60 patients in each arm.
 

Providing higher quality evidence

Dr. Stolzenburg presented results of the LAP-01 study, which was designed to close the knowledge gap and determine if there really was an advantage for RARP over LRP for preserving continence.

The trial was conducted at three academic centers and one public hospital in Germany. The final analysis included 718 patients with prostate cancer referred for prostate surgery. They were randomized, in a ratio of three to one, to undergo RARP (n = 530) or LRP (n = 188), being unaware themselves of which surgery they would be having until the 3-month primary endpoint.

In addition to improved continence over LRP, RARP was associated with significantly better erectile function at 3 months (P = .016), as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF).

That said, erectile function was still severely affected by both surgical procedures. Total IIEF scores were 6.0 with RARP and 4.7 with LRP, compared with 15.9 and 16.2, respectively, at baseline.

A higher percentage of men who had nerve-sparing procedures reported having an erection suitable for sexual intercourse at 2 months in the RARP group than in the LRP group (17.7% vs. 6.7%, P = .007).

The complication rate was “a little bit higher” in the LRP group than in the RARP group, “but the difference was not statistically significant,” Dr. Stolzenburg said. He added that “the most frequent complication was anastomotic leakage, and most complications overall were low-grade complications in both groups.”
 

Multicenter experience

The potential for prostatectomy to have effects on urinary continence and sexual function are important issues that need to be discussed upfront with patients, observed Alexandre de la Taille, MD, PhD, who was invited to discuss the study.

Current European guidance says “there is no surgical approach – open, laparoscopic, or robotic radical prostatectomy – that has proven superiority in terms of functional or oncological results,” he said. However, the LAP-01 study “found that the continence rate was better when we use a robotic approach compared to a laparoscopic approach.”

Dr. de la Taille, who is professor and chair of the urology service at CHU Mondor in Cretéil, France, also highlighted that this result was achieved with no increase in the morbidity profile or compromise of cancer control.

“My very first impression is that we are missing a little bit, some granularity of the data in terms of one key question, which is volume of surgery,” said the chair of the session Alberto Briganti, MD, PhD, associate professor of urology at Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, and deputy director of the Urological Research Institute of IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, both in Milan.

“We know that recovery of outcomes is volume-dependent, both in the laparoscopic and robotic setting,” Dr. Briganti added.

“This is really a multicenter study including a lot of surgeons,” Dr. de la Taille countered, agreeing that the volume of surgeries might be something the LAP-01 study investigators could look at in a sub-analysis.

“Of course, some of them have a huge experience in the robotic approach and some of them a lower experience of the robotic approach, but when you put all together, there is a better continence recovery at 3 months when compared to the laparoscopic approach,” Dr. de la Taille said.

Calling the study a “real-life practice study,” he noted that urinary continence at 12 months might be a stronger endpoint, and the difference between the two surgical approaches may become less with time.

“But for the patient, again, daily practice, it’s better to have early urinary continence recovery compared to a late recovery,” Dr. de la Taille said.

This study was funded by the University of Leipzig via a German Cancer Aid grant. All speakers declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Stolzenburg J-E. EAU20, Abstract.

Higher continence rates were seen after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) than after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in the first large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized trial to compare the two surgical approaches.

At 3 months, 54.3% of prostate cancer patients who underwent RARP and 45.6% of those who had LRP were continent after catheter removal (P = .027).

“We did use a very strong definition for continence, meaning no pad or safety pad; patients wearing one pad per day we’re not classified as continent,” said study investigator Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg, MD, PhD, professor and head of urology at the University of Leipzig Hospital in Germany.

Dr. Stolzenburg presented these findings at the European Association of Urology virtual annual congress.

The findings fit with previous research showing higher continence rates with RARP (69%-80%) than with LRP (62%-63%), although those studies did not always find the difference to be statistically significant, and higher quality evidence was needed (J Sex Med. 2011 May;8[5]:1503-12; Eur Urol. 2013 Apr;63[4]:606-14). “Up to now, there are only two randomized studies published in the literature comparing robotic and classical laparoscopic prostatectomy, and my point of view is that there are strong limitations of both studies,” Dr. Stolzenburg said.

“First of all, both studies are based on the single experience of surgeons, so only one surgeon has performed surgery. The second limitation is the limited numbers of patients included,” he observed. One study had 64 patients in each arm, and the other had 60 patients in each arm.
 

Providing higher quality evidence

Dr. Stolzenburg presented results of the LAP-01 study, which was designed to close the knowledge gap and determine if there really was an advantage for RARP over LRP for preserving continence.

The trial was conducted at three academic centers and one public hospital in Germany. The final analysis included 718 patients with prostate cancer referred for prostate surgery. They were randomized, in a ratio of three to one, to undergo RARP (n = 530) or LRP (n = 188), being unaware themselves of which surgery they would be having until the 3-month primary endpoint.

In addition to improved continence over LRP, RARP was associated with significantly better erectile function at 3 months (P = .016), as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF).

That said, erectile function was still severely affected by both surgical procedures. Total IIEF scores were 6.0 with RARP and 4.7 with LRP, compared with 15.9 and 16.2, respectively, at baseline.

A higher percentage of men who had nerve-sparing procedures reported having an erection suitable for sexual intercourse at 2 months in the RARP group than in the LRP group (17.7% vs. 6.7%, P = .007).

The complication rate was “a little bit higher” in the LRP group than in the RARP group, “but the difference was not statistically significant,” Dr. Stolzenburg said. He added that “the most frequent complication was anastomotic leakage, and most complications overall were low-grade complications in both groups.”
 

Multicenter experience

The potential for prostatectomy to have effects on urinary continence and sexual function are important issues that need to be discussed upfront with patients, observed Alexandre de la Taille, MD, PhD, who was invited to discuss the study.

Current European guidance says “there is no surgical approach – open, laparoscopic, or robotic radical prostatectomy – that has proven superiority in terms of functional or oncological results,” he said. However, the LAP-01 study “found that the continence rate was better when we use a robotic approach compared to a laparoscopic approach.”

Dr. de la Taille, who is professor and chair of the urology service at CHU Mondor in Cretéil, France, also highlighted that this result was achieved with no increase in the morbidity profile or compromise of cancer control.

“My very first impression is that we are missing a little bit, some granularity of the data in terms of one key question, which is volume of surgery,” said the chair of the session Alberto Briganti, MD, PhD, associate professor of urology at Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, and deputy director of the Urological Research Institute of IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, both in Milan.

“We know that recovery of outcomes is volume-dependent, both in the laparoscopic and robotic setting,” Dr. Briganti added.

“This is really a multicenter study including a lot of surgeons,” Dr. de la Taille countered, agreeing that the volume of surgeries might be something the LAP-01 study investigators could look at in a sub-analysis.

“Of course, some of them have a huge experience in the robotic approach and some of them a lower experience of the robotic approach, but when you put all together, there is a better continence recovery at 3 months when compared to the laparoscopic approach,” Dr. de la Taille said.

Calling the study a “real-life practice study,” he noted that urinary continence at 12 months might be a stronger endpoint, and the difference between the two surgical approaches may become less with time.

“But for the patient, again, daily practice, it’s better to have early urinary continence recovery compared to a late recovery,” Dr. de la Taille said.

This study was funded by the University of Leipzig via a German Cancer Aid grant. All speakers declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Stolzenburg J-E. EAU20, Abstract.

Evidence that the heart can take a major hit in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially those already with cardiovascular disease (CV) or its risk factors, has been sadly apparent from the pandemic’s earliest days.

Less clear from case studies and small series to date has been whether SARS-CoV-2 directly attacks the heart and whether acute cardiac effects of the illness may lead to some kind of lingering cardiomyopathy.

The field’s grasp of those issues advanced a bit in two new reports published July 27 in JAMA Cardiology that seem to validate concerns the virus can infect the myocardium, without necessarily causing myocarditis and the possibility that some “recovered” patients may be left with persisting myocardial injury and inflammation that potentially could later manifest as heart failure.

Persisting inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance

A prospective cohort study with 100 patients recovered from a recent bout of the disease showed evidence of ventricular dysfunction, greater ventricular mass, and in 78% of the cohort, signs of myocardial inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. The CMR findings correlated with elevations in troponin T by high-sensitivity assay (hs-TnT).

Two-thirds of the cohort, whose acute COVID-19 severity had “ranged from asymptomatic to minor-to-moderate symptoms,” had recovered at home, whereas the remaining “severely unwell patients” had been hospitalized, wrote the authors, led by Valentina O. Püntmann, MD, PhD, University Hospital Frankfurt (Germany).

None of the patients had a history of heart failure or cardiomyopathy, although some had hypertension, diabetes, or evidence of coronary disease.

“Our findings demonstrate that participants with a relative paucity of preexisting cardiovascular condition and with mostly home-based recovery had frequent cardiac inflammatory involvement, which was similar to the hospitalized subgroup with regards to severity and extent,” the group noted.

“There is a considerable ongoing myocardial inflammation in the heart muscle weeks after recovery from COVID-19 illness. This finding is important because it may herald a considerable burden of heart failure in a few years down the line,” Dr. Püntmann said in an interview.

Early diagnosis would offer “a good chance that early treatment could reduce the relentless course of inflammatory damage or even halt it,” she said.

“The relatively clear onset of COVID-19 illness provides an opportunity, which we often do not have with other conditions, to take a proactive action and to look for heart involvement early, within a few weeks of recovery.”

The study’s CMR evidence of inflammation edema, scarring, and pericardial effusion are among “the major diagnostic criteria for inflammatory and viral myocarditis,” observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who wasn’t part of either new study.

The findings suggest – consistent with previous evidence – that some patients with recent COVID-19 may be left with ongoing myocardial inflammation, and this study further adds that it could potentially become subacute or even chronic and in some may not be totally reversible, she said in an interview. How long the effects are likely to persist “remains to be determined. We need longer-term outcomes data.”

Viral presence without myocarditis

The accompanying report featured a postmortem analysis of hearts from 39 patients with mostly severe COVID-19 that pointed to a significant SARS-CoV-2 presence and signs that the virus vigorously replicated in the myocardium.

But there was no evidence that the infection led to fulminant myocarditis. Rather, the virus had apparently infiltrated the heart by localizing in interstitial cells or in macrophages that took up in the myocardium without actually entering myocytes, concluded the report’s authors, led by Diana Lindner, PhD, from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg (Germany).

The findings suggest “that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in cardiac tissue does not necessarily cause an inflammatory reaction consistent with clinical myocarditis,” the group wrote.

Previously in the literature, in “cases in which myocardial inflammation was present, there was also evidence of clinical myocarditis, and therefore the current cases underlie a different pathophysiology,” they concluded.

No evidence of the virus was seen in 15 cases, about 61% of the group. In 16 of the remaining 24 hearts, the viral load exceeded 1,000 copies per mcg of RNA, a substantial presence. Those 16 showed increased expression of inflammatory cytokines but no inflammatory cell infiltrates or changes in leukocyte counts, the researchers noted.

“Findings of suggested viral replication in the cases with a very high viral load are showing that we need to do more studies to find out long-term consequences, which we do not know right now,” senior author Dirk Westermann, MD, also from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg, said.

Implications for heart failure

The postmortem findings from Dr. Lindner and associates “provide intriguing evidence that COVID-19 is associated with at least some component of myocardial injury, perhaps as the result of direct viral infection of the heart,” wrote Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, in an editorial accompanying both reports.

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues – on the backdrop of earlier COVID-19 observations – suggests the potential for “residual left ventricular dysfunction and ongoing inflammation” in the months following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Both developments may be “of sufficient concern to represent a nidus for new-onset heart failure and other cardiovascular complications,” contend Dr. Yancy and Dr. Fonarow.

“When added to the postmortem pathological findings from Lindner et al, we see the plot thickening and we are inclined to raise a new and very evident concern that cardiomyopathy and heart failure related to COVID-19 may potentially evolve as the natural history of this infection becomes clearer,” they wrote.

Some patients, having recovered from the acute illness, may be left with a chronic inflammatory state that probably puts them at increased risk for future heart failure, agreed Dr. Bozkurt when interviewed. “They could show further decline in cardiac function, and their recovery might take longer than with the usual viral illnesses that we see,” she said.

“There could also be a risk of sudden death. Inflammation sometimes gives rise to sudden death and ventricular arrhythmia, which I would be very worried about, especially if the myocardium is stressed,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “So competitive sports in those patients potentially could be risky.”

COVID-19 cohort vs. matched control subjects

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues prospectively entered 100 patients recently recovered from an acute bout of COVID-19, either at home or at a hospital, who were followed in a registry based at University Hospital Frankfurt. Their median age was 49 years; 47% were female. They were compared with 50 age- and sex-matched control patients and 50 apparently healthy volunteers matched for risk factors, the group noted.

On the same day as the CMR assessment, the recently recovered patients, compared with the healthy control subjects and risk-factor matched control subjects, respectively, showed (P ≤ .001 in each case):

• A reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction: 56% vs. 60% and 61%.
• A higher LV end-diastolic volume index: 86 mL/m² vs. 80 mL/m² and 75 mL/m^2.
• A greater LV mass index: 51 g/m² vs. 47 g/m² and 53 g/m^2.
• A higher hs-TnT level: 5.6 pg/mL vs. 3.2 pg/mL and 3.9 pg/mL.
• A greater prevalence of hs-TnT levels 3 pg/mL or more: 71% vs. 11% and 31%.

At CMR, 78% of the recovered COVID-19 patients showed abnormalities that included raised myocardial native T1 and T2 mapping, which is suggestive of fibrosis and edema from inflammation, compared with the two control groups (P < .001 for all differences), “independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis,” the group wrote. Native T1 and T2 mapping correlated significantly with hs-TnT.

“We now have the diagnostic means to detect cardiac inflammation early, and we need make every effort to apply them in every day practice,”Dr. Püntmann said in the interview.

“Using cardiac MRI will allow us to raise our game against COVID-19 and proactively develop efficient cardioprotective treatments,” she said. “Until we have effective means of protecting from the infection, that is vaccination, we must act swiftly and within the means at hand.”

The analysis evokes several other ways patients with COVID-19 might be screened for significant myocardial involvement.

“Strategies could include checking troponins, not only at admission but maybe at discharge and perhaps even those individuals who are at home and are not necessarily requiring care,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

“Biomarker profiling and screening for ongoing inflammation probably are going to be important components of COVID-19, especially for those with subclinical risk and disease.”

Dr. Westermann proposed that troponin elevations at discharge “might be a good starting point” for selecting COVID-19 patients for functional testing or imaging to screen for cardiac sequelae. Performing such tests routinely now “would be overwhelming given the massive increase in patients we still see today.”

Dr. Püntmann had no disclosures; statements of potential conflict for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Bozkurt has previously disclosed receiving consultant fees or honoraria from Bayer Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lantheus Medical Imaging, and Respicardia; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA ; and having unspecified relationships with Abbott Laboratories. Dr. Lindner had no disclosures; Dr. Westermann reported receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and Medtronic. Dr. Yancy is a deputy editor and Dr. Fonarow a section editor for JAMA Cardiology. Dr. Yancy had no other disclosures. Dr. Fonarow reported receiving personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

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

Evidence that the heart can take a major hit in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially those already with cardiovascular disease (CV) or its risk factors, has been sadly apparent from the pandemic’s earliest days.

Less clear from case studies and small series to date has been whether SARS-CoV-2 directly attacks the heart and whether acute cardiac effects of the illness may lead to some kind of lingering cardiomyopathy.

The field’s grasp of those issues advanced a bit in two new reports published July 27 in JAMA Cardiology that seem to validate concerns the virus can infect the myocardium, without necessarily causing myocarditis and the possibility that some “recovered” patients may be left with persisting myocardial injury and inflammation that potentially could later manifest as heart failure.

Persisting inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance

A prospective cohort study with 100 patients recovered from a recent bout of the disease showed evidence of ventricular dysfunction, greater ventricular mass, and in 78% of the cohort, signs of myocardial inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. The CMR findings correlated with elevations in troponin T by high-sensitivity assay (hs-TnT).

Two-thirds of the cohort, whose acute COVID-19 severity had “ranged from asymptomatic to minor-to-moderate symptoms,” had recovered at home, whereas the remaining “severely unwell patients” had been hospitalized, wrote the authors, led by Valentina O. Püntmann, MD, PhD, University Hospital Frankfurt (Germany).

None of the patients had a history of heart failure or cardiomyopathy, although some had hypertension, diabetes, or evidence of coronary disease.

“Our findings demonstrate that participants with a relative paucity of preexisting cardiovascular condition and with mostly home-based recovery had frequent cardiac inflammatory involvement, which was similar to the hospitalized subgroup with regards to severity and extent,” the group noted.

“There is a considerable ongoing myocardial inflammation in the heart muscle weeks after recovery from COVID-19 illness. This finding is important because it may herald a considerable burden of heart failure in a few years down the line,” Dr. Püntmann said in an interview.

Early diagnosis would offer “a good chance that early treatment could reduce the relentless course of inflammatory damage or even halt it,” she said.

“The relatively clear onset of COVID-19 illness provides an opportunity, which we often do not have with other conditions, to take a proactive action and to look for heart involvement early, within a few weeks of recovery.”

The study’s CMR evidence of inflammation edema, scarring, and pericardial effusion are among “the major diagnostic criteria for inflammatory and viral myocarditis,” observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who wasn’t part of either new study.

The findings suggest – consistent with previous evidence – that some patients with recent COVID-19 may be left with ongoing myocardial inflammation, and this study further adds that it could potentially become subacute or even chronic and in some may not be totally reversible, she said in an interview. How long the effects are likely to persist “remains to be determined. We need longer-term outcomes data.”

Viral presence without myocarditis

The accompanying report featured a postmortem analysis of hearts from 39 patients with mostly severe COVID-19 that pointed to a significant SARS-CoV-2 presence and signs that the virus vigorously replicated in the myocardium.

But there was no evidence that the infection led to fulminant myocarditis. Rather, the virus had apparently infiltrated the heart by localizing in interstitial cells or in macrophages that took up in the myocardium without actually entering myocytes, concluded the report’s authors, led by Diana Lindner, PhD, from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg (Germany).

The findings suggest “that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in cardiac tissue does not necessarily cause an inflammatory reaction consistent with clinical myocarditis,” the group wrote.

Previously in the literature, in “cases in which myocardial inflammation was present, there was also evidence of clinical myocarditis, and therefore the current cases underlie a different pathophysiology,” they concluded.

No evidence of the virus was seen in 15 cases, about 61% of the group. In 16 of the remaining 24 hearts, the viral load exceeded 1,000 copies per mcg of RNA, a substantial presence. Those 16 showed increased expression of inflammatory cytokines but no inflammatory cell infiltrates or changes in leukocyte counts, the researchers noted.

“Findings of suggested viral replication in the cases with a very high viral load are showing that we need to do more studies to find out long-term consequences, which we do not know right now,” senior author Dirk Westermann, MD, also from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg, said.

Implications for heart failure

The postmortem findings from Dr. Lindner and associates “provide intriguing evidence that COVID-19 is associated with at least some component of myocardial injury, perhaps as the result of direct viral infection of the heart,” wrote Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, in an editorial accompanying both reports.

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues – on the backdrop of earlier COVID-19 observations – suggests the potential for “residual left ventricular dysfunction and ongoing inflammation” in the months following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Both developments may be “of sufficient concern to represent a nidus for new-onset heart failure and other cardiovascular complications,” contend Dr. Yancy and Dr. Fonarow.

“When added to the postmortem pathological findings from Lindner et al, we see the plot thickening and we are inclined to raise a new and very evident concern that cardiomyopathy and heart failure related to COVID-19 may potentially evolve as the natural history of this infection becomes clearer,” they wrote.

Some patients, having recovered from the acute illness, may be left with a chronic inflammatory state that probably puts them at increased risk for future heart failure, agreed Dr. Bozkurt when interviewed. “They could show further decline in cardiac function, and their recovery might take longer than with the usual viral illnesses that we see,” she said.

“There could also be a risk of sudden death. Inflammation sometimes gives rise to sudden death and ventricular arrhythmia, which I would be very worried about, especially if the myocardium is stressed,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “So competitive sports in those patients potentially could be risky.”

COVID-19 cohort vs. matched control subjects

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues prospectively entered 100 patients recently recovered from an acute bout of COVID-19, either at home or at a hospital, who were followed in a registry based at University Hospital Frankfurt. Their median age was 49 years; 47% were female. They were compared with 50 age- and sex-matched control patients and 50 apparently healthy volunteers matched for risk factors, the group noted.

On the same day as the CMR assessment, the recently recovered patients, compared with the healthy control subjects and risk-factor matched control subjects, respectively, showed (P ≤ .001 in each case):

• A reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction: 56% vs. 60% and 61%.
• A higher LV end-diastolic volume index: 86 mL/m² vs. 80 mL/m² and 75 mL/m^2.
• A greater LV mass index: 51 g/m² vs. 47 g/m² and 53 g/m^2.
• A higher hs-TnT level: 5.6 pg/mL vs. 3.2 pg/mL and 3.9 pg/mL.
• A greater prevalence of hs-TnT levels 3 pg/mL or more: 71% vs. 11% and 31%.

At CMR, 78% of the recovered COVID-19 patients showed abnormalities that included raised myocardial native T1 and T2 mapping, which is suggestive of fibrosis and edema from inflammation, compared with the two control groups (P < .001 for all differences), “independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis,” the group wrote. Native T1 and T2 mapping correlated significantly with hs-TnT.

“We now have the diagnostic means to detect cardiac inflammation early, and we need make every effort to apply them in every day practice,”Dr. Püntmann said in the interview.

“Using cardiac MRI will allow us to raise our game against COVID-19 and proactively develop efficient cardioprotective treatments,” she said. “Until we have effective means of protecting from the infection, that is vaccination, we must act swiftly and within the means at hand.”

The analysis evokes several other ways patients with COVID-19 might be screened for significant myocardial involvement.

“Strategies could include checking troponins, not only at admission but maybe at discharge and perhaps even those individuals who are at home and are not necessarily requiring care,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

“Biomarker profiling and screening for ongoing inflammation probably are going to be important components of COVID-19, especially for those with subclinical risk and disease.”

Dr. Westermann proposed that troponin elevations at discharge “might be a good starting point” for selecting COVID-19 patients for functional testing or imaging to screen for cardiac sequelae. Performing such tests routinely now “would be overwhelming given the massive increase in patients we still see today.”

Dr. Püntmann had no disclosures; statements of potential conflict for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Bozkurt has previously disclosed receiving consultant fees or honoraria from Bayer Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lantheus Medical Imaging, and Respicardia; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA ; and having unspecified relationships with Abbott Laboratories. Dr. Lindner had no disclosures; Dr. Westermann reported receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and Medtronic. Dr. Yancy is a deputy editor and Dr. Fonarow a section editor for JAMA Cardiology. Dr. Yancy had no other disclosures. Dr. Fonarow reported receiving personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

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

Evidence that the heart can take a major hit in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially those already with cardiovascular disease (CV) or its risk factors, has been sadly apparent from the pandemic’s earliest days.

Less clear from case studies and small series to date has been whether SARS-CoV-2 directly attacks the heart and whether acute cardiac effects of the illness may lead to some kind of lingering cardiomyopathy.

The field’s grasp of those issues advanced a bit in two new reports published July 27 in JAMA Cardiology that seem to validate concerns the virus can infect the myocardium, without necessarily causing myocarditis and the possibility that some “recovered” patients may be left with persisting myocardial injury and inflammation that potentially could later manifest as heart failure.

Persisting inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance

A prospective cohort study with 100 patients recovered from a recent bout of the disease showed evidence of ventricular dysfunction, greater ventricular mass, and in 78% of the cohort, signs of myocardial inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. The CMR findings correlated with elevations in troponin T by high-sensitivity assay (hs-TnT).

Two-thirds of the cohort, whose acute COVID-19 severity had “ranged from asymptomatic to minor-to-moderate symptoms,” had recovered at home, whereas the remaining “severely unwell patients” had been hospitalized, wrote the authors, led by Valentina O. Püntmann, MD, PhD, University Hospital Frankfurt (Germany).

None of the patients had a history of heart failure or cardiomyopathy, although some had hypertension, diabetes, or evidence of coronary disease.

“Our findings demonstrate that participants with a relative paucity of preexisting cardiovascular condition and with mostly home-based recovery had frequent cardiac inflammatory involvement, which was similar to the hospitalized subgroup with regards to severity and extent,” the group noted.

“There is a considerable ongoing myocardial inflammation in the heart muscle weeks after recovery from COVID-19 illness. This finding is important because it may herald a considerable burden of heart failure in a few years down the line,” Dr. Püntmann said in an interview.

Early diagnosis would offer “a good chance that early treatment could reduce the relentless course of inflammatory damage or even halt it,” she said.

“The relatively clear onset of COVID-19 illness provides an opportunity, which we often do not have with other conditions, to take a proactive action and to look for heart involvement early, within a few weeks of recovery.”

The study’s CMR evidence of inflammation edema, scarring, and pericardial effusion are among “the major diagnostic criteria for inflammatory and viral myocarditis,” observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who wasn’t part of either new study.

The findings suggest – consistent with previous evidence – that some patients with recent COVID-19 may be left with ongoing myocardial inflammation, and this study further adds that it could potentially become subacute or even chronic and in some may not be totally reversible, she said in an interview. How long the effects are likely to persist “remains to be determined. We need longer-term outcomes data.”

Viral presence without myocarditis

The accompanying report featured a postmortem analysis of hearts from 39 patients with mostly severe COVID-19 that pointed to a significant SARS-CoV-2 presence and signs that the virus vigorously replicated in the myocardium.

But there was no evidence that the infection led to fulminant myocarditis. Rather, the virus had apparently infiltrated the heart by localizing in interstitial cells or in macrophages that took up in the myocardium without actually entering myocytes, concluded the report’s authors, led by Diana Lindner, PhD, from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg (Germany).

The findings suggest “that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in cardiac tissue does not necessarily cause an inflammatory reaction consistent with clinical myocarditis,” the group wrote.

Previously in the literature, in “cases in which myocardial inflammation was present, there was also evidence of clinical myocarditis, and therefore the current cases underlie a different pathophysiology,” they concluded.

No evidence of the virus was seen in 15 cases, about 61% of the group. In 16 of the remaining 24 hearts, the viral load exceeded 1,000 copies per mcg of RNA, a substantial presence. Those 16 showed increased expression of inflammatory cytokines but no inflammatory cell infiltrates or changes in leukocyte counts, the researchers noted.

“Findings of suggested viral replication in the cases with a very high viral load are showing that we need to do more studies to find out long-term consequences, which we do not know right now,” senior author Dirk Westermann, MD, also from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg, said.

Implications for heart failure

The postmortem findings from Dr. Lindner and associates “provide intriguing evidence that COVID-19 is associated with at least some component of myocardial injury, perhaps as the result of direct viral infection of the heart,” wrote Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, in an editorial accompanying both reports.

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues – on the backdrop of earlier COVID-19 observations – suggests the potential for “residual left ventricular dysfunction and ongoing inflammation” in the months following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Both developments may be “of sufficient concern to represent a nidus for new-onset heart failure and other cardiovascular complications,” contend Dr. Yancy and Dr. Fonarow.

“When added to the postmortem pathological findings from Lindner et al, we see the plot thickening and we are inclined to raise a new and very evident concern that cardiomyopathy and heart failure related to COVID-19 may potentially evolve as the natural history of this infection becomes clearer,” they wrote.

Some patients, having recovered from the acute illness, may be left with a chronic inflammatory state that probably puts them at increased risk for future heart failure, agreed Dr. Bozkurt when interviewed. “They could show further decline in cardiac function, and their recovery might take longer than with the usual viral illnesses that we see,” she said.

“There could also be a risk of sudden death. Inflammation sometimes gives rise to sudden death and ventricular arrhythmia, which I would be very worried about, especially if the myocardium is stressed,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “So competitive sports in those patients potentially could be risky.”

COVID-19 cohort vs. matched control subjects

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues prospectively entered 100 patients recently recovered from an acute bout of COVID-19, either at home or at a hospital, who were followed in a registry based at University Hospital Frankfurt. Their median age was 49 years; 47% were female. They were compared with 50 age- and sex-matched control patients and 50 apparently healthy volunteers matched for risk factors, the group noted.

On the same day as the CMR assessment, the recently recovered patients, compared with the healthy control subjects and risk-factor matched control subjects, respectively, showed (P ≤ .001 in each case):

• A reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction: 56% vs. 60% and 61%.
• A higher LV end-diastolic volume index: 86 mL/m² vs. 80 mL/m² and 75 mL/m^2.
• A greater LV mass index: 51 g/m² vs. 47 g/m² and 53 g/m^2.
• A higher hs-TnT level: 5.6 pg/mL vs. 3.2 pg/mL and 3.9 pg/mL.
• A greater prevalence of hs-TnT levels 3 pg/mL or more: 71% vs. 11% and 31%.

At CMR, 78% of the recovered COVID-19 patients showed abnormalities that included raised myocardial native T1 and T2 mapping, which is suggestive of fibrosis and edema from inflammation, compared with the two control groups (P < .001 for all differences), “independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis,” the group wrote. Native T1 and T2 mapping correlated significantly with hs-TnT.

“We now have the diagnostic means to detect cardiac inflammation early, and we need make every effort to apply them in every day practice,”Dr. Püntmann said in the interview.

“Using cardiac MRI will allow us to raise our game against COVID-19 and proactively develop efficient cardioprotective treatments,” she said. “Until we have effective means of protecting from the infection, that is vaccination, we must act swiftly and within the means at hand.”

The analysis evokes several other ways patients with COVID-19 might be screened for significant myocardial involvement.

“Strategies could include checking troponins, not only at admission but maybe at discharge and perhaps even those individuals who are at home and are not necessarily requiring care,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

“Biomarker profiling and screening for ongoing inflammation probably are going to be important components of COVID-19, especially for those with subclinical risk and disease.”

Dr. Westermann proposed that troponin elevations at discharge “might be a good starting point” for selecting COVID-19 patients for functional testing or imaging to screen for cardiac sequelae. Performing such tests routinely now “would be overwhelming given the massive increase in patients we still see today.”

Dr. Püntmann had no disclosures; statements of potential conflict for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Bozkurt has previously disclosed receiving consultant fees or honoraria from Bayer Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lantheus Medical Imaging, and Respicardia; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA ; and having unspecified relationships with Abbott Laboratories. Dr. Lindner had no disclosures; Dr. Westermann reported receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and Medtronic. Dr. Yancy is a deputy editor and Dr. Fonarow a section editor for JAMA Cardiology. Dr. Yancy had no other disclosures. Dr. Fonarow reported receiving personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

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

A study has shown a strong link between sleeping disturbances and depression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

magicmine/Getty Images

Adults with clinically stable COPD who reported sleep problems were significantly more likely to report depression or anxiety, poor self-efficacy, and poor health-related quality of life, compared with those not reporting sleep problems, according to the findings from a study of 245 patients.

Sleep problems are common in patients with COPD and have been associated with poor COPD-related outcomes, wrote Sang Hee Lee, MD, of Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo-si, South Korea, and colleagues.

“However, there is a lack of research on factors associated with sleep disturbance in patients with COPD,” they wrote.

In a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study published in the Clinical Respiratory Journal, the researchers enrolled 245 adults with COPD who completed the COPD and Asthma Impact Scale (CASIS) to determine sleep impairment. The CASIS was developed to measure sleep-related problems associated with respiratory disease, and scored on a scale of 1-100, with higher scores indicating greater sleep impairment. The average CASIS score was 40.9. The average age of the patients was 67 years, and 92% were men.

Patients’ health-related quality of life, anxiety/depression, and self-efficacy were assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the COPD Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES). The average scores on these measures were 36.0 for the SGRQ; 48.1 and 50.6, respectively, for the physical and mental components of the SF-36; 3.8 and 6.4, respectively, for the HADS-A and HADS-D measures of anxiety and depression; and 3.3 on the CSES.

Worse sleep in these patients was associated with worse scores on measures of mood. In a multivariate analysis, higher scores on all four measures of health-related quality of life were significantly associated with higher CASIS scores (P = .006 for SGRQ; P = .037 for SF-36, P < .001 for HADS, and P = .010 for CSES).

Although the CASIS did not allow for measurement of symptom severity and did not include many items related to breathing problems, the test “shows good internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, and construct validity according to previous studies,” the researchers wrote. “The CASIS may be a good tool for evaluating sleep disturbances in COPD patients, and further study is needed,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional study design, lack of data on obstructive sleep apnea, and lack of information on specific treatments such as at-home oxygen use or high-dose steroid use, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a disease-specific sleep measure, and the study is the first known to include self-efficacy in relation to sleep quality in COPD patients, they reported.

The results highlight the association between depression, poor quality of life, and self-efficacy in relation to poor sleep, and suggest that “Sleep quality could be improved by enhancing HRQL and self-efficacy,” the researchers said. “Screening for mood disorder in patients with COPD is also needed,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee SH et al. Clin Respir J. 2020 Jul 24. doi: 10.1111/crj.13235.

A study has shown a strong link between sleeping disturbances and depression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

magicmine/Getty Images

Adults with clinically stable COPD who reported sleep problems were significantly more likely to report depression or anxiety, poor self-efficacy, and poor health-related quality of life, compared with those not reporting sleep problems, according to the findings from a study of 245 patients.

Sleep problems are common in patients with COPD and have been associated with poor COPD-related outcomes, wrote Sang Hee Lee, MD, of Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo-si, South Korea, and colleagues.

“However, there is a lack of research on factors associated with sleep disturbance in patients with COPD,” they wrote.

In a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study published in the Clinical Respiratory Journal, the researchers enrolled 245 adults with COPD who completed the COPD and Asthma Impact Scale (CASIS) to determine sleep impairment. The CASIS was developed to measure sleep-related problems associated with respiratory disease, and scored on a scale of 1-100, with higher scores indicating greater sleep impairment. The average CASIS score was 40.9. The average age of the patients was 67 years, and 92% were men.

Patients’ health-related quality of life, anxiety/depression, and self-efficacy were assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the COPD Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES). The average scores on these measures were 36.0 for the SGRQ; 48.1 and 50.6, respectively, for the physical and mental components of the SF-36; 3.8 and 6.4, respectively, for the HADS-A and HADS-D measures of anxiety and depression; and 3.3 on the CSES.

Worse sleep in these patients was associated with worse scores on measures of mood. In a multivariate analysis, higher scores on all four measures of health-related quality of life were significantly associated with higher CASIS scores (P = .006 for SGRQ; P = .037 for SF-36, P < .001 for HADS, and P = .010 for CSES).

Although the CASIS did not allow for measurement of symptom severity and did not include many items related to breathing problems, the test “shows good internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, and construct validity according to previous studies,” the researchers wrote. “The CASIS may be a good tool for evaluating sleep disturbances in COPD patients, and further study is needed,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional study design, lack of data on obstructive sleep apnea, and lack of information on specific treatments such as at-home oxygen use or high-dose steroid use, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a disease-specific sleep measure, and the study is the first known to include self-efficacy in relation to sleep quality in COPD patients, they reported.

The results highlight the association between depression, poor quality of life, and self-efficacy in relation to poor sleep, and suggest that “Sleep quality could be improved by enhancing HRQL and self-efficacy,” the researchers said. “Screening for mood disorder in patients with COPD is also needed,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee SH et al. Clin Respir J. 2020 Jul 24. doi: 10.1111/crj.13235.

A study has shown a strong link between sleeping disturbances and depression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

magicmine/Getty Images

Adults with clinically stable COPD who reported sleep problems were significantly more likely to report depression or anxiety, poor self-efficacy, and poor health-related quality of life, compared with those not reporting sleep problems, according to the findings from a study of 245 patients.

Sleep problems are common in patients with COPD and have been associated with poor COPD-related outcomes, wrote Sang Hee Lee, MD, of Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo-si, South Korea, and colleagues.

“However, there is a lack of research on factors associated with sleep disturbance in patients with COPD,” they wrote.

In a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study published in the Clinical Respiratory Journal, the researchers enrolled 245 adults with COPD who completed the COPD and Asthma Impact Scale (CASIS) to determine sleep impairment. The CASIS was developed to measure sleep-related problems associated with respiratory disease, and scored on a scale of 1-100, with higher scores indicating greater sleep impairment. The average CASIS score was 40.9. The average age of the patients was 67 years, and 92% were men.

Patients’ health-related quality of life, anxiety/depression, and self-efficacy were assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the COPD Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES). The average scores on these measures were 36.0 for the SGRQ; 48.1 and 50.6, respectively, for the physical and mental components of the SF-36; 3.8 and 6.4, respectively, for the HADS-A and HADS-D measures of anxiety and depression; and 3.3 on the CSES.

Worse sleep in these patients was associated with worse scores on measures of mood. In a multivariate analysis, higher scores on all four measures of health-related quality of life were significantly associated with higher CASIS scores (P = .006 for SGRQ; P = .037 for SF-36, P < .001 for HADS, and P = .010 for CSES).

Although the CASIS did not allow for measurement of symptom severity and did not include many items related to breathing problems, the test “shows good internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, and construct validity according to previous studies,” the researchers wrote. “The CASIS may be a good tool for evaluating sleep disturbances in COPD patients, and further study is needed,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional study design, lack of data on obstructive sleep apnea, and lack of information on specific treatments such as at-home oxygen use or high-dose steroid use, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a disease-specific sleep measure, and the study is the first known to include self-efficacy in relation to sleep quality in COPD patients, they reported.

The results highlight the association between depression, poor quality of life, and self-efficacy in relation to poor sleep, and suggest that “Sleep quality could be improved by enhancing HRQL and self-efficacy,” the researchers said. “Screening for mood disorder in patients with COPD is also needed,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee SH et al. Clin Respir J. 2020 Jul 24. doi: 10.1111/crj.13235.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the triple-therapy combination of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus cobimetinib (Cotellic) and vemurafenib (Zelboraf) for the treatment of BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma, according to a press statement from Genentech, which owns all three drugs.

This is the first melanoma indication for the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab; the other two drugs, cobimetinib and vemurafenib, are a MEK- plus BRAF-inhibitor combination previously approved for BRAF-mutated melanoma.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the randomized, phase 3 IMspire150 study from patients with previously untreated BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic or unresectable locally advanced melanoma.

Progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was improved by 4.5 months with the triple therapy compared to the doublet.

The addition of atezolizumab to cobimetinib and vemurafenib led to a longer median PFS of 15.1 months, compared to 10.6 months with placebo plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 – 0.97; P = .025).

The most common adverse reactions (rate ≥ 20%) in patients who received the triple combination were rash (75%), musculoskeletal pain (62%), fatigue (51%), hepatotoxicity (50%), pyrexia (49%), nausea (30%), pruritus (26%), edema (26%), stomatitis (23%), hypothyroidism (22%), and photosensitivity reaction (21%).

The review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence that facilitates concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the triple-therapy combination of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus cobimetinib (Cotellic) and vemurafenib (Zelboraf) for the treatment of BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma, according to a press statement from Genentech, which owns all three drugs.

This is the first melanoma indication for the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab; the other two drugs, cobimetinib and vemurafenib, are a MEK- plus BRAF-inhibitor combination previously approved for BRAF-mutated melanoma.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the randomized, phase 3 IMspire150 study from patients with previously untreated BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic or unresectable locally advanced melanoma.

Progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was improved by 4.5 months with the triple therapy compared to the doublet.

The addition of atezolizumab to cobimetinib and vemurafenib led to a longer median PFS of 15.1 months, compared to 10.6 months with placebo plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 – 0.97; P = .025).

The most common adverse reactions (rate ≥ 20%) in patients who received the triple combination were rash (75%), musculoskeletal pain (62%), fatigue (51%), hepatotoxicity (50%), pyrexia (49%), nausea (30%), pruritus (26%), edema (26%), stomatitis (23%), hypothyroidism (22%), and photosensitivity reaction (21%).

The review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence that facilitates concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the triple-therapy combination of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus cobimetinib (Cotellic) and vemurafenib (Zelboraf) for the treatment of BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma, according to a press statement from Genentech, which owns all three drugs.

This is the first melanoma indication for the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab; the other two drugs, cobimetinib and vemurafenib, are a MEK- plus BRAF-inhibitor combination previously approved for BRAF-mutated melanoma.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the randomized, phase 3 IMspire150 study from patients with previously untreated BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic or unresectable locally advanced melanoma.

Progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was improved by 4.5 months with the triple therapy compared to the doublet.

The addition of atezolizumab to cobimetinib and vemurafenib led to a longer median PFS of 15.1 months, compared to 10.6 months with placebo plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 – 0.97; P = .025).

The most common adverse reactions (rate ≥ 20%) in patients who received the triple combination were rash (75%), musculoskeletal pain (62%), fatigue (51%), hepatotoxicity (50%), pyrexia (49%), nausea (30%), pruritus (26%), edema (26%), stomatitis (23%), hypothyroidism (22%), and photosensitivity reaction (21%).

The review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence that facilitates concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An erythematous rash was the most common cutaneous manifestation in patients with COVID-19, followed by chilblain-like lesions and urticaria-like lesions in a systematic review of mostly European studies.

Qing Zhao, MD, Xiaokai Fang, MD, and their colleagues at the Shandong Provincial Hospital for Skin Diseases & Shandong Provincial Institute of Dermatology and Venereology, in Jinan, China, reported the results of a literature review of 44 articles published through May 2020 that included 507 patients with cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. The review was published in the Journal of The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Nearly all of the patients (96%) were from Europe, and more than half were women (60%), with an average age of 49 years. Most patients had multiple skin symptoms, with the most common being erythema (44%), chilblain-like lesions (20%), urticaria-like lesions (16%), vesicular manifestations (13%), livedo/necrosis (6%), and petechiae (almost 2%). The authors described erythema as being present in specific sites, such as the trunk, extremities, flexural regions, face, and mucous membranes. Slightly less than half of all patients had significant pruritus.

Data on systemic COVID-19 symptoms were available for 431 patients and included fever in about two-thirds of patients and cough in almost 70%, with dyspnea in almost half of patients. Almost 60% had fatigue, and almost 60% had asthenia. Information about the onset of skin symptoms was available in 88 patients; of these patients, lesions were seen an average of almost 10 days after systemic symptoms appeared and, in almost 15%, were the first symptoms noted.

Histopathologic exams were done for only 23 patients and, in all cases, showed “inflammatory features without specific pathological changes, such as lymphocyte infiltration.” In one study, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing of skin biopsy specimens tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Expression of ACE2, the receptor of SARS-CoV-2, in the skin was evaluated in six of the studies. “Higher ACE2 expression was identified in keratinocytes, mainly in differentiating keratinocytes and basal cells compared to the other cells of skin tissues,” the authors wrote. These results were confirmed with immunohistochemistry, which, they said, found “ACE2-positive keratinocytes in the stratum basal, the stratum spinosum, and the stratum granulosum of epiderma.” They added that this provides evidence “for percutaneous infection or the entry of virus into patients through skin tissues,” but cautioned that more research is needed.

The authors acknowledged that there are still many unanswered questions about COVID-19, and that more clinical data and research are needed, to improve the understanding of the cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19.

Pathogenesis of different cutaneous manifestations may be different, Dr. Femia said. For example, urticaria and morbilliform eruption were described by the authors of the review as more benign eruptions, but pathogenesis may differ from that of so-called COVID toes and from the pathogenesis of purpura and ulcerations seen in patients with more severe disease, she noted. It is plausible, she added, that purpura and ulcerations may be a “direct invasion of SARS-CoV-2 into endothelial cells,” which creates secondary processes “that ultimately destroy the skin.”

Urticaria and morbilliform eruptions, on the other hand, “are more simply that the immune system is recognizing COVID, and in doing so, is also recognizing some antigens in the skin and creating a hypersensitive response to the skin” and has “nothing to do with the SARS-CoV-2 virus actually being in that location,” she said.

It is important to differentiate between patients who have skin manifestations attributed to COVID-19 and those with manifestations independent of COVID-19, which is difficult, Dr. Femia noted. A patient with COVID-19 and a cutaneous manifestation may be having a reaction to a medication. “It’s important to have a critical eye and to remember that, when we see these manifestations, we should always be investigating whether there was an alternative cause so that we can better learn what exactly we should be attributing to this infection,” she said

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the authors of the review had presented interesting work, but made some “assumptions that need to be proven.” Dr. Friedman also was not involved in the research, but agreed in an interview with the assessment that it is unlikely SARS-CoV-2 would penetrate the skin. While some viruses – such as the poxvirus that causes molluscum contagiosum and the herpes simplex virus – invade keratinocytes specifically, there is a particular clinical phenotype that results that is associated with changes in the epidermis. However, “the skin manifestations of COVID-19 do not fit with direct skin invasion, [but] rather the immune response to systemic disease,” he said.

“[I]n terms of systemic invasion through the skin, it is possible, but this study certainly doesn’t show that. The presence/expression of ACE2 in the epidermis doesn’t translate to route of infection,” Dr. Friedman said..

The study received financial support from Shandong First Medical University, the Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences and the Shandong Province Taishan Scholar Project. The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Femia and Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhao Q et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jun 28. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16778.

An erythematous rash was the most common cutaneous manifestation in patients with COVID-19, followed by chilblain-like lesions and urticaria-like lesions in a systematic review of mostly European studies.

Qing Zhao, MD, Xiaokai Fang, MD, and their colleagues at the Shandong Provincial Hospital for Skin Diseases & Shandong Provincial Institute of Dermatology and Venereology, in Jinan, China, reported the results of a literature review of 44 articles published through May 2020 that included 507 patients with cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. The review was published in the Journal of The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Nearly all of the patients (96%) were from Europe, and more than half were women (60%), with an average age of 49 years. Most patients had multiple skin symptoms, with the most common being erythema (44%), chilblain-like lesions (20%), urticaria-like lesions (16%), vesicular manifestations (13%), livedo/necrosis (6%), and petechiae (almost 2%). The authors described erythema as being present in specific sites, such as the trunk, extremities, flexural regions, face, and mucous membranes. Slightly less than half of all patients had significant pruritus.

Data on systemic COVID-19 symptoms were available for 431 patients and included fever in about two-thirds of patients and cough in almost 70%, with dyspnea in almost half of patients. Almost 60% had fatigue, and almost 60% had asthenia. Information about the onset of skin symptoms was available in 88 patients; of these patients, lesions were seen an average of almost 10 days after systemic symptoms appeared and, in almost 15%, were the first symptoms noted.

Histopathologic exams were done for only 23 patients and, in all cases, showed “inflammatory features without specific pathological changes, such as lymphocyte infiltration.” In one study, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing of skin biopsy specimens tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Expression of ACE2, the receptor of SARS-CoV-2, in the skin was evaluated in six of the studies. “Higher ACE2 expression was identified in keratinocytes, mainly in differentiating keratinocytes and basal cells compared to the other cells of skin tissues,” the authors wrote. These results were confirmed with immunohistochemistry, which, they said, found “ACE2-positive keratinocytes in the stratum basal, the stratum spinosum, and the stratum granulosum of epiderma.” They added that this provides evidence “for percutaneous infection or the entry of virus into patients through skin tissues,” but cautioned that more research is needed.

The authors acknowledged that there are still many unanswered questions about COVID-19, and that more clinical data and research are needed, to improve the understanding of the cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19.

Pathogenesis of different cutaneous manifestations may be different, Dr. Femia said. For example, urticaria and morbilliform eruption were described by the authors of the review as more benign eruptions, but pathogenesis may differ from that of so-called COVID toes and from the pathogenesis of purpura and ulcerations seen in patients with more severe disease, she noted. It is plausible, she added, that purpura and ulcerations may be a “direct invasion of SARS-CoV-2 into endothelial cells,” which creates secondary processes “that ultimately destroy the skin.”

Urticaria and morbilliform eruptions, on the other hand, “are more simply that the immune system is recognizing COVID, and in doing so, is also recognizing some antigens in the skin and creating a hypersensitive response to the skin” and has “nothing to do with the SARS-CoV-2 virus actually being in that location,” she said.

It is important to differentiate between patients who have skin manifestations attributed to COVID-19 and those with manifestations independent of COVID-19, which is difficult, Dr. Femia noted. A patient with COVID-19 and a cutaneous manifestation may be having a reaction to a medication. “It’s important to have a critical eye and to remember that, when we see these manifestations, we should always be investigating whether there was an alternative cause so that we can better learn what exactly we should be attributing to this infection,” she said

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the authors of the review had presented interesting work, but made some “assumptions that need to be proven.” Dr. Friedman also was not involved in the research, but agreed in an interview with the assessment that it is unlikely SARS-CoV-2 would penetrate the skin. While some viruses – such as the poxvirus that causes molluscum contagiosum and the herpes simplex virus – invade keratinocytes specifically, there is a particular clinical phenotype that results that is associated with changes in the epidermis. However, “the skin manifestations of COVID-19 do not fit with direct skin invasion, [but] rather the immune response to systemic disease,” he said.

“[I]n terms of systemic invasion through the skin, it is possible, but this study certainly doesn’t show that. The presence/expression of ACE2 in the epidermis doesn’t translate to route of infection,” Dr. Friedman said..

The study received financial support from Shandong First Medical University, the Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences and the Shandong Province Taishan Scholar Project. The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Femia and Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhao Q et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jun 28. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16778.

An erythematous rash was the most common cutaneous manifestation in patients with COVID-19, followed by chilblain-like lesions and urticaria-like lesions in a systematic review of mostly European studies.

Qing Zhao, MD, Xiaokai Fang, MD, and their colleagues at the Shandong Provincial Hospital for Skin Diseases & Shandong Provincial Institute of Dermatology and Venereology, in Jinan, China, reported the results of a literature review of 44 articles published through May 2020 that included 507 patients with cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. The review was published in the Journal of The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Nearly all of the patients (96%) were from Europe, and more than half were women (60%), with an average age of 49 years. Most patients had multiple skin symptoms, with the most common being erythema (44%), chilblain-like lesions (20%), urticaria-like lesions (16%), vesicular manifestations (13%), livedo/necrosis (6%), and petechiae (almost 2%). The authors described erythema as being present in specific sites, such as the trunk, extremities, flexural regions, face, and mucous membranes. Slightly less than half of all patients had significant pruritus.

Data on systemic COVID-19 symptoms were available for 431 patients and included fever in about two-thirds of patients and cough in almost 70%, with dyspnea in almost half of patients. Almost 60% had fatigue, and almost 60% had asthenia. Information about the onset of skin symptoms was available in 88 patients; of these patients, lesions were seen an average of almost 10 days after systemic symptoms appeared and, in almost 15%, were the first symptoms noted.

Histopathologic exams were done for only 23 patients and, in all cases, showed “inflammatory features without specific pathological changes, such as lymphocyte infiltration.” In one study, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing of skin biopsy specimens tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Expression of ACE2, the receptor of SARS-CoV-2, in the skin was evaluated in six of the studies. “Higher ACE2 expression was identified in keratinocytes, mainly in differentiating keratinocytes and basal cells compared to the other cells of skin tissues,” the authors wrote. These results were confirmed with immunohistochemistry, which, they said, found “ACE2-positive keratinocytes in the stratum basal, the stratum spinosum, and the stratum granulosum of epiderma.” They added that this provides evidence “for percutaneous infection or the entry of virus into patients through skin tissues,” but cautioned that more research is needed.

The authors acknowledged that there are still many unanswered questions about COVID-19, and that more clinical data and research are needed, to improve the understanding of the cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19.

Pathogenesis of different cutaneous manifestations may be different, Dr. Femia said. For example, urticaria and morbilliform eruption were described by the authors of the review as more benign eruptions, but pathogenesis may differ from that of so-called COVID toes and from the pathogenesis of purpura and ulcerations seen in patients with more severe disease, she noted. It is plausible, she added, that purpura and ulcerations may be a “direct invasion of SARS-CoV-2 into endothelial cells,” which creates secondary processes “that ultimately destroy the skin.”

Urticaria and morbilliform eruptions, on the other hand, “are more simply that the immune system is recognizing COVID, and in doing so, is also recognizing some antigens in the skin and creating a hypersensitive response to the skin” and has “nothing to do with the SARS-CoV-2 virus actually being in that location,” she said.

It is important to differentiate between patients who have skin manifestations attributed to COVID-19 and those with manifestations independent of COVID-19, which is difficult, Dr. Femia noted. A patient with COVID-19 and a cutaneous manifestation may be having a reaction to a medication. “It’s important to have a critical eye and to remember that, when we see these manifestations, we should always be investigating whether there was an alternative cause so that we can better learn what exactly we should be attributing to this infection,” she said

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said the authors of the review had presented interesting work, but made some “assumptions that need to be proven.” Dr. Friedman also was not involved in the research, but agreed in an interview with the assessment that it is unlikely SARS-CoV-2 would penetrate the skin. While some viruses – such as the poxvirus that causes molluscum contagiosum and the herpes simplex virus – invade keratinocytes specifically, there is a particular clinical phenotype that results that is associated with changes in the epidermis. However, “the skin manifestations of COVID-19 do not fit with direct skin invasion, [but] rather the immune response to systemic disease,” he said.

“[I]n terms of systemic invasion through the skin, it is possible, but this study certainly doesn’t show that. The presence/expression of ACE2 in the epidermis doesn’t translate to route of infection,” Dr. Friedman said..

The study received financial support from Shandong First Medical University, the Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences and the Shandong Province Taishan Scholar Project. The authors report no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Femia and Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zhao Q et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jun 28. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16778.

When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.” What factors will you be considering when you try to decide between what is likely to be several competing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?

Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?

In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.

For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.

Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.

The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.” What factors will you be considering when you try to decide between what is likely to be several competing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?

Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?

In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.

For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.

Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.

The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.” What factors will you be considering when you try to decide between what is likely to be several competing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?

Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?

In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.

For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.

Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.

The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].