Hematology Times

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin (AZ) is not associated with a lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, according to a retrospective study of Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The study, which was posted on a preprint server April 21 and has not been peer reviewed, also showed an increased risk of death associated with COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ alone.

“These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs,” write Joseph Magagnoli with Dorn Research Institute at the Columbia (S.C.) VA Health Care System and the department of clinical pharmacy & outcomes sciences, University of South Carolina, and colleagues.

A spokesperson with the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, where several of coauthors practice, said that the authors declined to comment for this article before peer review is completed.

The new data are not the first to suggest no benefit with HCQ among patients with COVID-19. A randomized trial showed no benefit and more side effects among 75 patients in China treated with HCQ, compared with 75 who received standard of care alone, according to a preprint posted online April 14.

No benefit in ventilation, death rates

The current analysis included data from all 368 male patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and treated at Veterans Health Administration medical centers in the United States through April 11.

Patients were categorized into three groups: those treated with HCQ in addition to standard of care (n = 97); those treated with HCQ and the antibiotic azithromycin plus standard of care (n = 113); and those who received standard supportive care only (n = 158).

Wait for convincing data

Dr. Wessner, whose research focuses on viral pathogenesis, says that, although the current data don’t definitively answer the question of whether HCQ is effective in treating COVID-19, taking a “let’s try it and see” approach is not reasonable.

“Until we have good, prospective randomized trials, it’s hard to know what to make of this. But this is more evidence that there’s not a good reason to use [HCQ],” Dr. Wessner said. He points out that the small randomized trial from China shows that HCQ comes with potential harms.

Anecdotal evidence is often cited by those who promote HCQ as a potential treatment, but “those are one-off examples,” Wessner continued. “That doesn’t really tell us anything.”

Some HCQ proponents have said that trials finding no benefit are flawed in that the drug is given too late. However, Dr. Wessner says, there’s no way to prove or disprove that claim without randomized controlled trials.

Conflicting messages

Despite lack of clear evidence of benefit for patients with COVID-19, HCQ is recommended off-label by the Chinese National guideline, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19.

Conversely, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a guideline panel convened by the National Institutes of Health each concluded recently that because of insufficient data, they could not recommend any specific treatments for patients with COVID-19.

The VA data for the current study came from the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure, which includes inpatient, outpatient and laboratory data and pharmacy claims.

The authors acknowledge some limitations, “including those inherent to all retrospective analyses such as nonrandomization of treatments.”

However, they note that they did adjust for potential confounders, including comorbidities, medications, and clinical and laboratory factors.

A coauthor, Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, is a cofounder of iVeena Holdings, iVeena Delivery Systems and Inflammasome Therapeutics, and has received consultancy fees from Allergan, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunovant, Janssen, Olix Pharmaceuticals, Retinal Solutions, and Saksin LifeSciences, all unrelated to this work. Dr. Ambati is named as an inventor on a patent application filed by the University of Virginia relating to COVID-19 but unrelated to this work. Another coauthor has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and United Therapeutics, all unrelated to this work. The other authors and Dr. Wessner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin (AZ) is not associated with a lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, according to a retrospective study of Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The study, which was posted on a preprint server April 21 and has not been peer reviewed, also showed an increased risk of death associated with COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ alone.

“These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs,” write Joseph Magagnoli with Dorn Research Institute at the Columbia (S.C.) VA Health Care System and the department of clinical pharmacy & outcomes sciences, University of South Carolina, and colleagues.

A spokesperson with the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, where several of coauthors practice, said that the authors declined to comment for this article before peer review is completed.

The new data are not the first to suggest no benefit with HCQ among patients with COVID-19. A randomized trial showed no benefit and more side effects among 75 patients in China treated with HCQ, compared with 75 who received standard of care alone, according to a preprint posted online April 14.

No benefit in ventilation, death rates

The current analysis included data from all 368 male patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and treated at Veterans Health Administration medical centers in the United States through April 11.

Patients were categorized into three groups: those treated with HCQ in addition to standard of care (n = 97); those treated with HCQ and the antibiotic azithromycin plus standard of care (n = 113); and those who received standard supportive care only (n = 158).

Wait for convincing data

Dr. Wessner, whose research focuses on viral pathogenesis, says that, although the current data don’t definitively answer the question of whether HCQ is effective in treating COVID-19, taking a “let’s try it and see” approach is not reasonable.

“Until we have good, prospective randomized trials, it’s hard to know what to make of this. But this is more evidence that there’s not a good reason to use [HCQ],” Dr. Wessner said. He points out that the small randomized trial from China shows that HCQ comes with potential harms.

Anecdotal evidence is often cited by those who promote HCQ as a potential treatment, but “those are one-off examples,” Wessner continued. “That doesn’t really tell us anything.”

Some HCQ proponents have said that trials finding no benefit are flawed in that the drug is given too late. However, Dr. Wessner says, there’s no way to prove or disprove that claim without randomized controlled trials.

Conflicting messages

Despite lack of clear evidence of benefit for patients with COVID-19, HCQ is recommended off-label by the Chinese National guideline, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19.

Conversely, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a guideline panel convened by the National Institutes of Health each concluded recently that because of insufficient data, they could not recommend any specific treatments for patients with COVID-19.

The VA data for the current study came from the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure, which includes inpatient, outpatient and laboratory data and pharmacy claims.

The authors acknowledge some limitations, “including those inherent to all retrospective analyses such as nonrandomization of treatments.”

However, they note that they did adjust for potential confounders, including comorbidities, medications, and clinical and laboratory factors.

A coauthor, Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, is a cofounder of iVeena Holdings, iVeena Delivery Systems and Inflammasome Therapeutics, and has received consultancy fees from Allergan, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunovant, Janssen, Olix Pharmaceuticals, Retinal Solutions, and Saksin LifeSciences, all unrelated to this work. Dr. Ambati is named as an inventor on a patent application filed by the University of Virginia relating to COVID-19 but unrelated to this work. Another coauthor has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and United Therapeutics, all unrelated to this work. The other authors and Dr. Wessner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin (AZ) is not associated with a lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, according to a retrospective study of Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The study, which was posted on a preprint server April 21 and has not been peer reviewed, also showed an increased risk of death associated with COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ alone.

“These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs,” write Joseph Magagnoli with Dorn Research Institute at the Columbia (S.C.) VA Health Care System and the department of clinical pharmacy & outcomes sciences, University of South Carolina, and colleagues.

A spokesperson with the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, where several of coauthors practice, said that the authors declined to comment for this article before peer review is completed.

The new data are not the first to suggest no benefit with HCQ among patients with COVID-19. A randomized trial showed no benefit and more side effects among 75 patients in China treated with HCQ, compared with 75 who received standard of care alone, according to a preprint posted online April 14.

No benefit in ventilation, death rates

The current analysis included data from all 368 male patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and treated at Veterans Health Administration medical centers in the United States through April 11.

Patients were categorized into three groups: those treated with HCQ in addition to standard of care (n = 97); those treated with HCQ and the antibiotic azithromycin plus standard of care (n = 113); and those who received standard supportive care only (n = 158).

Wait for convincing data

Dr. Wessner, whose research focuses on viral pathogenesis, says that, although the current data don’t definitively answer the question of whether HCQ is effective in treating COVID-19, taking a “let’s try it and see” approach is not reasonable.

“Until we have good, prospective randomized trials, it’s hard to know what to make of this. But this is more evidence that there’s not a good reason to use [HCQ],” Dr. Wessner said. He points out that the small randomized trial from China shows that HCQ comes with potential harms.

Anecdotal evidence is often cited by those who promote HCQ as a potential treatment, but “those are one-off examples,” Wessner continued. “That doesn’t really tell us anything.”

Some HCQ proponents have said that trials finding no benefit are flawed in that the drug is given too late. However, Dr. Wessner says, there’s no way to prove or disprove that claim without randomized controlled trials.

Conflicting messages

Despite lack of clear evidence of benefit for patients with COVID-19, HCQ is recommended off-label by the Chinese National guideline, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19.

Conversely, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a guideline panel convened by the National Institutes of Health each concluded recently that because of insufficient data, they could not recommend any specific treatments for patients with COVID-19.

The VA data for the current study came from the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure, which includes inpatient, outpatient and laboratory data and pharmacy claims.

The authors acknowledge some limitations, “including those inherent to all retrospective analyses such as nonrandomization of treatments.”

However, they note that they did adjust for potential confounders, including comorbidities, medications, and clinical and laboratory factors.

A coauthor, Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, is a cofounder of iVeena Holdings, iVeena Delivery Systems and Inflammasome Therapeutics, and has received consultancy fees from Allergan, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunovant, Janssen, Olix Pharmaceuticals, Retinal Solutions, and Saksin LifeSciences, all unrelated to this work. Dr. Ambati is named as an inventor on a patent application filed by the University of Virginia relating to COVID-19 but unrelated to this work. Another coauthor has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and United Therapeutics, all unrelated to this work. The other authors and Dr. Wessner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Ruxolitinib produced significantly better efficacy outcomes in patients with glucocorticoid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), compared with investigator’s choice of control therapy, in the phase 3 REACH2 trial.

However, there was a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia with ruxolitinib than with control treatment, according to a report by Robert Zeiser, MD, of University of Freiburg (Germany) and colleagues on behalf of the REACH2 research group. The report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The REACH2 trial (NCT02913261) is a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of oral ruxolitinib (10 mg twice daily) with investigator’s choice of therapy for control treatment using a list of nine commonly used options.

Patients were 12 years of age or older with glucocorticoid-refractory acute GVHD after allogeneic stem cell transplant. A total of 154 patients were assigned to the ruxolitinib group, and 155 patients were in the control group.

Most patients – 152 in the ruxolitinib group and 150 in the control group – received at least one dose of trial treatment.

Treatment discontinuation occurred in 72% (111/154) of patients in the ruxolitinib group and in 85% (132/155) of those in the control group. The most common reason for discontinuation was lack of efficacy (in 21% and 44%, respectively).
 

Outcomes

The overall response at day 28 (the primary endpoint) was significantly higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (62% vs. 39%; odds ratio, 2.64; P < .001). The durable overall response at day 56 was also significantly higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (40% vs. 22%; OR, 2.38; P < .001).

The estimated cumulative incidence of loss of response at 6 months was 10% in the ruxolitinib group compared with 39% in the control group.

The median failure-free survival was considerably longer with ruxolitinib than with control treatment (5.0 months vs. 1.0 month; hazard ratio for relapse or progression of hematologic disease, non–relapse-related death, or the use of new systemic therapy for acute GVHD, 0.46).

The median overall survival was 11.1 months in the ruxolitinib group and 6.5 months in the control group (HR, 0.83).

Overall, 72 patients (47%) in the ruxolitinib group and 77 (51%) in the control group died by the data cutoff date. Most deaths were attributed to acute GVHD (22% in the ruxolitinib group and 25% in the control group).

The most common adverse events at day 28 (in the ruxolitinib and control arms, respectively) were thrombocytopenia (33% and 18%), anemia (30% and 28%), and cytomegalovirus infection (26% and 21%).
 

Praise for ‘successful’ randomized trial in GVHD

“The authors are to be congratulated for completing this successful randomized trial, which showed convincingly that ruxolitinib was more effective than the investigator’s choice of therapy ... in patients in whom glucocorticoid therapy had failed,” wrote Nelson Chao, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., in his invited editorial.

He went on to speculate on the possible mechanism for ruxolitinib in these patients, discussing the possible role of the STAT3 and STAT1 signaling pathways.

Dr. Chao also found it “interesting that the incidence of infectious complications or relapse was apparently not greater with ruxolitinib than with control therapy,” but he noted that the total follow-up time was short.

“As with all good research, these observations raise important questions and set the stage for further work in this area,” he concluded.

The REACH2 trial was funded by Novartis. The study authors disclosed relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis. Dr. Chao reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zeiser R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1917635.

Ruxolitinib produced significantly better efficacy outcomes in patients with glucocorticoid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), compared with investigator’s choice of control therapy, in the phase 3 REACH2 trial.

However, there was a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia with ruxolitinib than with control treatment, according to a report by Robert Zeiser, MD, of University of Freiburg (Germany) and colleagues on behalf of the REACH2 research group. The report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The REACH2 trial (NCT02913261) is a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of oral ruxolitinib (10 mg twice daily) with investigator’s choice of therapy for control treatment using a list of nine commonly used options.

Patients were 12 years of age or older with glucocorticoid-refractory acute GVHD after allogeneic stem cell transplant. A total of 154 patients were assigned to the ruxolitinib group, and 155 patients were in the control group.

Most patients – 152 in the ruxolitinib group and 150 in the control group – received at least one dose of trial treatment.

Treatment discontinuation occurred in 72% (111/154) of patients in the ruxolitinib group and in 85% (132/155) of those in the control group. The most common reason for discontinuation was lack of efficacy (in 21% and 44%, respectively).
 

Outcomes

The overall response at day 28 (the primary endpoint) was significantly higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (62% vs. 39%; odds ratio, 2.64; P < .001). The durable overall response at day 56 was also significantly higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (40% vs. 22%; OR, 2.38; P < .001).

The estimated cumulative incidence of loss of response at 6 months was 10% in the ruxolitinib group compared with 39% in the control group.

The median failure-free survival was considerably longer with ruxolitinib than with control treatment (5.0 months vs. 1.0 month; hazard ratio for relapse or progression of hematologic disease, non–relapse-related death, or the use of new systemic therapy for acute GVHD, 0.46).

The median overall survival was 11.1 months in the ruxolitinib group and 6.5 months in the control group (HR, 0.83).

Overall, 72 patients (47%) in the ruxolitinib group and 77 (51%) in the control group died by the data cutoff date. Most deaths were attributed to acute GVHD (22% in the ruxolitinib group and 25% in the control group).

The most common adverse events at day 28 (in the ruxolitinib and control arms, respectively) were thrombocytopenia (33% and 18%), anemia (30% and 28%), and cytomegalovirus infection (26% and 21%).
 

Praise for ‘successful’ randomized trial in GVHD

“The authors are to be congratulated for completing this successful randomized trial, which showed convincingly that ruxolitinib was more effective than the investigator’s choice of therapy ... in patients in whom glucocorticoid therapy had failed,” wrote Nelson Chao, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., in his invited editorial.

He went on to speculate on the possible mechanism for ruxolitinib in these patients, discussing the possible role of the STAT3 and STAT1 signaling pathways.

Dr. Chao also found it “interesting that the incidence of infectious complications or relapse was apparently not greater with ruxolitinib than with control therapy,” but he noted that the total follow-up time was short.

“As with all good research, these observations raise important questions and set the stage for further work in this area,” he concluded.

The REACH2 trial was funded by Novartis. The study authors disclosed relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis. Dr. Chao reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zeiser R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1917635.

Ruxolitinib produced significantly better efficacy outcomes in patients with glucocorticoid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), compared with investigator’s choice of control therapy, in the phase 3 REACH2 trial.

However, there was a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia with ruxolitinib than with control treatment, according to a report by Robert Zeiser, MD, of University of Freiburg (Germany) and colleagues on behalf of the REACH2 research group. The report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The REACH2 trial (NCT02913261) is a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of oral ruxolitinib (10 mg twice daily) with investigator’s choice of therapy for control treatment using a list of nine commonly used options.

Patients were 12 years of age or older with glucocorticoid-refractory acute GVHD after allogeneic stem cell transplant. A total of 154 patients were assigned to the ruxolitinib group, and 155 patients were in the control group.

Most patients – 152 in the ruxolitinib group and 150 in the control group – received at least one dose of trial treatment.

Treatment discontinuation occurred in 72% (111/154) of patients in the ruxolitinib group and in 85% (132/155) of those in the control group. The most common reason for discontinuation was lack of efficacy (in 21% and 44%, respectively).
 

Outcomes

The overall response at day 28 (the primary endpoint) was significantly higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (62% vs. 39%; odds ratio, 2.64; P < .001). The durable overall response at day 56 was also significantly higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (40% vs. 22%; OR, 2.38; P < .001).

The estimated cumulative incidence of loss of response at 6 months was 10% in the ruxolitinib group compared with 39% in the control group.

The median failure-free survival was considerably longer with ruxolitinib than with control treatment (5.0 months vs. 1.0 month; hazard ratio for relapse or progression of hematologic disease, non–relapse-related death, or the use of new systemic therapy for acute GVHD, 0.46).

The median overall survival was 11.1 months in the ruxolitinib group and 6.5 months in the control group (HR, 0.83).

Overall, 72 patients (47%) in the ruxolitinib group and 77 (51%) in the control group died by the data cutoff date. Most deaths were attributed to acute GVHD (22% in the ruxolitinib group and 25% in the control group).

The most common adverse events at day 28 (in the ruxolitinib and control arms, respectively) were thrombocytopenia (33% and 18%), anemia (30% and 28%), and cytomegalovirus infection (26% and 21%).
 

Praise for ‘successful’ randomized trial in GVHD

“The authors are to be congratulated for completing this successful randomized trial, which showed convincingly that ruxolitinib was more effective than the investigator’s choice of therapy ... in patients in whom glucocorticoid therapy had failed,” wrote Nelson Chao, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., in his invited editorial.

He went on to speculate on the possible mechanism for ruxolitinib in these patients, discussing the possible role of the STAT3 and STAT1 signaling pathways.

Dr. Chao also found it “interesting that the incidence of infectious complications or relapse was apparently not greater with ruxolitinib than with control therapy,” but he noted that the total follow-up time was short.

“As with all good research, these observations raise important questions and set the stage for further work in this area,” he concluded.

The REACH2 trial was funded by Novartis. The study authors disclosed relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis. Dr. Chao reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zeiser R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1917635.

The signature electrocardiographic sign indicating ST-segment-elevation MI may be a less-consistent indicator of actual STEMI at a time when patients with COVID-19 have come to overwhelm many hospital ICUs.

Many of the 18 such patients identified at six New York City hospitals who showed ST-segment elevation on their 12-lead ECG in the city’s first month of fighting the pandemic turned out to be free of either obstructive coronary artery disease by angiography or of regional wall-motion abnormalities (RWMA) by ECG, according to a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those 10 patients in the 18-case series were said to have noncoronary myocardial injury, perhaps from myocarditis – a prevalent feature of severe COVID-19 – and the remaining 8 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, RWMA, or both were diagnosed with STEMI. Of the latter patients, six went to the cath lab and five of those underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, of New York University, and colleagues reported.

In an interview, Dr. Bangalore framed the case-series report as a caution against substituting fibrinolytic therapy for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STE while hospitals are unusually burdened by the COVID-19 pandemic and invasive procedures intensify the threat of SARS-CoV-2 exposure to clinicians.

The strategy was recently advanced as an option for highly selected patients in a statement from the American College of Cardiology and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI).

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the main reasons fibrinolytic therapy has been pushed is to reduce the exposure to the cath-lab staff,” Dr. Bangalore observed. “But if you pursue that route, it’s problematic because more than half may not have obstructive disease and fibrinolytic therapy may not help. And if you give them fibrinolytics, you’re potentially increasing their risk of bleeding complications.

“The take-home from these 18 patients is that it’s very difficult to guess who is going to have obstructive disease and who is going to have nonobstructive disease,” Dr. Bangalore said. “Maybe we should assess these patients with not just an ECG but with a quick echo, then make a decision. Our practice so far has been to take these patients to the cath lab.”

The ACC/SCAI statement proposed that “fibrinolysis can be considered an option for the relatively stable STEMI patient with active COVID-19” after careful consideration of possible patient benefit versus the risks of cath-lab personnel exposure to the virus.

Only six patients in the current series, including five in the STEMI group, are reported to have had chest pain at about the time of STE, observed Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

So, he said in an interview, “one of their points is that you have to take ST elevations with a grain of salt in this [COVID-19] era, because there are a lot of people presenting with ST elevations in the absence of chest pain.”

That, and the high prevalence of nonobstructive disease in the series, indeed argues against the use of fibrinolytic therapy in such patients, Dr. Blaha said.

Normally, when there is STE, “the pretest probability of STEMI is so high, and if you can’t make it to the cath lab for some reason, sure, it makes sense to give lytics.” However, he said, “COVID-19 is changing the clinical landscape. Now, with a variety of virus-mediated myocardial injury presentations, including myocarditis, the pretest probability of MI is lower.”

The current report “confirms that, in the COVID era, ST elevations are not diagnostic for MI and must be considered within the totality of clinical evidence, and a conservative approach to going to the cath lab is probably warranted,” Dr. Blaha said in an interview.

However, with the reduced pretest probability of STE for STEMI, he agreed, “I almost don’t see any scenario where I’d be comfortable, based on ECG changes alone, giving lytics at this time.”

Dr. Bangalore pointed out that all of the 18 patients in the series had elevated levels of the fibrin degradation product D-dimer, a biomarker that reflects ongoing hemostatic activation. Levels were higher in the 8 patients who ultimately received a STEMI diagnosis than in the remaining 10 patients.

But COVID-19 patients in general may have elevated D-dimer and “a lot of microthrombi,” he said. “So the question is, are those microthrombi also causal for any of the ECG changes we are also seeing?”

Aside from microthrombi, global hypoxia and myocarditis could be other potential causes of STE in COVID-19 patients in the absence of STEMI, Dr. Bangalore proposed. “At this point we just generally don’t know.”

Dr. Bangalore reported no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are available at nejm.org. Dr. Blaha disclosed receiving grants from Amgen and serving on advisory boards for Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The signature electrocardiographic sign indicating ST-segment-elevation MI may be a less-consistent indicator of actual STEMI at a time when patients with COVID-19 have come to overwhelm many hospital ICUs.

Many of the 18 such patients identified at six New York City hospitals who showed ST-segment elevation on their 12-lead ECG in the city’s first month of fighting the pandemic turned out to be free of either obstructive coronary artery disease by angiography or of regional wall-motion abnormalities (RWMA) by ECG, according to a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those 10 patients in the 18-case series were said to have noncoronary myocardial injury, perhaps from myocarditis – a prevalent feature of severe COVID-19 – and the remaining 8 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, RWMA, or both were diagnosed with STEMI. Of the latter patients, six went to the cath lab and five of those underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, of New York University, and colleagues reported.

In an interview, Dr. Bangalore framed the case-series report as a caution against substituting fibrinolytic therapy for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STE while hospitals are unusually burdened by the COVID-19 pandemic and invasive procedures intensify the threat of SARS-CoV-2 exposure to clinicians.

The strategy was recently advanced as an option for highly selected patients in a statement from the American College of Cardiology and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI).

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the main reasons fibrinolytic therapy has been pushed is to reduce the exposure to the cath-lab staff,” Dr. Bangalore observed. “But if you pursue that route, it’s problematic because more than half may not have obstructive disease and fibrinolytic therapy may not help. And if you give them fibrinolytics, you’re potentially increasing their risk of bleeding complications.

“The take-home from these 18 patients is that it’s very difficult to guess who is going to have obstructive disease and who is going to have nonobstructive disease,” Dr. Bangalore said. “Maybe we should assess these patients with not just an ECG but with a quick echo, then make a decision. Our practice so far has been to take these patients to the cath lab.”

The ACC/SCAI statement proposed that “fibrinolysis can be considered an option for the relatively stable STEMI patient with active COVID-19” after careful consideration of possible patient benefit versus the risks of cath-lab personnel exposure to the virus.

Only six patients in the current series, including five in the STEMI group, are reported to have had chest pain at about the time of STE, observed Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

So, he said in an interview, “one of their points is that you have to take ST elevations with a grain of salt in this [COVID-19] era, because there are a lot of people presenting with ST elevations in the absence of chest pain.”

That, and the high prevalence of nonobstructive disease in the series, indeed argues against the use of fibrinolytic therapy in such patients, Dr. Blaha said.

Normally, when there is STE, “the pretest probability of STEMI is so high, and if you can’t make it to the cath lab for some reason, sure, it makes sense to give lytics.” However, he said, “COVID-19 is changing the clinical landscape. Now, with a variety of virus-mediated myocardial injury presentations, including myocarditis, the pretest probability of MI is lower.”

The current report “confirms that, in the COVID era, ST elevations are not diagnostic for MI and must be considered within the totality of clinical evidence, and a conservative approach to going to the cath lab is probably warranted,” Dr. Blaha said in an interview.

However, with the reduced pretest probability of STE for STEMI, he agreed, “I almost don’t see any scenario where I’d be comfortable, based on ECG changes alone, giving lytics at this time.”

Dr. Bangalore pointed out that all of the 18 patients in the series had elevated levels of the fibrin degradation product D-dimer, a biomarker that reflects ongoing hemostatic activation. Levels were higher in the 8 patients who ultimately received a STEMI diagnosis than in the remaining 10 patients.

But COVID-19 patients in general may have elevated D-dimer and “a lot of microthrombi,” he said. “So the question is, are those microthrombi also causal for any of the ECG changes we are also seeing?”

Aside from microthrombi, global hypoxia and myocarditis could be other potential causes of STE in COVID-19 patients in the absence of STEMI, Dr. Bangalore proposed. “At this point we just generally don’t know.”

Dr. Bangalore reported no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are available at nejm.org. Dr. Blaha disclosed receiving grants from Amgen and serving on advisory boards for Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The signature electrocardiographic sign indicating ST-segment-elevation MI may be a less-consistent indicator of actual STEMI at a time when patients with COVID-19 have come to overwhelm many hospital ICUs.

Many of the 18 such patients identified at six New York City hospitals who showed ST-segment elevation on their 12-lead ECG in the city’s first month of fighting the pandemic turned out to be free of either obstructive coronary artery disease by angiography or of regional wall-motion abnormalities (RWMA) by ECG, according to a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those 10 patients in the 18-case series were said to have noncoronary myocardial injury, perhaps from myocarditis – a prevalent feature of severe COVID-19 – and the remaining 8 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, RWMA, or both were diagnosed with STEMI. Of the latter patients, six went to the cath lab and five of those underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, of New York University, and colleagues reported.

In an interview, Dr. Bangalore framed the case-series report as a caution against substituting fibrinolytic therapy for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STE while hospitals are unusually burdened by the COVID-19 pandemic and invasive procedures intensify the threat of SARS-CoV-2 exposure to clinicians.

The strategy was recently advanced as an option for highly selected patients in a statement from the American College of Cardiology and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI).

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the main reasons fibrinolytic therapy has been pushed is to reduce the exposure to the cath-lab staff,” Dr. Bangalore observed. “But if you pursue that route, it’s problematic because more than half may not have obstructive disease and fibrinolytic therapy may not help. And if you give them fibrinolytics, you’re potentially increasing their risk of bleeding complications.

“The take-home from these 18 patients is that it’s very difficult to guess who is going to have obstructive disease and who is going to have nonobstructive disease,” Dr. Bangalore said. “Maybe we should assess these patients with not just an ECG but with a quick echo, then make a decision. Our practice so far has been to take these patients to the cath lab.”

The ACC/SCAI statement proposed that “fibrinolysis can be considered an option for the relatively stable STEMI patient with active COVID-19” after careful consideration of possible patient benefit versus the risks of cath-lab personnel exposure to the virus.

Only six patients in the current series, including five in the STEMI group, are reported to have had chest pain at about the time of STE, observed Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

So, he said in an interview, “one of their points is that you have to take ST elevations with a grain of salt in this [COVID-19] era, because there are a lot of people presenting with ST elevations in the absence of chest pain.”

That, and the high prevalence of nonobstructive disease in the series, indeed argues against the use of fibrinolytic therapy in such patients, Dr. Blaha said.

Normally, when there is STE, “the pretest probability of STEMI is so high, and if you can’t make it to the cath lab for some reason, sure, it makes sense to give lytics.” However, he said, “COVID-19 is changing the clinical landscape. Now, with a variety of virus-mediated myocardial injury presentations, including myocarditis, the pretest probability of MI is lower.”

The current report “confirms that, in the COVID era, ST elevations are not diagnostic for MI and must be considered within the totality of clinical evidence, and a conservative approach to going to the cath lab is probably warranted,” Dr. Blaha said in an interview.

However, with the reduced pretest probability of STE for STEMI, he agreed, “I almost don’t see any scenario where I’d be comfortable, based on ECG changes alone, giving lytics at this time.”

Dr. Bangalore pointed out that all of the 18 patients in the series had elevated levels of the fibrin degradation product D-dimer, a biomarker that reflects ongoing hemostatic activation. Levels were higher in the 8 patients who ultimately received a STEMI diagnosis than in the remaining 10 patients.

But COVID-19 patients in general may have elevated D-dimer and “a lot of microthrombi,” he said. “So the question is, are those microthrombi also causal for any of the ECG changes we are also seeing?”

Aside from microthrombi, global hypoxia and myocarditis could be other potential causes of STE in COVID-19 patients in the absence of STEMI, Dr. Bangalore proposed. “At this point we just generally don’t know.”

Dr. Bangalore reported no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are available at nejm.org. Dr. Blaha disclosed receiving grants from Amgen and serving on advisory boards for Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.

Courtesy CDC

“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.

“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).

The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.

The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.

Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.

Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.

“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).

But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”

The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”

Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.

Courtesy CDC

“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.

“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).

The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.

The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.

Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.

Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.

“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).

But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”

The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”

Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.

Courtesy CDC

“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.

“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).

The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.

The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.

Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.

Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.

“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).

But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”

The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”

Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.

With careful review and some changes, cancer centers can provide effective care during the COVID-19 pandemic without sacrificing the safety of patients, caregivers, and health care workers, according to the authors of a special feature article in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Prescreening, telemedicine, and limiting procedures top the authors’ list of 10 recommendations for ensuring patient safety in U.S. oncology practices. Assuring appropriate personal proctective equipment (PPE), encouraging telecommuting, and providing wellness/stress management are a few of the ways to look out for health care worker safety during the crisis.

These recommendations were drafted to provide guidance during the rapidly evolving global pandemic that, in some cases, has deluged health care delivery systems and strained the ability of providers to assure safe and effective care, said lead author Pelin Cinar, MD, of the Hellen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“I think we have been so overwhelmed that sometimes it’s difficult to get organized in our thought processes,” Dr. Cinar said in an interview. “So this [article] was really trying to provide some structure to each of the different steps that we should be addressing at minimum.”
 

Screening patients

Prescreening systems are a critical first step to ensure cancer centers are helping control community spread of the virus, according to the article. Whether done by phone or online, prescreening 1-2 days before a patient’s visit can help identify COVID-19 symptoms and exposure history, guiding whether patients need to be evaluated, monitored, or referred to an ED.

Next, screening clinics can help ensure cancer patients with COVID-19 symptoms are evaluated and tested in a unit with dedicated staff, according to the article.

“If symptomatic patients present to the cancer center for treatment after a negative prescreening assessment, they must be provided with a mask and directed to a screening clinic for evaluation and potential testing before moving forward with any cancer-directed therapy,” the article states.
 

Telemedicine and treatment

Telemedicine visits should be done whenever possible to avoid in-person visits, according to the article. Dr. Cinar said that her center, like other cancer centers, has seen a major uptick in these visits, which are typically done over video. In February, there were a total of 232 video visits at her center, which jumped to 1,702 in March, or an approximate 600% increase.

“Even though we had a relatively robust presence [before the pandemic], we still weren’t at a level where we are now,” Dr. Cinar said.

When it comes to cancer treatment, surgeries and procedures should be limited to essential or urgent cases, and, if possible, chemotherapy and systemic therapy regimens can be modified to allow for fewer visits to the cancer center or infusion center, according to the article.

Transitions to outpatient care can help further reduce the need for in-person visits, while intervals between scans can be increased, or biochemical markers can be used instead of scans.
 

Protecting providers

Health care workers providing cancer care should be assured appropriate PPE, and websites or other centralized resources should be in place to make sure workers are aware of current PPE guidelines and changes in workflow, according to the article.

The authors note that daily screening tools or temperature checks of symptomatic workers can help decrease the risk of exposure to others. The authors also recommend establishing clear rules for when health care workers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should be staying at home and returning to the job.

Telecommuting should be encouraged, with limited staff participating in onsite rotations to further reduce exposure risks, the article states.

Anxiety, insomnia, and distress have been reported among frontline health care workers managing patients with COVID-19, according to the article, which recommends wellness and stress management resources be available as an “invaluable resource” in cancer centers.

“We have to take care of ourselves to be able to take care of others,” Dr. Cinar said. “With PPE, you’re physically protecting yourself, while self-care, stress management, and wellness are also a big component of protecting ourselves.”

The report by Dr. Cinar and colleagues was an invited article from the NCCN Best Practices Committee. One coauthor reported relationships with Abbvie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Aduro, and several other companies. Dr. Cinar and the remaining authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Cinar P et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7572.

With careful review and some changes, cancer centers can provide effective care during the COVID-19 pandemic without sacrificing the safety of patients, caregivers, and health care workers, according to the authors of a special feature article in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Prescreening, telemedicine, and limiting procedures top the authors’ list of 10 recommendations for ensuring patient safety in U.S. oncology practices. Assuring appropriate personal proctective equipment (PPE), encouraging telecommuting, and providing wellness/stress management are a few of the ways to look out for health care worker safety during the crisis.

These recommendations were drafted to provide guidance during the rapidly evolving global pandemic that, in some cases, has deluged health care delivery systems and strained the ability of providers to assure safe and effective care, said lead author Pelin Cinar, MD, of the Hellen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“I think we have been so overwhelmed that sometimes it’s difficult to get organized in our thought processes,” Dr. Cinar said in an interview. “So this [article] was really trying to provide some structure to each of the different steps that we should be addressing at minimum.”
 

Screening patients

Prescreening systems are a critical first step to ensure cancer centers are helping control community spread of the virus, according to the article. Whether done by phone or online, prescreening 1-2 days before a patient’s visit can help identify COVID-19 symptoms and exposure history, guiding whether patients need to be evaluated, monitored, or referred to an ED.

Next, screening clinics can help ensure cancer patients with COVID-19 symptoms are evaluated and tested in a unit with dedicated staff, according to the article.

“If symptomatic patients present to the cancer center for treatment after a negative prescreening assessment, they must be provided with a mask and directed to a screening clinic for evaluation and potential testing before moving forward with any cancer-directed therapy,” the article states.
 

Telemedicine and treatment

Telemedicine visits should be done whenever possible to avoid in-person visits, according to the article. Dr. Cinar said that her center, like other cancer centers, has seen a major uptick in these visits, which are typically done over video. In February, there were a total of 232 video visits at her center, which jumped to 1,702 in March, or an approximate 600% increase.

“Even though we had a relatively robust presence [before the pandemic], we still weren’t at a level where we are now,” Dr. Cinar said.

When it comes to cancer treatment, surgeries and procedures should be limited to essential or urgent cases, and, if possible, chemotherapy and systemic therapy regimens can be modified to allow for fewer visits to the cancer center or infusion center, according to the article.

Transitions to outpatient care can help further reduce the need for in-person visits, while intervals between scans can be increased, or biochemical markers can be used instead of scans.
 

Protecting providers

Health care workers providing cancer care should be assured appropriate PPE, and websites or other centralized resources should be in place to make sure workers are aware of current PPE guidelines and changes in workflow, according to the article.

The authors note that daily screening tools or temperature checks of symptomatic workers can help decrease the risk of exposure to others. The authors also recommend establishing clear rules for when health care workers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should be staying at home and returning to the job.

Telecommuting should be encouraged, with limited staff participating in onsite rotations to further reduce exposure risks, the article states.

Anxiety, insomnia, and distress have been reported among frontline health care workers managing patients with COVID-19, according to the article, which recommends wellness and stress management resources be available as an “invaluable resource” in cancer centers.

“We have to take care of ourselves to be able to take care of others,” Dr. Cinar said. “With PPE, you’re physically protecting yourself, while self-care, stress management, and wellness are also a big component of protecting ourselves.”

The report by Dr. Cinar and colleagues was an invited article from the NCCN Best Practices Committee. One coauthor reported relationships with Abbvie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Aduro, and several other companies. Dr. Cinar and the remaining authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Cinar P et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7572.

With careful review and some changes, cancer centers can provide effective care during the COVID-19 pandemic without sacrificing the safety of patients, caregivers, and health care workers, according to the authors of a special feature article in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Prescreening, telemedicine, and limiting procedures top the authors’ list of 10 recommendations for ensuring patient safety in U.S. oncology practices. Assuring appropriate personal proctective equipment (PPE), encouraging telecommuting, and providing wellness/stress management are a few of the ways to look out for health care worker safety during the crisis.

These recommendations were drafted to provide guidance during the rapidly evolving global pandemic that, in some cases, has deluged health care delivery systems and strained the ability of providers to assure safe and effective care, said lead author Pelin Cinar, MD, of the Hellen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“I think we have been so overwhelmed that sometimes it’s difficult to get organized in our thought processes,” Dr. Cinar said in an interview. “So this [article] was really trying to provide some structure to each of the different steps that we should be addressing at minimum.”
 

Screening patients

Prescreening systems are a critical first step to ensure cancer centers are helping control community spread of the virus, according to the article. Whether done by phone or online, prescreening 1-2 days before a patient’s visit can help identify COVID-19 symptoms and exposure history, guiding whether patients need to be evaluated, monitored, or referred to an ED.

Next, screening clinics can help ensure cancer patients with COVID-19 symptoms are evaluated and tested in a unit with dedicated staff, according to the article.

“If symptomatic patients present to the cancer center for treatment after a negative prescreening assessment, they must be provided with a mask and directed to a screening clinic for evaluation and potential testing before moving forward with any cancer-directed therapy,” the article states.
 

Telemedicine and treatment

Telemedicine visits should be done whenever possible to avoid in-person visits, according to the article. Dr. Cinar said that her center, like other cancer centers, has seen a major uptick in these visits, which are typically done over video. In February, there were a total of 232 video visits at her center, which jumped to 1,702 in March, or an approximate 600% increase.

“Even though we had a relatively robust presence [before the pandemic], we still weren’t at a level where we are now,” Dr. Cinar said.

When it comes to cancer treatment, surgeries and procedures should be limited to essential or urgent cases, and, if possible, chemotherapy and systemic therapy regimens can be modified to allow for fewer visits to the cancer center or infusion center, according to the article.

Transitions to outpatient care can help further reduce the need for in-person visits, while intervals between scans can be increased, or biochemical markers can be used instead of scans.
 

Protecting providers

Health care workers providing cancer care should be assured appropriate PPE, and websites or other centralized resources should be in place to make sure workers are aware of current PPE guidelines and changes in workflow, according to the article.

The authors note that daily screening tools or temperature checks of symptomatic workers can help decrease the risk of exposure to others. The authors also recommend establishing clear rules for when health care workers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should be staying at home and returning to the job.

Telecommuting should be encouraged, with limited staff participating in onsite rotations to further reduce exposure risks, the article states.

Anxiety, insomnia, and distress have been reported among frontline health care workers managing patients with COVID-19, according to the article, which recommends wellness and stress management resources be available as an “invaluable resource” in cancer centers.

“We have to take care of ourselves to be able to take care of others,” Dr. Cinar said. “With PPE, you’re physically protecting yourself, while self-care, stress management, and wellness are also a big component of protecting ourselves.”

The report by Dr. Cinar and colleagues was an invited article from the NCCN Best Practices Committee. One coauthor reported relationships with Abbvie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Aduro, and several other companies. Dr. Cinar and the remaining authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Cinar P et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7572.

As an Episcopal priest, Father Robert Pace of Fort Worth, TX, is used to putting others first and reaching out to help. So when the pulmonologist who helped him through his ordeal with COVID-19 asked if he would like to donate blood to help other patients, he did not hesitate.

“I said, ‘Absolutely,’” Pace, 53, recalls. He says the idea was ‘very appealing.’ ” During his ordeal with COVID-19 in March, he had spent 3 days in the hospital, isolated and on IV fluids and oxygen. He was short of breath, with a heartbeat more rapid than usual.

Now, fully recovered, his blood was a precious commodity, antibody-rich and potentially life-saving.

As researchers scramble to test drugs to fight COVID-19, others are turning to an age-old treatment. They’re collecting the blood of survivors and giving it to patients in the throes of a severe infection, a treatment known as convalescent plasma therapy.

Doctors say the treatment will probably serve as a bridge until other drugs and a vaccine become available.

Although the FDA considers the treatment investigational, in late March, it eased access to it. Patients can get it as part of a clinical trial or through an expanded access program overseen by hospitals or universities. A doctor can also request permission to use the treatment for a single patient.

“It is considered an emergent, compassionate need,” says John Burk, MD, a pulmonologist at Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital, Fort Worth, who treated Pace. “It is a way to bring it to the bedside.” And the approval can happen quickly. Burk says he got one from the FDA just 20 minutes after requesting it for a severely ill patient.
 

How it works

The premise of how it works is “quite straightforward,” says Michael Joyner, MD, a professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. “When someone is recovered and no longer symptomatic, you can harvest those antibodies from their blood and give them to someone else, and hopefully alter the course of their disease.” Joyner is the principal investigator for the FDA’s national Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19, with 1,000 sites already signed on.

Convalescent therapy has been used to fight many other viruses, including Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the “bird” flu, H1N1 flu, and during the 1918 flu pandemic. Joyner says the strongest evidence for it comes from the 1950s, when it was used to treat a rodent-borne illness called Argentine hemorrhagic fever. Using convalescent plasma therapy for this infection reduced the death rate from nearly 43% before the treatment became common in the late 1950s to about 3% after it was widely used, one report found.

Data about convalescent therapy specifically for COVID-19 is limited. Chinese researchers reported on five critically ill patients, all on mechanical ventilation, treated with convalescent plasma after they had received antiviral and anti-inflammatory medicines. Three could leave the hospital after 51-55 days, and two were in stable condition in the hospital 37 days after the transfusion.

In another study of 10 severely ill patients, symptoms went away or improved in all 10 within 1 to 3 days after the transfusion. Two of the three on ventilators were weaned off and put on oxygen instead. None died.

Chinese researchers also reported three cases of patients with COVID-19 given the convalescent therapy who had a satisfactory recovery.

Researchers who reviewed the track record of convalescent therapy for other conditions recently concluded that the treatment doesn’t appear to cause severe side effects and it should be studied for COVID-19.

Although information on side effects specific to this treatment is evolving, Joyner says they are “very, very low.”

According to the FDA, allergic reactions can occur with plasma therapies. Because the treatment for COVID-19 is new, it is not known if patients might have other types of reactions.
 

Who can donate?

Blood bank officials and researchers running the convalescent plasma programs say the desire to help is widespread, and they’ve been deluged with offers to donate. But requirements are strict.

Donors must have evidence of COVID-19 infection, documented in a variety of ways, such as a diagnostic test by nasal swab or a blood test showing antibodies. And they must be symptom-free for 14 days, with test results, or 28 days without.

The treatment involves collecting plasma, not whole blood. Plasma, the liquid part of the blood, helps with clotting and supports immunity. During the collection, a donor’s blood is put through a machine that collects the plasma only and sends the red blood cells and platelets back to the donor.
 

Clinical trials

Requirements may be more stringent for donors joining a formal clinical trial rather than an expanded access program. For instance, potential donors in a randomized clinical trial underway at Stony Brook University must have higher antibody levels than required by the FDA, says study leader Elliott Bennett-Guerrero, MD, medical director of perioperative quality and patient safety and professor at the Renaissance School of Medicine.

He hopes to enroll up to 500 patients from the Long Island, NY, area. While clinical trials typically have a 50-50 split, with half of subjects getting a treatment and half a placebo, Bennett-Guerrero’s study will give 80% of patients the convalescent plasma and 20% standard plasma.

Julia Sabia Motley, 57, of Merrick, NY, is hoping to become a donor for the Stony Brook study. She and her husband, Sean Motley, 59, tested positive in late March. She has to pass one more test to join the trial. Her husband is also planning to try to donate. “I can finally do something,” Sabia Motley says. Her son is in the MD-PhD program at Stony Brook and told her about the study.
 

Many questions remain

The treatment for COVID-19 is in its infancy. Burk has given the convalescent plasma to two patients. One is now recovering at home, and the other is on a ventilator but improving, he says.

About 200 nationwide have received the therapy, Joyner says. He expects blood supplies to increase as more people are eligible to donate.

Questions remain about how effective the convalescent therapy will be. While experts know that the COVID-19 antibodies “can be helpful in fighting the virus, we don’t know how long the antibodies in the plasma would stay in place,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Nor do doctors know who the therapy might work best for, beyond people with a severe or life-threatening illness. When it’s been used for other infections, it’s generally given in early stages once someone has symptoms, Joyner says.

Joyner says he sees the treatment as a stopgap ‘’until concentrated antibodies are available.” Several drug companies are working to retrieve antibodies from donors and make concentrated antibody drugs.

“Typically we would think convalescent plasma might be a helpful bridge until therapies that are safe and effective and can be mass-produced are available, such as a vaccine or a drug,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Even so, he says that he doesn’t think he will have a problem attracting donors, and that he will have repeat donors eager to help.
 

More information for potential donors

Blood banks, the American Red Cross, and others involved in convalescent plasma therapy have posted information online for potential donors. People who don’t meet the qualifications for COVID-19 plasma donations are welcomed as regular blood donors if they meet those criteria

According to the FDA, a donation could potentially help save the lives of up to four COVID-19 patients.

Father Pace is already planning another visit to the blood bank. To pass the time last time, he says, he prayed for the person who would eventually get his blood.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As an Episcopal priest, Father Robert Pace of Fort Worth, TX, is used to putting others first and reaching out to help. So when the pulmonologist who helped him through his ordeal with COVID-19 asked if he would like to donate blood to help other patients, he did not hesitate.

“I said, ‘Absolutely,’” Pace, 53, recalls. He says the idea was ‘very appealing.’ ” During his ordeal with COVID-19 in March, he had spent 3 days in the hospital, isolated and on IV fluids and oxygen. He was short of breath, with a heartbeat more rapid than usual.

Now, fully recovered, his blood was a precious commodity, antibody-rich and potentially life-saving.

As researchers scramble to test drugs to fight COVID-19, others are turning to an age-old treatment. They’re collecting the blood of survivors and giving it to patients in the throes of a severe infection, a treatment known as convalescent plasma therapy.

Doctors say the treatment will probably serve as a bridge until other drugs and a vaccine become available.

Although the FDA considers the treatment investigational, in late March, it eased access to it. Patients can get it as part of a clinical trial or through an expanded access program overseen by hospitals or universities. A doctor can also request permission to use the treatment for a single patient.

“It is considered an emergent, compassionate need,” says John Burk, MD, a pulmonologist at Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital, Fort Worth, who treated Pace. “It is a way to bring it to the bedside.” And the approval can happen quickly. Burk says he got one from the FDA just 20 minutes after requesting it for a severely ill patient.
 

How it works

The premise of how it works is “quite straightforward,” says Michael Joyner, MD, a professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. “When someone is recovered and no longer symptomatic, you can harvest those antibodies from their blood and give them to someone else, and hopefully alter the course of their disease.” Joyner is the principal investigator for the FDA’s national Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19, with 1,000 sites already signed on.

Convalescent therapy has been used to fight many other viruses, including Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the “bird” flu, H1N1 flu, and during the 1918 flu pandemic. Joyner says the strongest evidence for it comes from the 1950s, when it was used to treat a rodent-borne illness called Argentine hemorrhagic fever. Using convalescent plasma therapy for this infection reduced the death rate from nearly 43% before the treatment became common in the late 1950s to about 3% after it was widely used, one report found.

Data about convalescent therapy specifically for COVID-19 is limited. Chinese researchers reported on five critically ill patients, all on mechanical ventilation, treated with convalescent plasma after they had received antiviral and anti-inflammatory medicines. Three could leave the hospital after 51-55 days, and two were in stable condition in the hospital 37 days after the transfusion.

In another study of 10 severely ill patients, symptoms went away or improved in all 10 within 1 to 3 days after the transfusion. Two of the three on ventilators were weaned off and put on oxygen instead. None died.

Chinese researchers also reported three cases of patients with COVID-19 given the convalescent therapy who had a satisfactory recovery.

Researchers who reviewed the track record of convalescent therapy for other conditions recently concluded that the treatment doesn’t appear to cause severe side effects and it should be studied for COVID-19.

Although information on side effects specific to this treatment is evolving, Joyner says they are “very, very low.”

According to the FDA, allergic reactions can occur with plasma therapies. Because the treatment for COVID-19 is new, it is not known if patients might have other types of reactions.
 

Who can donate?

Blood bank officials and researchers running the convalescent plasma programs say the desire to help is widespread, and they’ve been deluged with offers to donate. But requirements are strict.

Donors must have evidence of COVID-19 infection, documented in a variety of ways, such as a diagnostic test by nasal swab or a blood test showing antibodies. And they must be symptom-free for 14 days, with test results, or 28 days without.

The treatment involves collecting plasma, not whole blood. Plasma, the liquid part of the blood, helps with clotting and supports immunity. During the collection, a donor’s blood is put through a machine that collects the plasma only and sends the red blood cells and platelets back to the donor.
 

Clinical trials

Requirements may be more stringent for donors joining a formal clinical trial rather than an expanded access program. For instance, potential donors in a randomized clinical trial underway at Stony Brook University must have higher antibody levels than required by the FDA, says study leader Elliott Bennett-Guerrero, MD, medical director of perioperative quality and patient safety and professor at the Renaissance School of Medicine.

He hopes to enroll up to 500 patients from the Long Island, NY, area. While clinical trials typically have a 50-50 split, with half of subjects getting a treatment and half a placebo, Bennett-Guerrero’s study will give 80% of patients the convalescent plasma and 20% standard plasma.

Julia Sabia Motley, 57, of Merrick, NY, is hoping to become a donor for the Stony Brook study. She and her husband, Sean Motley, 59, tested positive in late March. She has to pass one more test to join the trial. Her husband is also planning to try to donate. “I can finally do something,” Sabia Motley says. Her son is in the MD-PhD program at Stony Brook and told her about the study.
 

Many questions remain

The treatment for COVID-19 is in its infancy. Burk has given the convalescent plasma to two patients. One is now recovering at home, and the other is on a ventilator but improving, he says.

About 200 nationwide have received the therapy, Joyner says. He expects blood supplies to increase as more people are eligible to donate.

Questions remain about how effective the convalescent therapy will be. While experts know that the COVID-19 antibodies “can be helpful in fighting the virus, we don’t know how long the antibodies in the plasma would stay in place,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Nor do doctors know who the therapy might work best for, beyond people with a severe or life-threatening illness. When it’s been used for other infections, it’s generally given in early stages once someone has symptoms, Joyner says.

Joyner says he sees the treatment as a stopgap ‘’until concentrated antibodies are available.” Several drug companies are working to retrieve antibodies from donors and make concentrated antibody drugs.

“Typically we would think convalescent plasma might be a helpful bridge until therapies that are safe and effective and can be mass-produced are available, such as a vaccine or a drug,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Even so, he says that he doesn’t think he will have a problem attracting donors, and that he will have repeat donors eager to help.
 

More information for potential donors

Blood banks, the American Red Cross, and others involved in convalescent plasma therapy have posted information online for potential donors. People who don’t meet the qualifications for COVID-19 plasma donations are welcomed as regular blood donors if they meet those criteria

According to the FDA, a donation could potentially help save the lives of up to four COVID-19 patients.

Father Pace is already planning another visit to the blood bank. To pass the time last time, he says, he prayed for the person who would eventually get his blood.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As an Episcopal priest, Father Robert Pace of Fort Worth, TX, is used to putting others first and reaching out to help. So when the pulmonologist who helped him through his ordeal with COVID-19 asked if he would like to donate blood to help other patients, he did not hesitate.

“I said, ‘Absolutely,’” Pace, 53, recalls. He says the idea was ‘very appealing.’ ” During his ordeal with COVID-19 in March, he had spent 3 days in the hospital, isolated and on IV fluids and oxygen. He was short of breath, with a heartbeat more rapid than usual.

Now, fully recovered, his blood was a precious commodity, antibody-rich and potentially life-saving.

As researchers scramble to test drugs to fight COVID-19, others are turning to an age-old treatment. They’re collecting the blood of survivors and giving it to patients in the throes of a severe infection, a treatment known as convalescent plasma therapy.

Doctors say the treatment will probably serve as a bridge until other drugs and a vaccine become available.

Although the FDA considers the treatment investigational, in late March, it eased access to it. Patients can get it as part of a clinical trial or through an expanded access program overseen by hospitals or universities. A doctor can also request permission to use the treatment for a single patient.

“It is considered an emergent, compassionate need,” says John Burk, MD, a pulmonologist at Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital, Fort Worth, who treated Pace. “It is a way to bring it to the bedside.” And the approval can happen quickly. Burk says he got one from the FDA just 20 minutes after requesting it for a severely ill patient.
 

How it works

The premise of how it works is “quite straightforward,” says Michael Joyner, MD, a professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. “When someone is recovered and no longer symptomatic, you can harvest those antibodies from their blood and give them to someone else, and hopefully alter the course of their disease.” Joyner is the principal investigator for the FDA’s national Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19, with 1,000 sites already signed on.

Convalescent therapy has been used to fight many other viruses, including Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the “bird” flu, H1N1 flu, and during the 1918 flu pandemic. Joyner says the strongest evidence for it comes from the 1950s, when it was used to treat a rodent-borne illness called Argentine hemorrhagic fever. Using convalescent plasma therapy for this infection reduced the death rate from nearly 43% before the treatment became common in the late 1950s to about 3% after it was widely used, one report found.

Data about convalescent therapy specifically for COVID-19 is limited. Chinese researchers reported on five critically ill patients, all on mechanical ventilation, treated with convalescent plasma after they had received antiviral and anti-inflammatory medicines. Three could leave the hospital after 51-55 days, and two were in stable condition in the hospital 37 days after the transfusion.

In another study of 10 severely ill patients, symptoms went away or improved in all 10 within 1 to 3 days after the transfusion. Two of the three on ventilators were weaned off and put on oxygen instead. None died.

Chinese researchers also reported three cases of patients with COVID-19 given the convalescent therapy who had a satisfactory recovery.

Researchers who reviewed the track record of convalescent therapy for other conditions recently concluded that the treatment doesn’t appear to cause severe side effects and it should be studied for COVID-19.

Although information on side effects specific to this treatment is evolving, Joyner says they are “very, very low.”

According to the FDA, allergic reactions can occur with plasma therapies. Because the treatment for COVID-19 is new, it is not known if patients might have other types of reactions.
 

Who can donate?

Blood bank officials and researchers running the convalescent plasma programs say the desire to help is widespread, and they’ve been deluged with offers to donate. But requirements are strict.

Donors must have evidence of COVID-19 infection, documented in a variety of ways, such as a diagnostic test by nasal swab or a blood test showing antibodies. And they must be symptom-free for 14 days, with test results, or 28 days without.

The treatment involves collecting plasma, not whole blood. Plasma, the liquid part of the blood, helps with clotting and supports immunity. During the collection, a donor’s blood is put through a machine that collects the plasma only and sends the red blood cells and platelets back to the donor.
 

Clinical trials

Requirements may be more stringent for donors joining a formal clinical trial rather than an expanded access program. For instance, potential donors in a randomized clinical trial underway at Stony Brook University must have higher antibody levels than required by the FDA, says study leader Elliott Bennett-Guerrero, MD, medical director of perioperative quality and patient safety and professor at the Renaissance School of Medicine.

He hopes to enroll up to 500 patients from the Long Island, NY, area. While clinical trials typically have a 50-50 split, with half of subjects getting a treatment and half a placebo, Bennett-Guerrero’s study will give 80% of patients the convalescent plasma and 20% standard plasma.

Julia Sabia Motley, 57, of Merrick, NY, is hoping to become a donor for the Stony Brook study. She and her husband, Sean Motley, 59, tested positive in late March. She has to pass one more test to join the trial. Her husband is also planning to try to donate. “I can finally do something,” Sabia Motley says. Her son is in the MD-PhD program at Stony Brook and told her about the study.
 

Many questions remain

The treatment for COVID-19 is in its infancy. Burk has given the convalescent plasma to two patients. One is now recovering at home, and the other is on a ventilator but improving, he says.

About 200 nationwide have received the therapy, Joyner says. He expects blood supplies to increase as more people are eligible to donate.

Questions remain about how effective the convalescent therapy will be. While experts know that the COVID-19 antibodies “can be helpful in fighting the virus, we don’t know how long the antibodies in the plasma would stay in place,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Nor do doctors know who the therapy might work best for, beyond people with a severe or life-threatening illness. When it’s been used for other infections, it’s generally given in early stages once someone has symptoms, Joyner says.

Joyner says he sees the treatment as a stopgap ‘’until concentrated antibodies are available.” Several drug companies are working to retrieve antibodies from donors and make concentrated antibody drugs.

“Typically we would think convalescent plasma might be a helpful bridge until therapies that are safe and effective and can be mass-produced are available, such as a vaccine or a drug,” Bennett-Guerrero says.

Even so, he says that he doesn’t think he will have a problem attracting donors, and that he will have repeat donors eager to help.
 

More information for potential donors

Blood banks, the American Red Cross, and others involved in convalescent plasma therapy have posted information online for potential donors. People who don’t meet the qualifications for COVID-19 plasma donations are welcomed as regular blood donors if they meet those criteria

According to the FDA, a donation could potentially help save the lives of up to four COVID-19 patients.

Father Pace is already planning another visit to the blood bank. To pass the time last time, he says, he prayed for the person who would eventually get his blood.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic forces rationing of ventilators, intensive care beds, and other resources, oncologists need to advocate for their patients and to support informed decision making as to resource allocation, both at the institutional and regional level, according to new recommendations from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

“There was a lot of concern from the oncology community that if a patient had cancer, they would be arbitrarily excluded from consideration for critical care resources,” said Jonathan M. Marron, MD, chair-elect of ASCO’s Ethics Committee and lead author of the recommendations.

“The hope is that we’ll never have to make any of these decisions ... but the primary reason for putting together these recommendations was that if such decisions have to be made, we hope to inform them,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Marron, who is a pediatric hematologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, says ASCO’s main recommendation is that decisions about the allocation of resources must be separated from bedside clinical care, meaning that clinicians who are caring for individual patients should not also be the ones making the allocation decisions.

“Those dueling responsibilities are a conflict of interest and make that physician unable to make an unbiased decision,” he said.

“It’s also just an unbearable burden to try and do those two things simultaneously,” he added. “It’s an incredible burden to do them individually, but it’s multifold worse to try to do them both simultaneously.”

He said the vital role of oncologists who provide treatment is to offer the kind of personalized information that triage committees need in order to make appropriate decisions.

“They should be asked – maybe even must be asked – to provide the most high-quality evidence-based data about their patients’ diagnosis and prognosis,” Marron commented. “Because oncology is evolving so rapidly, and cancer is so many different diseases, it’s impossible for someone making these decisions to know everything they would need to know about why this patient is likely to survive their cancer and this patient is not.”

He says that during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns regarding public health transcend the well-being of individual patients and that consideration must be given to providing the maximum benefit to the greatest number of people.

“That makes perfect sense and is the appropriate and laudable goal during a public health emergency like this ... but one of the challenges is that there is this belief that a diagnosis of cancer is uniformly fatal,” Marron said.

“It’s certainly conceivable that it would be a better use of resources to give the last ventilator to a young, otherwise healthy patient rather than a patient with multiply recurrent progressive metastatic cancer,” he continued. “However, we want to ensure that there is at least a discussion where that information is made available, rather than just saying, ‘She’s got cancer. She’s a lost cause.’ ”
 

Cancer patients are doing very well

Concerns about cancer misconceptions have been circulating in the oncology community since the start of the pandemic. “It’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays, and even with a diagnosis of cancer, they can potentially live for many years,” Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, from the Smilow Cancer Network, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News in a recent interview.

Thus far, even in hard-hit New York City, fears that cancer patients may not be receiving appropriate care have not materialized, according to Mark Robson, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). “I would emphasize that cancer patients are ABSOLUTELY getting the care they need, including patients with metastatic disease,” he recently tweeted. “NOONE at @sloan_kettering (or anywhere else) is being ‘triaged’ because of advanced cancer. Period.”

Robson told Medscape Medical News that although MSKCC continues to provide oncology care to patients with cancer, “we are [also] treating them if they develop COVID. ... I am trying to help pivot the institution towards care in this setting.”

He said he agrees with Craig Spencer, MD, MPH, director of global health in emergency medicine at the New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, who recently tweeted, “If you need a ventilator, you get a ventilator. Let’s be clear – this isn’t being ‘rationed.’ ”

Marron emphasized that an important safeguard against uninformed decision making is appropriate planning. For hospitalized patients, this means oncologists who provide treatment should offer information even before it is requested. But he said the “duty to plan” begins long before that.

“Clinicians haven’t always been great at talking about death and long-term outcomes with their patients, but this really cranks up the importance of having those conversations, and having them early, even though it’s incredibly hard. If someone has expressed that they would never want to be put on a ventilator, it’s important now even more so that is made clear,” he said.

He said early responses to the ASCO statement suggest that it has calmed some concerns in the oncology community, “but it still remains to be seen whether individual institutions will take this to heart, because this unto itself cannot enforce anything – it is up to individual institutions. I am hopeful this will get to the people it needs to get to.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic forces rationing of ventilators, intensive care beds, and other resources, oncologists need to advocate for their patients and to support informed decision making as to resource allocation, both at the institutional and regional level, according to new recommendations from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

“There was a lot of concern from the oncology community that if a patient had cancer, they would be arbitrarily excluded from consideration for critical care resources,” said Jonathan M. Marron, MD, chair-elect of ASCO’s Ethics Committee and lead author of the recommendations.

“The hope is that we’ll never have to make any of these decisions ... but the primary reason for putting together these recommendations was that if such decisions have to be made, we hope to inform them,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Marron, who is a pediatric hematologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, says ASCO’s main recommendation is that decisions about the allocation of resources must be separated from bedside clinical care, meaning that clinicians who are caring for individual patients should not also be the ones making the allocation decisions.

“Those dueling responsibilities are a conflict of interest and make that physician unable to make an unbiased decision,” he said.

“It’s also just an unbearable burden to try and do those two things simultaneously,” he added. “It’s an incredible burden to do them individually, but it’s multifold worse to try to do them both simultaneously.”

He said the vital role of oncologists who provide treatment is to offer the kind of personalized information that triage committees need in order to make appropriate decisions.

“They should be asked – maybe even must be asked – to provide the most high-quality evidence-based data about their patients’ diagnosis and prognosis,” Marron commented. “Because oncology is evolving so rapidly, and cancer is so many different diseases, it’s impossible for someone making these decisions to know everything they would need to know about why this patient is likely to survive their cancer and this patient is not.”

He says that during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns regarding public health transcend the well-being of individual patients and that consideration must be given to providing the maximum benefit to the greatest number of people.

“That makes perfect sense and is the appropriate and laudable goal during a public health emergency like this ... but one of the challenges is that there is this belief that a diagnosis of cancer is uniformly fatal,” Marron said.

“It’s certainly conceivable that it would be a better use of resources to give the last ventilator to a young, otherwise healthy patient rather than a patient with multiply recurrent progressive metastatic cancer,” he continued. “However, we want to ensure that there is at least a discussion where that information is made available, rather than just saying, ‘She’s got cancer. She’s a lost cause.’ ”
 

Cancer patients are doing very well

Concerns about cancer misconceptions have been circulating in the oncology community since the start of the pandemic. “It’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays, and even with a diagnosis of cancer, they can potentially live for many years,” Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, from the Smilow Cancer Network, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News in a recent interview.

Thus far, even in hard-hit New York City, fears that cancer patients may not be receiving appropriate care have not materialized, according to Mark Robson, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). “I would emphasize that cancer patients are ABSOLUTELY getting the care they need, including patients with metastatic disease,” he recently tweeted. “NOONE at @sloan_kettering (or anywhere else) is being ‘triaged’ because of advanced cancer. Period.”

Robson told Medscape Medical News that although MSKCC continues to provide oncology care to patients with cancer, “we are [also] treating them if they develop COVID. ... I am trying to help pivot the institution towards care in this setting.”

He said he agrees with Craig Spencer, MD, MPH, director of global health in emergency medicine at the New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, who recently tweeted, “If you need a ventilator, you get a ventilator. Let’s be clear – this isn’t being ‘rationed.’ ”

Marron emphasized that an important safeguard against uninformed decision making is appropriate planning. For hospitalized patients, this means oncologists who provide treatment should offer information even before it is requested. But he said the “duty to plan” begins long before that.

“Clinicians haven’t always been great at talking about death and long-term outcomes with their patients, but this really cranks up the importance of having those conversations, and having them early, even though it’s incredibly hard. If someone has expressed that they would never want to be put on a ventilator, it’s important now even more so that is made clear,” he said.

He said early responses to the ASCO statement suggest that it has calmed some concerns in the oncology community, “but it still remains to be seen whether individual institutions will take this to heart, because this unto itself cannot enforce anything – it is up to individual institutions. I am hopeful this will get to the people it needs to get to.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic forces rationing of ventilators, intensive care beds, and other resources, oncologists need to advocate for their patients and to support informed decision making as to resource allocation, both at the institutional and regional level, according to new recommendations from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

“There was a lot of concern from the oncology community that if a patient had cancer, they would be arbitrarily excluded from consideration for critical care resources,” said Jonathan M. Marron, MD, chair-elect of ASCO’s Ethics Committee and lead author of the recommendations.

“The hope is that we’ll never have to make any of these decisions ... but the primary reason for putting together these recommendations was that if such decisions have to be made, we hope to inform them,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Marron, who is a pediatric hematologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, says ASCO’s main recommendation is that decisions about the allocation of resources must be separated from bedside clinical care, meaning that clinicians who are caring for individual patients should not also be the ones making the allocation decisions.

“Those dueling responsibilities are a conflict of interest and make that physician unable to make an unbiased decision,” he said.

“It’s also just an unbearable burden to try and do those two things simultaneously,” he added. “It’s an incredible burden to do them individually, but it’s multifold worse to try to do them both simultaneously.”

He said the vital role of oncologists who provide treatment is to offer the kind of personalized information that triage committees need in order to make appropriate decisions.

“They should be asked – maybe even must be asked – to provide the most high-quality evidence-based data about their patients’ diagnosis and prognosis,” Marron commented. “Because oncology is evolving so rapidly, and cancer is so many different diseases, it’s impossible for someone making these decisions to know everything they would need to know about why this patient is likely to survive their cancer and this patient is not.”

He says that during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns regarding public health transcend the well-being of individual patients and that consideration must be given to providing the maximum benefit to the greatest number of people.

“That makes perfect sense and is the appropriate and laudable goal during a public health emergency like this ... but one of the challenges is that there is this belief that a diagnosis of cancer is uniformly fatal,” Marron said.

“It’s certainly conceivable that it would be a better use of resources to give the last ventilator to a young, otherwise healthy patient rather than a patient with multiply recurrent progressive metastatic cancer,” he continued. “However, we want to ensure that there is at least a discussion where that information is made available, rather than just saying, ‘She’s got cancer. She’s a lost cause.’ ”
 

Cancer patients are doing very well

Concerns about cancer misconceptions have been circulating in the oncology community since the start of the pandemic. “It’s really important that people understand that cancer patients are doing very well nowadays, and even with a diagnosis of cancer, they can potentially live for many years,” Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, from the Smilow Cancer Network, New Haven, Connecticut, told Medscape Medical News in a recent interview.

Thus far, even in hard-hit New York City, fears that cancer patients may not be receiving appropriate care have not materialized, according to Mark Robson, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). “I would emphasize that cancer patients are ABSOLUTELY getting the care they need, including patients with metastatic disease,” he recently tweeted. “NOONE at @sloan_kettering (or anywhere else) is being ‘triaged’ because of advanced cancer. Period.”

Robson told Medscape Medical News that although MSKCC continues to provide oncology care to patients with cancer, “we are [also] treating them if they develop COVID. ... I am trying to help pivot the institution towards care in this setting.”

He said he agrees with Craig Spencer, MD, MPH, director of global health in emergency medicine at the New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, who recently tweeted, “If you need a ventilator, you get a ventilator. Let’s be clear – this isn’t being ‘rationed.’ ”

Marron emphasized that an important safeguard against uninformed decision making is appropriate planning. For hospitalized patients, this means oncologists who provide treatment should offer information even before it is requested. But he said the “duty to plan” begins long before that.

“Clinicians haven’t always been great at talking about death and long-term outcomes with their patients, but this really cranks up the importance of having those conversations, and having them early, even though it’s incredibly hard. If someone has expressed that they would never want to be put on a ventilator, it’s important now even more so that is made clear,” he said.

He said early responses to the ASCO statement suggest that it has calmed some concerns in the oncology community, “but it still remains to be seen whether individual institutions will take this to heart, because this unto itself cannot enforce anything – it is up to individual institutions. I am hopeful this will get to the people it needs to get to.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has launched a registry to collect data on cancer patients with COVID-19 and is asking oncology practices across the United States to share information about their patients with the infection for educational purposes.

The new registry joins at least two other cancer and COVID-19 patient registries already underway in the U.S.

In a statement, ASCO President Howard “Skip” Burris III, MD said there is a need to know “how the virus is impacting our patients, their cancer treatment, and outcomes to inform current cancer care” and future care.

The web-based registry, known as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Survey on COVID-19 in Oncology Registry, is open to all U.S. oncology practices. Participating practices will receive an unspecified “nominal” payment for their data entry efforts.

The registry patient information will be stored on ASCO’s “Big Data” platform, known as CancerLinQ, but is being held apart from that pool of data. The registry information will not be available for commercial purposes, ASCO spokesperson Rachel Martin recently told Medscape Medical News.

Separately, CancerLinQ, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ASCO, will continue to collect data from its participant oncology practices (as usual), including COVID-19 information.

CancerLinQ has been criticized by ethicists for allowing partner companies to sell access to its data (after stripping off patient identifiers), but without asking for patients’ permission, as reported last year by Medscape Medical News.

Eleven practices, including academic enterprises, have so far expressed interested in participating in the ASCO COVID-19 Registry.

Participating practices are requested to send in details about cancer patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. As well as a baseline data capture form, they will need to provide details of subsequent status, treatment, and outcomes. Some patient-identifying data, including zip code, date of birth, gender, race, ethnicity, type of cancer, and comorbidities, will be collected for the purposes of analysis.

ASCO hopes to learn about characteristics of patients with cancer most impacted by COVID-19; estimates of disease severity; treatment modifications or delays; implementation of telemedicine in the cancer treatment setting; and clinical outcomes related to both COVID-19 and cancer.

ASCO says it will deliver periodic reports to the cancer community and the broader public on these and other “key learnings.” It also says that the registry is designed to capture point-in-time data as well as longitudinal data on how the virus will impact care and outcomes into 2021.

ASCO is not alone in its data collection efforts.

The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium is already collecting information from more than 50 cancer centers and organizations on COVID-19 in patients with cancer. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematologic Malignancy is doing the same but with a focus on hematologic malignancies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has launched a registry to collect data on cancer patients with COVID-19 and is asking oncology practices across the United States to share information about their patients with the infection for educational purposes.

The new registry joins at least two other cancer and COVID-19 patient registries already underway in the U.S.

In a statement, ASCO President Howard “Skip” Burris III, MD said there is a need to know “how the virus is impacting our patients, their cancer treatment, and outcomes to inform current cancer care” and future care.

The web-based registry, known as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Survey on COVID-19 in Oncology Registry, is open to all U.S. oncology practices. Participating practices will receive an unspecified “nominal” payment for their data entry efforts.

The registry patient information will be stored on ASCO’s “Big Data” platform, known as CancerLinQ, but is being held apart from that pool of data. The registry information will not be available for commercial purposes, ASCO spokesperson Rachel Martin recently told Medscape Medical News.

Separately, CancerLinQ, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ASCO, will continue to collect data from its participant oncology practices (as usual), including COVID-19 information.

CancerLinQ has been criticized by ethicists for allowing partner companies to sell access to its data (after stripping off patient identifiers), but without asking for patients’ permission, as reported last year by Medscape Medical News.

Eleven practices, including academic enterprises, have so far expressed interested in participating in the ASCO COVID-19 Registry.

Participating practices are requested to send in details about cancer patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. As well as a baseline data capture form, they will need to provide details of subsequent status, treatment, and outcomes. Some patient-identifying data, including zip code, date of birth, gender, race, ethnicity, type of cancer, and comorbidities, will be collected for the purposes of analysis.

ASCO hopes to learn about characteristics of patients with cancer most impacted by COVID-19; estimates of disease severity; treatment modifications or delays; implementation of telemedicine in the cancer treatment setting; and clinical outcomes related to both COVID-19 and cancer.

ASCO says it will deliver periodic reports to the cancer community and the broader public on these and other “key learnings.” It also says that the registry is designed to capture point-in-time data as well as longitudinal data on how the virus will impact care and outcomes into 2021.

ASCO is not alone in its data collection efforts.

The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium is already collecting information from more than 50 cancer centers and organizations on COVID-19 in patients with cancer. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematologic Malignancy is doing the same but with a focus on hematologic malignancies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has launched a registry to collect data on cancer patients with COVID-19 and is asking oncology practices across the United States to share information about their patients with the infection for educational purposes.

The new registry joins at least two other cancer and COVID-19 patient registries already underway in the U.S.

In a statement, ASCO President Howard “Skip” Burris III, MD said there is a need to know “how the virus is impacting our patients, their cancer treatment, and outcomes to inform current cancer care” and future care.

The web-based registry, known as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Survey on COVID-19 in Oncology Registry, is open to all U.S. oncology practices. Participating practices will receive an unspecified “nominal” payment for their data entry efforts.

The registry patient information will be stored on ASCO’s “Big Data” platform, known as CancerLinQ, but is being held apart from that pool of data. The registry information will not be available for commercial purposes, ASCO spokesperson Rachel Martin recently told Medscape Medical News.

Separately, CancerLinQ, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of ASCO, will continue to collect data from its participant oncology practices (as usual), including COVID-19 information.

CancerLinQ has been criticized by ethicists for allowing partner companies to sell access to its data (after stripping off patient identifiers), but without asking for patients’ permission, as reported last year by Medscape Medical News.

Eleven practices, including academic enterprises, have so far expressed interested in participating in the ASCO COVID-19 Registry.

Participating practices are requested to send in details about cancer patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. As well as a baseline data capture form, they will need to provide details of subsequent status, treatment, and outcomes. Some patient-identifying data, including zip code, date of birth, gender, race, ethnicity, type of cancer, and comorbidities, will be collected for the purposes of analysis.

ASCO hopes to learn about characteristics of patients with cancer most impacted by COVID-19; estimates of disease severity; treatment modifications or delays; implementation of telemedicine in the cancer treatment setting; and clinical outcomes related to both COVID-19 and cancer.

ASCO says it will deliver periodic reports to the cancer community and the broader public on these and other “key learnings.” It also says that the registry is designed to capture point-in-time data as well as longitudinal data on how the virus will impact care and outcomes into 2021.

ASCO is not alone in its data collection efforts.

The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium is already collecting information from more than 50 cancer centers and organizations on COVID-19 in patients with cancer. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematologic Malignancy is doing the same but with a focus on hematologic malignancies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An early report pegged the prevalence of cancer among COVID-19 patients at 1%, but authors of a recent meta-analysis found an overall prevalence of 2% and up to 3% depending on the subset of data they reviewed.

However, those findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the studies published to date, according to the authors of the meta-analysis, led by Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington.

Nevertheless, the results do confirm that cancer patients and survivors are an important at-risk population for COVID-19, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.

“We hope that additional data from China and Italy will provide information on the characteristics of patients with cancer at risk, types of cancer that confer higher risk, and systemic regimens that may increase COVID-19 infection complications,” the authors wrote in JCO Global Oncology.

More than 15 million individuals with cancer and many more cancer survivors are at increased risk of COVID-19 because of compromised immune systems, according to the authors.

Exactly how many individuals with cancer are among the COVID-19 cases remains unclear, though a previous report suggested the prevalence of cancer was 1% (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.65%) among COVID-19 patients in China (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7). This “seems to be higher” than the 0.29% prevalence of cancer in the overall Chinese population, the investigators noted at the time.

That study revealed 18 cancer patients among 1,590 COVID-19 cases, though it was “hypothesis generating,” according to Dr. Desai and colleagues, who rolled that data into their meta-analysis of 11 reports including 3,661 COVID-19 cases.

Overall, Dr. Desai and colleagues found the pooled prevalence of cancer was 2.0% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.0%) in that population. In a subgroup analysis of five studies with sample sizes of less than 100 COVID-19 patients, the researchers found a “slightly higher” prevalence of 3.0% (95% CI, 1.0%-6.0%).

However, even that data wasn’t robust enough for Dr. Desai and colleagues to make any pronouncements on cancer prevalence. “Overall, current evidence on the association between cancer and COVID-19 remains inconclusive,” they wrote.

Though inconclusive, the findings raise questions about whether treatments or interventions might need to be postponed in certain patients, whether cancer patients and survivors need stronger personal protection, and how to deal with potential delays in cancer clinical trials, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.

“As the evidence continues to rise, we must strive to answer the unanswered clinical questions,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Desai and colleagues reported no potential conflicts of interest related to the study.

SOURCE: Desai A et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1200/GO.20.00097.

An early report pegged the prevalence of cancer among COVID-19 patients at 1%, but authors of a recent meta-analysis found an overall prevalence of 2% and up to 3% depending on the subset of data they reviewed.

However, those findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the studies published to date, according to the authors of the meta-analysis, led by Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington.

Nevertheless, the results do confirm that cancer patients and survivors are an important at-risk population for COVID-19, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.

“We hope that additional data from China and Italy will provide information on the characteristics of patients with cancer at risk, types of cancer that confer higher risk, and systemic regimens that may increase COVID-19 infection complications,” the authors wrote in JCO Global Oncology.

More than 15 million individuals with cancer and many more cancer survivors are at increased risk of COVID-19 because of compromised immune systems, according to the authors.

Exactly how many individuals with cancer are among the COVID-19 cases remains unclear, though a previous report suggested the prevalence of cancer was 1% (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.65%) among COVID-19 patients in China (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7). This “seems to be higher” than the 0.29% prevalence of cancer in the overall Chinese population, the investigators noted at the time.

That study revealed 18 cancer patients among 1,590 COVID-19 cases, though it was “hypothesis generating,” according to Dr. Desai and colleagues, who rolled that data into their meta-analysis of 11 reports including 3,661 COVID-19 cases.

Overall, Dr. Desai and colleagues found the pooled prevalence of cancer was 2.0% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.0%) in that population. In a subgroup analysis of five studies with sample sizes of less than 100 COVID-19 patients, the researchers found a “slightly higher” prevalence of 3.0% (95% CI, 1.0%-6.0%).

However, even that data wasn’t robust enough for Dr. Desai and colleagues to make any pronouncements on cancer prevalence. “Overall, current evidence on the association between cancer and COVID-19 remains inconclusive,” they wrote.

Though inconclusive, the findings raise questions about whether treatments or interventions might need to be postponed in certain patients, whether cancer patients and survivors need stronger personal protection, and how to deal with potential delays in cancer clinical trials, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.

“As the evidence continues to rise, we must strive to answer the unanswered clinical questions,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Desai and colleagues reported no potential conflicts of interest related to the study.

SOURCE: Desai A et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1200/GO.20.00097.

An early report pegged the prevalence of cancer among COVID-19 patients at 1%, but authors of a recent meta-analysis found an overall prevalence of 2% and up to 3% depending on the subset of data they reviewed.

However, those findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the studies published to date, according to the authors of the meta-analysis, led by Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington.

Nevertheless, the results do confirm that cancer patients and survivors are an important at-risk population for COVID-19, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.

“We hope that additional data from China and Italy will provide information on the characteristics of patients with cancer at risk, types of cancer that confer higher risk, and systemic regimens that may increase COVID-19 infection complications,” the authors wrote in JCO Global Oncology.

More than 15 million individuals with cancer and many more cancer survivors are at increased risk of COVID-19 because of compromised immune systems, according to the authors.

Exactly how many individuals with cancer are among the COVID-19 cases remains unclear, though a previous report suggested the prevalence of cancer was 1% (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.65%) among COVID-19 patients in China (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7). This “seems to be higher” than the 0.29% prevalence of cancer in the overall Chinese population, the investigators noted at the time.

That study revealed 18 cancer patients among 1,590 COVID-19 cases, though it was “hypothesis generating,” according to Dr. Desai and colleagues, who rolled that data into their meta-analysis of 11 reports including 3,661 COVID-19 cases.

Overall, Dr. Desai and colleagues found the pooled prevalence of cancer was 2.0% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.0%) in that population. In a subgroup analysis of five studies with sample sizes of less than 100 COVID-19 patients, the researchers found a “slightly higher” prevalence of 3.0% (95% CI, 1.0%-6.0%).

However, even that data wasn’t robust enough for Dr. Desai and colleagues to make any pronouncements on cancer prevalence. “Overall, current evidence on the association between cancer and COVID-19 remains inconclusive,” they wrote.

Though inconclusive, the findings raise questions about whether treatments or interventions might need to be postponed in certain patients, whether cancer patients and survivors need stronger personal protection, and how to deal with potential delays in cancer clinical trials, according to Dr. Desai and colleagues.

“As the evidence continues to rise, we must strive to answer the unanswered clinical questions,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Desai and colleagues reported no potential conflicts of interest related to the study.

SOURCE: Desai A et al. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1200/GO.20.00097.

In the fall of 2019, the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia started a pilot program of home-based chemotherapy for two treatment regimens (one via infusion and one via injection). Six months later, the Cancer Care at Home program had treated 40 patients.

The uptake within the university’s large regional health system was acceptable but not rapid, admitted Amy Laughlin, MD, a hematology-oncology fellow involved with the program.

Then COVID-19 arrived, along with related travel restrictions.

Suddenly, in a 5-week period (March to April 7), 175 patients had been treated – a 300% increase from the first half year. Program staff jumped from 12 to 80 employees. The list of chemotherapies delivered went from two to seven, with more coming.

“We’re not the pilot anymore – we’re the standard of care,” Laughlin told Medscape Medical News.

“The impact [on patients] is amazing,” she said. “As long as you are selecting the right patients and right therapy, it is feasible and even preferable for a lot of patients.”

For example, patients with hormone-positive breast cancer who receive leuprolide (to shut down the ovaries and suppress estrogen production) ordinarily would have to visit a Penn facility for an injection every month, potentially for years. Now, a nurse can meet patients at home (or before the COVID-19 pandemic, even at their place of work) and administer the injection, saving the patient travel time and associated costs.

This home-based chemotherapy service does not appear to be offered elsewhere in the United States, and a major oncology organization – the Community Oncology Alliance – is opposed to the practice because of patient safety concerns.

The service is not offered at a sample of cancer centers queried by Medscape Medical News, including the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Moores Cancer Center, the University of California, San Diego.

Opposition because of safety concerns

On April 9, the Community Oncology Alliance (COA) issued a statement saying it “fundamentally opposes home infusion of chemotherapy, cancer immunotherapy, and cancer treatment supportive drugs because of serious patient safety concerns.”

The COA warned that “many of the side effects caused by cancer treatment can have a rapid, unpredictable onset that places patients in incredible jeopardy and can even be life-threatening.”

In contrast, in a recent communication related to COVID-19, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network tacitly endorsed the concept, stating that a number of chemotherapies may potentially be administered at home, but it did not include guidelines for doing so.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that chemotherapy at home is “an issue [we] are monitoring closely,” according to a spokesperson.

What’s involved

Criteria for home-based chemotherapy at Penn include use of anticancer therapies that a patient has previously tolerated and low toxicity (that can be readily managed in the home setting). In addition, patients must be capable of following a med chart.

The chemotherapy is reconstituted at a Penn facility in a Philadelphia suburb. A courier then delivers the drug to the patient’s home, where it is administered by an oncology-trained nurse. Drugs must be stable for at least a few hours to qualify for the program.

The Penn program started with two regimens: EPOCH (etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone) for lymphoma, and leuprolide acetate injections for either breast or prostate cancer.

The two treatments are polar opposites in terms of complexity, common usage, and time required, which was intended, said Laughlin.

Time to deliver the chemo varies from a matter of minutes with leuprolide to more than 2 hours for rituximab, a lymphoma drug that may be added to EPOCH.

The current list of at-home chemo agents in the Penn program also includes bortezomib, lanreotide, zoledronic acid, and denosumab. Soon to come are rituximab and pembrolizumab for lung cancer and head and neck cancer.

Already practiced in some European countries

Home-based chemotherapy dates from at least the 1980s in the medical literature and is practiced in some European countries.

A 2018 randomized study of adjuvant treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin for stage II/III colon cancer in Denmark, where home-based care has been practiced for the past 2 years and is growing in use, concluded that “it might be a valuable alternative to treatment at an outpatient clinic.”

However, in the study, there was no difference in quality of life between the home and outpatient settings, which is somewhat surprising, inasmuch as a major appeal to receiving chemotherapy at home is that it is less disruptive compared to receiving it in a hospital or clinic, which requires travel.

Also, chemo at home “may be resource intensive” and have a “lower throughput of patients due to transportation time,” cautioned the Danish investigators, who were from Herlev and Gentofte Hospital.

A 2015 review called home chemo “a safe and patient‐centered alternative to hospital‐ and outpatient‐based service.” Jenna Evans, PhD, McMaster University, Toronto, Canada, and lead author of that review, says there are two major barriers to infusion chemotherapy in homes.

One is inadequate resources in the community, such as oncology-trained nurses to deliver treatment, and the other is perceptions of safety and quality, including among healthcare providers.

COVID-19 might prompt more chemo at home, said Evans, a health policy expert, in an email to Medscape Medical News. “It is not unusual for change of this type and scale to require a seismic event to become more mainstream,” she argued.

Reimbursement for home-based chemo is usually the same as for chemo in a free-standing infusion suite, says Cassandra Redmond, PharmD, MBA, director of pharmacy, Penn Home Infusion Therapy.

Private insurers and Medicare cover a subset of infused medications at home, but coverage is limited. “The opportunity now is to expand these initiatives ... to include other cancer therapies,” she said about coverage.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the fall of 2019, the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia started a pilot program of home-based chemotherapy for two treatment regimens (one via infusion and one via injection). Six months later, the Cancer Care at Home program had treated 40 patients.

The uptake within the university’s large regional health system was acceptable but not rapid, admitted Amy Laughlin, MD, a hematology-oncology fellow involved with the program.

Then COVID-19 arrived, along with related travel restrictions.

Suddenly, in a 5-week period (March to April 7), 175 patients had been treated – a 300% increase from the first half year. Program staff jumped from 12 to 80 employees. The list of chemotherapies delivered went from two to seven, with more coming.

“We’re not the pilot anymore – we’re the standard of care,” Laughlin told Medscape Medical News.

“The impact [on patients] is amazing,” she said. “As long as you are selecting the right patients and right therapy, it is feasible and even preferable for a lot of patients.”

For example, patients with hormone-positive breast cancer who receive leuprolide (to shut down the ovaries and suppress estrogen production) ordinarily would have to visit a Penn facility for an injection every month, potentially for years. Now, a nurse can meet patients at home (or before the COVID-19 pandemic, even at their place of work) and administer the injection, saving the patient travel time and associated costs.

This home-based chemotherapy service does not appear to be offered elsewhere in the United States, and a major oncology organization – the Community Oncology Alliance – is opposed to the practice because of patient safety concerns.

The service is not offered at a sample of cancer centers queried by Medscape Medical News, including the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Moores Cancer Center, the University of California, San Diego.

Opposition because of safety concerns

On April 9, the Community Oncology Alliance (COA) issued a statement saying it “fundamentally opposes home infusion of chemotherapy, cancer immunotherapy, and cancer treatment supportive drugs because of serious patient safety concerns.”

The COA warned that “many of the side effects caused by cancer treatment can have a rapid, unpredictable onset that places patients in incredible jeopardy and can even be life-threatening.”

In contrast, in a recent communication related to COVID-19, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network tacitly endorsed the concept, stating that a number of chemotherapies may potentially be administered at home, but it did not include guidelines for doing so.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that chemotherapy at home is “an issue [we] are monitoring closely,” according to a spokesperson.

What’s involved

Criteria for home-based chemotherapy at Penn include use of anticancer therapies that a patient has previously tolerated and low toxicity (that can be readily managed in the home setting). In addition, patients must be capable of following a med chart.

The chemotherapy is reconstituted at a Penn facility in a Philadelphia suburb. A courier then delivers the drug to the patient’s home, where it is administered by an oncology-trained nurse. Drugs must be stable for at least a few hours to qualify for the program.

The Penn program started with two regimens: EPOCH (etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone) for lymphoma, and leuprolide acetate injections for either breast or prostate cancer.

The two treatments are polar opposites in terms of complexity, common usage, and time required, which was intended, said Laughlin.

Time to deliver the chemo varies from a matter of minutes with leuprolide to more than 2 hours for rituximab, a lymphoma drug that may be added to EPOCH.

The current list of at-home chemo agents in the Penn program also includes bortezomib, lanreotide, zoledronic acid, and denosumab. Soon to come are rituximab and pembrolizumab for lung cancer and head and neck cancer.

Already practiced in some European countries

Home-based chemotherapy dates from at least the 1980s in the medical literature and is practiced in some European countries.

A 2018 randomized study of adjuvant treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin for stage II/III colon cancer in Denmark, where home-based care has been practiced for the past 2 years and is growing in use, concluded that “it might be a valuable alternative to treatment at an outpatient clinic.”

However, in the study, there was no difference in quality of life between the home and outpatient settings, which is somewhat surprising, inasmuch as a major appeal to receiving chemotherapy at home is that it is less disruptive compared to receiving it in a hospital or clinic, which requires travel.

Also, chemo at home “may be resource intensive” and have a “lower throughput of patients due to transportation time,” cautioned the Danish investigators, who were from Herlev and Gentofte Hospital.

A 2015 review called home chemo “a safe and patient‐centered alternative to hospital‐ and outpatient‐based service.” Jenna Evans, PhD, McMaster University, Toronto, Canada, and lead author of that review, says there are two major barriers to infusion chemotherapy in homes.

One is inadequate resources in the community, such as oncology-trained nurses to deliver treatment, and the other is perceptions of safety and quality, including among healthcare providers.

COVID-19 might prompt more chemo at home, said Evans, a health policy expert, in an email to Medscape Medical News. “It is not unusual for change of this type and scale to require a seismic event to become more mainstream,” she argued.

Reimbursement for home-based chemo is usually the same as for chemo in a free-standing infusion suite, says Cassandra Redmond, PharmD, MBA, director of pharmacy, Penn Home Infusion Therapy.

Private insurers and Medicare cover a subset of infused medications at home, but coverage is limited. “The opportunity now is to expand these initiatives ... to include other cancer therapies,” she said about coverage.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the fall of 2019, the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia started a pilot program of home-based chemotherapy for two treatment regimens (one via infusion and one via injection). Six months later, the Cancer Care at Home program had treated 40 patients.

The uptake within the university’s large regional health system was acceptable but not rapid, admitted Amy Laughlin, MD, a hematology-oncology fellow involved with the program.

Then COVID-19 arrived, along with related travel restrictions.

Suddenly, in a 5-week period (March to April 7), 175 patients had been treated – a 300% increase from the first half year. Program staff jumped from 12 to 80 employees. The list of chemotherapies delivered went from two to seven, with more coming.

“We’re not the pilot anymore – we’re the standard of care,” Laughlin told Medscape Medical News.

“The impact [on patients] is amazing,” she said. “As long as you are selecting the right patients and right therapy, it is feasible and even preferable for a lot of patients.”

For example, patients with hormone-positive breast cancer who receive leuprolide (to shut down the ovaries and suppress estrogen production) ordinarily would have to visit a Penn facility for an injection every month, potentially for years. Now, a nurse can meet patients at home (or before the COVID-19 pandemic, even at their place of work) and administer the injection, saving the patient travel time and associated costs.

This home-based chemotherapy service does not appear to be offered elsewhere in the United States, and a major oncology organization – the Community Oncology Alliance – is opposed to the practice because of patient safety concerns.

The service is not offered at a sample of cancer centers queried by Medscape Medical News, including the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Moores Cancer Center, the University of California, San Diego.

Opposition because of safety concerns

On April 9, the Community Oncology Alliance (COA) issued a statement saying it “fundamentally opposes home infusion of chemotherapy, cancer immunotherapy, and cancer treatment supportive drugs because of serious patient safety concerns.”

The COA warned that “many of the side effects caused by cancer treatment can have a rapid, unpredictable onset that places patients in incredible jeopardy and can even be life-threatening.”

In contrast, in a recent communication related to COVID-19, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network tacitly endorsed the concept, stating that a number of chemotherapies may potentially be administered at home, but it did not include guidelines for doing so.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology said that chemotherapy at home is “an issue [we] are monitoring closely,” according to a spokesperson.

What’s involved

Criteria for home-based chemotherapy at Penn include use of anticancer therapies that a patient has previously tolerated and low toxicity (that can be readily managed in the home setting). In addition, patients must be capable of following a med chart.

The chemotherapy is reconstituted at a Penn facility in a Philadelphia suburb. A courier then delivers the drug to the patient’s home, where it is administered by an oncology-trained nurse. Drugs must be stable for at least a few hours to qualify for the program.

The Penn program started with two regimens: EPOCH (etoposide, vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone) for lymphoma, and leuprolide acetate injections for either breast or prostate cancer.

The two treatments are polar opposites in terms of complexity, common usage, and time required, which was intended, said Laughlin.

Time to deliver the chemo varies from a matter of minutes with leuprolide to more than 2 hours for rituximab, a lymphoma drug that may be added to EPOCH.

The current list of at-home chemo agents in the Penn program also includes bortezomib, lanreotide, zoledronic acid, and denosumab. Soon to come are rituximab and pembrolizumab for lung cancer and head and neck cancer.

Already practiced in some European countries

Home-based chemotherapy dates from at least the 1980s in the medical literature and is practiced in some European countries.

A 2018 randomized study of adjuvant treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin for stage II/III colon cancer in Denmark, where home-based care has been practiced for the past 2 years and is growing in use, concluded that “it might be a valuable alternative to treatment at an outpatient clinic.”

However, in the study, there was no difference in quality of life between the home and outpatient settings, which is somewhat surprising, inasmuch as a major appeal to receiving chemotherapy at home is that it is less disruptive compared to receiving it in a hospital or clinic, which requires travel.

Also, chemo at home “may be resource intensive” and have a “lower throughput of patients due to transportation time,” cautioned the Danish investigators, who were from Herlev and Gentofte Hospital.

A 2015 review called home chemo “a safe and patient‐centered alternative to hospital‐ and outpatient‐based service.” Jenna Evans, PhD, McMaster University, Toronto, Canada, and lead author of that review, says there are two major barriers to infusion chemotherapy in homes.

One is inadequate resources in the community, such as oncology-trained nurses to deliver treatment, and the other is perceptions of safety and quality, including among healthcare providers.

COVID-19 might prompt more chemo at home, said Evans, a health policy expert, in an email to Medscape Medical News. “It is not unusual for change of this type and scale to require a seismic event to become more mainstream,” she argued.

Reimbursement for home-based chemo is usually the same as for chemo in a free-standing infusion suite, says Cassandra Redmond, PharmD, MBA, director of pharmacy, Penn Home Infusion Therapy.

Private insurers and Medicare cover a subset of infused medications at home, but coverage is limited. “The opportunity now is to expand these initiatives ... to include other cancer therapies,” she said about coverage.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.