User login
In Case You Missed It: COVID
Ivabradine knocks down heart rate, symptoms in POTS
The heart failure drug ivabradine (Corlanor) can provide relief from the elevated heart rate and often debilitating symptoms associated with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a new study suggests.
Ivabradine significantly lowered standing heart rate, compared with placebo (77.9 vs. 94.2 beats/min; P < .001). The typical surge in heart rate that occurs upon standing in these patients was also blunted, compared with baseline (13.0 vs. 21.4 beats/min; P = .001).
“There are really not a lot of great options for patients with POTS and, mechanistically, ivabradine just make sense because it’s a drug that lowers heart rate very selectively and doesn’t lower blood pressure,” lead study author Pam R. Taub, MD, told this news organization.
Surprisingly, the reduction in heart rate translated into improved physical (P = .008) and social (P = .021) functioning after just 1 month of ivabradine, without any other background POTS medications or a change in nonpharmacologic therapies, she said. “What’s really nice to see is when you tackle a really significant part of the disease, which is the elevated heart rate, just how much better they feel.”
POTS patients are mostly healthy, active young women, who after some inciting event – such as viral infection, trauma, or surgery – experience an increase in heart rate of at least 30 beats/min upon standing accompanied by a range of symptoms, including dizziness, palpitations, brain fog, and fatigue.
A COVID connection?
The study enrolled patients with hyperadrenergic POTS as the predominant subtype, but another group to keep in mind that might benefit is the post-COVID POTS patient, said Dr. Taub, from the University of California, San Diego.
“We’re seeing an incredible number of patients post COVID that meet the criteria for POTS, and a lot of these patients also have COVID fatigue,” she said. “So clinically, myself and many other cardiologists who understand ivabradine have been using it off-label for the COVID patients, as long as they meet the criteria. You don’t want to use it in every COVID patient, but if someone’s predominant complaint is that their heart rate is going up when they’re standing and they’re debilitated by it, this is a drug to consider.”
Anecdotal findings in patients with long-hauler COVID need to be translated into rigorous research protocols, but mechanistically, whether it’s POTS from COVID or from another type of infection – like Lyme disease or some other viral syndrome – it should work the same, Dr. Taub said. “POTS is POTS.”
There are no first-line drugs for POTS, and current class IIb recommendations include midodrine, which increases blood pressure and can make people feel awful, and fludrocortisone, which can cause a lot of weight gain and fluid retention, she observed. Other agents that lower heart rate, like beta-blockers, also lower blood pressure and can aggravate depression and fatigue.
Ivabradine regulates heart rate by specifically blocking the Ifunny channel of the sinoatrial node. It was approved in 2015 in the United States to reduce hospitalizations in patients with systolic heart failure, and it also has a second class IIb recommendation for inappropriate sinus tachycardia.
The present study, reported in the Feb. 23 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, is the first randomized clinical trial using ivabradine to treat POTS.
A total of 26 patients with POTS were started on ivabradine 5 mg or placebo twice daily for 1 month, then were crossed over to the other treatment for 1 month after a 1-week washout period. Six patients were started on a 2.5-mg twice-daily dose. Doses were adjusted during the study based on the patient’s heart rate response and tolerance. Patients had seven clinic visits in which norepinephrine (NE) levels were measured and head-up tilt testing conducted.
Four patients in the ivabradine arm withdrew because of adverse effects, and one withdrew during crossover.
Among the 22 patients who completed the study, exploratory analyses showed a strong trend for greater reduction in plasma NE upon standing with ivabradine (P = .056). The effect was also more profound in patients with very high baseline standing NE levels (at least 1,000 pg/mL) than in those with lower NE levels (600 to 1,000 pg/mL).
“It makes sense because that means their sympathetic nervous system is more overactive; they have a higher heart rate,” Dr. Taub said. “So it’s a potential clinical tool that people can use in their practice to determine, ‘okay, is this a patient I should be considering ivabradine on?’ ”
Although the present study had only 22 patients, “it should definitely be looked at as a step forward, both in terms of ivabradine specifically and in terms of setting the standard for the types of studies we want to see in our patients,” Satish R. Raj, MD, MSCI, University of Calgary (Alta.), said in an interview.
In a related editorial, however, Dr. Raj and coauthor Robert S. Sheldon, MD, PhD, also from the University of Calgary, point out that the standing heart rate in the placebo phase was only 94 beats/min, “suggesting that these patients may be affected only mildly by their POTS.”
Asked about the point, Dr. Taub said: “I don’t know if I agree with that.” She noted that the diagnosis of POTS was confirmed by tilt-table testing and NE levels and that patients’ symptoms vary from day to day. “The standard deviation was plus or minus 16.8, so there’s variability.”
Both Dr. Raj and Dr. Taub said they expect the results will be included in the next scientific statement for POTS, but in the meantime, it may be a struggle to get the drug covered by insurance.
“The challenge is that this is a very off-label use for this medication, and the medication’s not cheap,” Dr. Raj observed. The price for 60 tablets, which is about a 1-month supply, is $485 on GoodRx.
Another question going forward, he said, is whether ivabradine is superior to beta-blockers, which will be studied in a 20-patient crossover trial sponsored by the University of Calgary that is about to launch. The primary completion date is set for 2024.
The study was supported by a grant from Amgen. Dr. Taub has served as a consultant for Amgen, Bayer, Esperion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; is a shareholder in Epirium Bio; and has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Department of Homeland Security/FEMA. Dr. Raj has received a research grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and research grants from Dysautonomia International to address the pathophysiology of POTS. Dr. Sheldon has received a research grant from Dysautonomia International for a clinical trial assessing ivabradine and propranolol for the treatment of POTS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The heart failure drug ivabradine (Corlanor) can provide relief from the elevated heart rate and often debilitating symptoms associated with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a new study suggests.
Ivabradine significantly lowered standing heart rate, compared with placebo (77.9 vs. 94.2 beats/min; P < .001). The typical surge in heart rate that occurs upon standing in these patients was also blunted, compared with baseline (13.0 vs. 21.4 beats/min; P = .001).
“There are really not a lot of great options for patients with POTS and, mechanistically, ivabradine just make sense because it’s a drug that lowers heart rate very selectively and doesn’t lower blood pressure,” lead study author Pam R. Taub, MD, told this news organization.
Surprisingly, the reduction in heart rate translated into improved physical (P = .008) and social (P = .021) functioning after just 1 month of ivabradine, without any other background POTS medications or a change in nonpharmacologic therapies, she said. “What’s really nice to see is when you tackle a really significant part of the disease, which is the elevated heart rate, just how much better they feel.”
POTS patients are mostly healthy, active young women, who after some inciting event – such as viral infection, trauma, or surgery – experience an increase in heart rate of at least 30 beats/min upon standing accompanied by a range of symptoms, including dizziness, palpitations, brain fog, and fatigue.
A COVID connection?
The study enrolled patients with hyperadrenergic POTS as the predominant subtype, but another group to keep in mind that might benefit is the post-COVID POTS patient, said Dr. Taub, from the University of California, San Diego.
“We’re seeing an incredible number of patients post COVID that meet the criteria for POTS, and a lot of these patients also have COVID fatigue,” she said. “So clinically, myself and many other cardiologists who understand ivabradine have been using it off-label for the COVID patients, as long as they meet the criteria. You don’t want to use it in every COVID patient, but if someone’s predominant complaint is that their heart rate is going up when they’re standing and they’re debilitated by it, this is a drug to consider.”
Anecdotal findings in patients with long-hauler COVID need to be translated into rigorous research protocols, but mechanistically, whether it’s POTS from COVID or from another type of infection – like Lyme disease or some other viral syndrome – it should work the same, Dr. Taub said. “POTS is POTS.”
There are no first-line drugs for POTS, and current class IIb recommendations include midodrine, which increases blood pressure and can make people feel awful, and fludrocortisone, which can cause a lot of weight gain and fluid retention, she observed. Other agents that lower heart rate, like beta-blockers, also lower blood pressure and can aggravate depression and fatigue.
Ivabradine regulates heart rate by specifically blocking the Ifunny channel of the sinoatrial node. It was approved in 2015 in the United States to reduce hospitalizations in patients with systolic heart failure, and it also has a second class IIb recommendation for inappropriate sinus tachycardia.
The present study, reported in the Feb. 23 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, is the first randomized clinical trial using ivabradine to treat POTS.
A total of 26 patients with POTS were started on ivabradine 5 mg or placebo twice daily for 1 month, then were crossed over to the other treatment for 1 month after a 1-week washout period. Six patients were started on a 2.5-mg twice-daily dose. Doses were adjusted during the study based on the patient’s heart rate response and tolerance. Patients had seven clinic visits in which norepinephrine (NE) levels were measured and head-up tilt testing conducted.
Four patients in the ivabradine arm withdrew because of adverse effects, and one withdrew during crossover.
Among the 22 patients who completed the study, exploratory analyses showed a strong trend for greater reduction in plasma NE upon standing with ivabradine (P = .056). The effect was also more profound in patients with very high baseline standing NE levels (at least 1,000 pg/mL) than in those with lower NE levels (600 to 1,000 pg/mL).
“It makes sense because that means their sympathetic nervous system is more overactive; they have a higher heart rate,” Dr. Taub said. “So it’s a potential clinical tool that people can use in their practice to determine, ‘okay, is this a patient I should be considering ivabradine on?’ ”
Although the present study had only 22 patients, “it should definitely be looked at as a step forward, both in terms of ivabradine specifically and in terms of setting the standard for the types of studies we want to see in our patients,” Satish R. Raj, MD, MSCI, University of Calgary (Alta.), said in an interview.
In a related editorial, however, Dr. Raj and coauthor Robert S. Sheldon, MD, PhD, also from the University of Calgary, point out that the standing heart rate in the placebo phase was only 94 beats/min, “suggesting that these patients may be affected only mildly by their POTS.”
Asked about the point, Dr. Taub said: “I don’t know if I agree with that.” She noted that the diagnosis of POTS was confirmed by tilt-table testing and NE levels and that patients’ symptoms vary from day to day. “The standard deviation was plus or minus 16.8, so there’s variability.”
Both Dr. Raj and Dr. Taub said they expect the results will be included in the next scientific statement for POTS, but in the meantime, it may be a struggle to get the drug covered by insurance.
“The challenge is that this is a very off-label use for this medication, and the medication’s not cheap,” Dr. Raj observed. The price for 60 tablets, which is about a 1-month supply, is $485 on GoodRx.
Another question going forward, he said, is whether ivabradine is superior to beta-blockers, which will be studied in a 20-patient crossover trial sponsored by the University of Calgary that is about to launch. The primary completion date is set for 2024.
The study was supported by a grant from Amgen. Dr. Taub has served as a consultant for Amgen, Bayer, Esperion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; is a shareholder in Epirium Bio; and has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Department of Homeland Security/FEMA. Dr. Raj has received a research grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and research grants from Dysautonomia International to address the pathophysiology of POTS. Dr. Sheldon has received a research grant from Dysautonomia International for a clinical trial assessing ivabradine and propranolol for the treatment of POTS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The heart failure drug ivabradine (Corlanor) can provide relief from the elevated heart rate and often debilitating symptoms associated with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), a new study suggests.
Ivabradine significantly lowered standing heart rate, compared with placebo (77.9 vs. 94.2 beats/min; P < .001). The typical surge in heart rate that occurs upon standing in these patients was also blunted, compared with baseline (13.0 vs. 21.4 beats/min; P = .001).
“There are really not a lot of great options for patients with POTS and, mechanistically, ivabradine just make sense because it’s a drug that lowers heart rate very selectively and doesn’t lower blood pressure,” lead study author Pam R. Taub, MD, told this news organization.
Surprisingly, the reduction in heart rate translated into improved physical (P = .008) and social (P = .021) functioning after just 1 month of ivabradine, without any other background POTS medications or a change in nonpharmacologic therapies, she said. “What’s really nice to see is when you tackle a really significant part of the disease, which is the elevated heart rate, just how much better they feel.”
POTS patients are mostly healthy, active young women, who after some inciting event – such as viral infection, trauma, or surgery – experience an increase in heart rate of at least 30 beats/min upon standing accompanied by a range of symptoms, including dizziness, palpitations, brain fog, and fatigue.
A COVID connection?
The study enrolled patients with hyperadrenergic POTS as the predominant subtype, but another group to keep in mind that might benefit is the post-COVID POTS patient, said Dr. Taub, from the University of California, San Diego.
“We’re seeing an incredible number of patients post COVID that meet the criteria for POTS, and a lot of these patients also have COVID fatigue,” she said. “So clinically, myself and many other cardiologists who understand ivabradine have been using it off-label for the COVID patients, as long as they meet the criteria. You don’t want to use it in every COVID patient, but if someone’s predominant complaint is that their heart rate is going up when they’re standing and they’re debilitated by it, this is a drug to consider.”
Anecdotal findings in patients with long-hauler COVID need to be translated into rigorous research protocols, but mechanistically, whether it’s POTS from COVID or from another type of infection – like Lyme disease or some other viral syndrome – it should work the same, Dr. Taub said. “POTS is POTS.”
There are no first-line drugs for POTS, and current class IIb recommendations include midodrine, which increases blood pressure and can make people feel awful, and fludrocortisone, which can cause a lot of weight gain and fluid retention, she observed. Other agents that lower heart rate, like beta-blockers, also lower blood pressure and can aggravate depression and fatigue.
Ivabradine regulates heart rate by specifically blocking the Ifunny channel of the sinoatrial node. It was approved in 2015 in the United States to reduce hospitalizations in patients with systolic heart failure, and it also has a second class IIb recommendation for inappropriate sinus tachycardia.
The present study, reported in the Feb. 23 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, is the first randomized clinical trial using ivabradine to treat POTS.
A total of 26 patients with POTS were started on ivabradine 5 mg or placebo twice daily for 1 month, then were crossed over to the other treatment for 1 month after a 1-week washout period. Six patients were started on a 2.5-mg twice-daily dose. Doses were adjusted during the study based on the patient’s heart rate response and tolerance. Patients had seven clinic visits in which norepinephrine (NE) levels were measured and head-up tilt testing conducted.
Four patients in the ivabradine arm withdrew because of adverse effects, and one withdrew during crossover.
Among the 22 patients who completed the study, exploratory analyses showed a strong trend for greater reduction in plasma NE upon standing with ivabradine (P = .056). The effect was also more profound in patients with very high baseline standing NE levels (at least 1,000 pg/mL) than in those with lower NE levels (600 to 1,000 pg/mL).
“It makes sense because that means their sympathetic nervous system is more overactive; they have a higher heart rate,” Dr. Taub said. “So it’s a potential clinical tool that people can use in their practice to determine, ‘okay, is this a patient I should be considering ivabradine on?’ ”
Although the present study had only 22 patients, “it should definitely be looked at as a step forward, both in terms of ivabradine specifically and in terms of setting the standard for the types of studies we want to see in our patients,” Satish R. Raj, MD, MSCI, University of Calgary (Alta.), said in an interview.
In a related editorial, however, Dr. Raj and coauthor Robert S. Sheldon, MD, PhD, also from the University of Calgary, point out that the standing heart rate in the placebo phase was only 94 beats/min, “suggesting that these patients may be affected only mildly by their POTS.”
Asked about the point, Dr. Taub said: “I don’t know if I agree with that.” She noted that the diagnosis of POTS was confirmed by tilt-table testing and NE levels and that patients’ symptoms vary from day to day. “The standard deviation was plus or minus 16.8, so there’s variability.”
Both Dr. Raj and Dr. Taub said they expect the results will be included in the next scientific statement for POTS, but in the meantime, it may be a struggle to get the drug covered by insurance.
“The challenge is that this is a very off-label use for this medication, and the medication’s not cheap,” Dr. Raj observed. The price for 60 tablets, which is about a 1-month supply, is $485 on GoodRx.
Another question going forward, he said, is whether ivabradine is superior to beta-blockers, which will be studied in a 20-patient crossover trial sponsored by the University of Calgary that is about to launch. The primary completion date is set for 2024.
The study was supported by a grant from Amgen. Dr. Taub has served as a consultant for Amgen, Bayer, Esperion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; is a shareholder in Epirium Bio; and has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Department of Homeland Security/FEMA. Dr. Raj has received a research grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and research grants from Dysautonomia International to address the pathophysiology of POTS. Dr. Sheldon has received a research grant from Dysautonomia International for a clinical trial assessing ivabradine and propranolol for the treatment of POTS.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Routine COVID-19 screening unnecessary for cancer outpatients
There were no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between cases caught by routine screening and screening based on symptoms/exposure history among cancer outpatients treated at Mayo Clinic facilities, according to a review of 224 cases.
The finding led to a shift away from routine COVID-19 screening to screening based on symptoms and exposures, said lead investigator Zhuoer Xie, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo’s Rochester, Minn., campus.
“We are so happy” to see these results and be able to move away from routine screening. It’s burdensome and uncomfortable for patients and expensive to administer, Dr. Xie said at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S06-03).
Also, “our results provide reassurance that cancer care may safely continue during the pandemic with appropriate precautions,” she said.
Like many institutions, Mayo instituted routine COVID-19 screening for cancer outpatients at the start of the pandemic, requiring patients be tested 24 hours before systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery. People on multiday regimens were screened twice a week.
Among 5,452 patients at the Rochester campus and its surrounding satellites, plus Mayo’s facilities in Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., routine screening picked up 63 COVID-19 cases (1.2%) from March 18 to July 31, 2020.
The outcomes were compared with 161 COVID-19 cases screened due to symptoms and exposure history. Most of the patients were on cancer surveillance as opposed to active treatment with routine testing.
Overall, 17.5% of cases caught by routine screening (11/63) were hospitalized versus 26.7% of patients screened for risk factors (43/161).
There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission among the 63 routine screening cases (1.6%) and nine ICU admissions (5.6%) among the risk-factor screening group. Three people diagnosed by routine screening (4.8%) died, compared with six deaths in the risk factor screening group (3.7%). The differences were not statistically significant, and there was no difference in treatment delay based on screening method.
The mortality rate was substantially lower than previously reported for COVID-19 among cancer patients, perhaps in part because Mayo facilities were not overwhelmed with cases early in the pandemic, so there was never a shortage of hospital beds and other resources, Dr. Xie said.
“Many of us are glad to see your data. It’s comforting,” said presentation moderator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
With proper precautions, “we can firmly encourage patients to come” in for their “cancer treatment without any hesitation,” Dr. Peters said.
“We feel the same way. We tell our patients this might be the safest place for you to be. Everybody is masked; everybody is taking all the precautions,” said Sheena Bhalla, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“We are [also] reaching out to patients who have been hesitant” about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Bhalla said, “and trying to get them vaccinated. We are still learning how cancer patients will do with the vaccine, but we think that some protection is better than no protection.”
Currently at Mayo’s main campus in Rochester and its surrounding clinics, COVID-19 screening is based on symptoms, exposure, and factors such as high risk for neutropenic fever.
Mayo’s Arizona and Florida campuses had a surge of cases a few months ago, so routine screening is still used there but only on a monthly basis for people on active treatment.
Consistent with previous reports, older age and lymphopenia increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in Mayo’s study, but comorbidities and active cancer treatment did not.
COVID-19 patients were a median of 62 years old, and 42% were women. Breast, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tumors were the most common cancers.
Respiratory failure and sepsis were the most common complications among the 54 hospital admissions; eight patients required intubation.
The funding source wasn’t reported. The speakers had no relevant disclosures.
There were no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between cases caught by routine screening and screening based on symptoms/exposure history among cancer outpatients treated at Mayo Clinic facilities, according to a review of 224 cases.
The finding led to a shift away from routine COVID-19 screening to screening based on symptoms and exposures, said lead investigator Zhuoer Xie, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo’s Rochester, Minn., campus.
“We are so happy” to see these results and be able to move away from routine screening. It’s burdensome and uncomfortable for patients and expensive to administer, Dr. Xie said at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S06-03).
Also, “our results provide reassurance that cancer care may safely continue during the pandemic with appropriate precautions,” she said.
Like many institutions, Mayo instituted routine COVID-19 screening for cancer outpatients at the start of the pandemic, requiring patients be tested 24 hours before systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery. People on multiday regimens were screened twice a week.
Among 5,452 patients at the Rochester campus and its surrounding satellites, plus Mayo’s facilities in Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., routine screening picked up 63 COVID-19 cases (1.2%) from March 18 to July 31, 2020.
The outcomes were compared with 161 COVID-19 cases screened due to symptoms and exposure history. Most of the patients were on cancer surveillance as opposed to active treatment with routine testing.
Overall, 17.5% of cases caught by routine screening (11/63) were hospitalized versus 26.7% of patients screened for risk factors (43/161).
There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission among the 63 routine screening cases (1.6%) and nine ICU admissions (5.6%) among the risk-factor screening group. Three people diagnosed by routine screening (4.8%) died, compared with six deaths in the risk factor screening group (3.7%). The differences were not statistically significant, and there was no difference in treatment delay based on screening method.
The mortality rate was substantially lower than previously reported for COVID-19 among cancer patients, perhaps in part because Mayo facilities were not overwhelmed with cases early in the pandemic, so there was never a shortage of hospital beds and other resources, Dr. Xie said.
“Many of us are glad to see your data. It’s comforting,” said presentation moderator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
With proper precautions, “we can firmly encourage patients to come” in for their “cancer treatment without any hesitation,” Dr. Peters said.
“We feel the same way. We tell our patients this might be the safest place for you to be. Everybody is masked; everybody is taking all the precautions,” said Sheena Bhalla, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“We are [also] reaching out to patients who have been hesitant” about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Bhalla said, “and trying to get them vaccinated. We are still learning how cancer patients will do with the vaccine, but we think that some protection is better than no protection.”
Currently at Mayo’s main campus in Rochester and its surrounding clinics, COVID-19 screening is based on symptoms, exposure, and factors such as high risk for neutropenic fever.
Mayo’s Arizona and Florida campuses had a surge of cases a few months ago, so routine screening is still used there but only on a monthly basis for people on active treatment.
Consistent with previous reports, older age and lymphopenia increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in Mayo’s study, but comorbidities and active cancer treatment did not.
COVID-19 patients were a median of 62 years old, and 42% were women. Breast, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tumors were the most common cancers.
Respiratory failure and sepsis were the most common complications among the 54 hospital admissions; eight patients required intubation.
The funding source wasn’t reported. The speakers had no relevant disclosures.
There were no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between cases caught by routine screening and screening based on symptoms/exposure history among cancer outpatients treated at Mayo Clinic facilities, according to a review of 224 cases.
The finding led to a shift away from routine COVID-19 screening to screening based on symptoms and exposures, said lead investigator Zhuoer Xie, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at Mayo’s Rochester, Minn., campus.
“We are so happy” to see these results and be able to move away from routine screening. It’s burdensome and uncomfortable for patients and expensive to administer, Dr. Xie said at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S06-03).
Also, “our results provide reassurance that cancer care may safely continue during the pandemic with appropriate precautions,” she said.
Like many institutions, Mayo instituted routine COVID-19 screening for cancer outpatients at the start of the pandemic, requiring patients be tested 24 hours before systemic treatment, radiation therapy, or surgery. People on multiday regimens were screened twice a week.
Among 5,452 patients at the Rochester campus and its surrounding satellites, plus Mayo’s facilities in Phoenix and Jacksonville, Fla., routine screening picked up 63 COVID-19 cases (1.2%) from March 18 to July 31, 2020.
The outcomes were compared with 161 COVID-19 cases screened due to symptoms and exposure history. Most of the patients were on cancer surveillance as opposed to active treatment with routine testing.
Overall, 17.5% of cases caught by routine screening (11/63) were hospitalized versus 26.7% of patients screened for risk factors (43/161).
There was one COVID-19-related ICU admission among the 63 routine screening cases (1.6%) and nine ICU admissions (5.6%) among the risk-factor screening group. Three people diagnosed by routine screening (4.8%) died, compared with six deaths in the risk factor screening group (3.7%). The differences were not statistically significant, and there was no difference in treatment delay based on screening method.
The mortality rate was substantially lower than previously reported for COVID-19 among cancer patients, perhaps in part because Mayo facilities were not overwhelmed with cases early in the pandemic, so there was never a shortage of hospital beds and other resources, Dr. Xie said.
“Many of us are glad to see your data. It’s comforting,” said presentation moderator Solange Peters, MD, PhD, head of medical oncology at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland.
With proper precautions, “we can firmly encourage patients to come” in for their “cancer treatment without any hesitation,” Dr. Peters said.
“We feel the same way. We tell our patients this might be the safest place for you to be. Everybody is masked; everybody is taking all the precautions,” said Sheena Bhalla, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“We are [also] reaching out to patients who have been hesitant” about the COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Bhalla said, “and trying to get them vaccinated. We are still learning how cancer patients will do with the vaccine, but we think that some protection is better than no protection.”
Currently at Mayo’s main campus in Rochester and its surrounding clinics, COVID-19 screening is based on symptoms, exposure, and factors such as high risk for neutropenic fever.
Mayo’s Arizona and Florida campuses had a surge of cases a few months ago, so routine screening is still used there but only on a monthly basis for people on active treatment.
Consistent with previous reports, older age and lymphopenia increased the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in Mayo’s study, but comorbidities and active cancer treatment did not.
COVID-19 patients were a median of 62 years old, and 42% were women. Breast, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal tumors were the most common cancers.
Respiratory failure and sepsis were the most common complications among the 54 hospital admissions; eight patients required intubation.
The funding source wasn’t reported. The speakers had no relevant disclosures.
FROM AACR: COVID-19 AND CANCER 2021
How does an emotionally drained workforce move on post pandemic?
Psychiatric community is facing ‘triple challenges’ tied to COVID
When cases of COVID-19 began to surge in New York City in March 2020, Carol A. Bernstein, MD, did her best to practice psychiatry and carry out administrative tasks from a home office, but by mid-May, she became stir-crazy.
“I just couldn’t stand it, anymore,” Dr. Bernstein said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “I came back to work at least just to see my colleagues, because I felt so disconnected. Normally, in a disaster, people come together – whether it’s responding to an earthquake or a fire or whatever. People come together to provide themselves with support. They hug each other and hold each other’s hands. We could not and cannot do that in this pandemic.”
According to Dr. Bernstein, stress, fear, and uncertainty triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic require special attention to the needs of health care personnel.
“Taking care of yourself and encouraging others to do the same sustains the ability to care for those in need,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is vice chair for faculty development and well-being in the departments of psychiatry and behavioral science and obstetrics and gynecology at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. “This includes both meeting practical needs as well as physical and emotional self-care. Everyone is impacted by this, so emotional support needs to be available to everyone. In the psychiatric community, we have triple challenges. We have to take care of our patients, our colleagues, and ourselves. It’s a lot.”
Specific challenges for health care workers include the potential for a surge in care demand and uncertainty about future outbreaks.
“Although we don’t have [personal protective] and respirator shortages at the moment, we’re worried about the vaccine shortages,” she said. Then there’s the fact that patients with comorbid conditions have the highest risk of death and the task of providing supportive care as well as medical care. “Of course, we still have a risk of becoming infected or infecting our families. There is additional psychological stress: fear, grief, frustration, guilt, insomnia, and exhaustion.”
Now, more than a year removed from the start of the pandemic, health care personnel are experiencing compassion fatigue, which she described as the inability to feel compassion for our patients because of our inability to feel compassion for ourselves. “We’re certainly experiencing burnout, although the primary aspect of burnout that we are experiencing is emotional exhaustion,” said Dr. Bernstein, who also is a past president of the American Psychiatric Association.
General risk factors for burnout and distress include sleep deprivation, high levels of work/life conflict, work interrupted by personal concerns, high levels of anger, loneliness, or anxiety, the stress of work relationships/work outcomes, anxiety about competency, difficulty “unplugging” after work, and regular use of alcohol and other drugs. At the same time, she continued, signs of burnout and secondary traumatic stress include sadness, depression, or apathy; feeling easily frustrated; feeling isolated and disconnected from others; excessive worry or fear about something bad happening; feeling like a failure, and feeling tired, exhausted, or overwhelmed.
“Why is this crisis so hard for us docs?” she asked. “Because This can lead to medical errors and unprofessional behavior. There are significant feelings of guilt that ‘I’m not doing enough.’
“This was true for a lot of us in psychiatry who were working virtually early during the pandemic while our medicine colleagues were on the front lines exposing themselves to COVID. Even the people working on the COVID units at the height on the initial surge felt guilty because treatment algorithms were changing almost every day. Fortunately, protocols are more established now, but the sense of not doing enough is pervasive and makes it difficult for us to ask for help.”
Fear of the unknown also posed a challenge to the workforce. “We didn’t know what we were dealing with at first,” she said. “The loss of control and autonomy, which is a major driver of burnout in the best of circumstances, was particularly true here in New York. People were told what to do. They were deployed into new circumstances. We experienced a significant loss of control, both of the virus and of what we were doing, and a widespread sense of isolation and loneliness.”
To cultivate resilience going forward, Dr. Bernstein advocates for the concept of psychological flexibility, which she defined as the ability to stay in contact with the present moment regardless of unpleasant thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations, while choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values. “It is understanding that you can feel demoralized and bad one minute and better the next day,” she said. “This is a key concept for being able to continuously adapt under stressful circumstances and to tolerate uncertainty.”
She advises clinicians to identify safe areas and behaviors, and to maximize their ability to care for themselves and their families – including keeping in touch with colleagues and people you care about. “You also want to take advantage of calming skills and the maintenance of natural body rhythms,” she said. “This includes sensible nutrition and getting adequate rest and exercise.”
Dr. Bernstein also emphasized the importance of trying to maintain hope and optimism while not denying risk. “We also have to think about ethics, to provide the best possible care given the circumstances,” she said. “The crisis standards of care are necessarily different. We are not ethically required to offer futile care, but we must tell the truth.”
She pointed out that resilience is sometimes thought of as returning to the way you were before a stressful or life-altering event. “But here we refer to it as using your coping resources, connecting to others, and cultivating your values and purpose in life as you ride through this time of stress,” Dr. Bernstein said. “You are aware of the time it takes to develop and test for treatment and vaccine efficacy, and to then roll out these interventions, so you do know there will be an end to this, hopefully by the summer. While you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control, your positive relationships, remind yourself of your purpose, and practice gratitude for what you are thankful for in your life. We need to cultivate what is positive and promote the message that emotional health should have the same priority level as physical health. The goal is to flourish.”
Dr. Bernstein reported having no financial disclosures.
Psychiatric community is facing ‘triple challenges’ tied to COVID
Psychiatric community is facing ‘triple challenges’ tied to COVID
When cases of COVID-19 began to surge in New York City in March 2020, Carol A. Bernstein, MD, did her best to practice psychiatry and carry out administrative tasks from a home office, but by mid-May, she became stir-crazy.
“I just couldn’t stand it, anymore,” Dr. Bernstein said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “I came back to work at least just to see my colleagues, because I felt so disconnected. Normally, in a disaster, people come together – whether it’s responding to an earthquake or a fire or whatever. People come together to provide themselves with support. They hug each other and hold each other’s hands. We could not and cannot do that in this pandemic.”
According to Dr. Bernstein, stress, fear, and uncertainty triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic require special attention to the needs of health care personnel.
“Taking care of yourself and encouraging others to do the same sustains the ability to care for those in need,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is vice chair for faculty development and well-being in the departments of psychiatry and behavioral science and obstetrics and gynecology at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. “This includes both meeting practical needs as well as physical and emotional self-care. Everyone is impacted by this, so emotional support needs to be available to everyone. In the psychiatric community, we have triple challenges. We have to take care of our patients, our colleagues, and ourselves. It’s a lot.”
Specific challenges for health care workers include the potential for a surge in care demand and uncertainty about future outbreaks.
“Although we don’t have [personal protective] and respirator shortages at the moment, we’re worried about the vaccine shortages,” she said. Then there’s the fact that patients with comorbid conditions have the highest risk of death and the task of providing supportive care as well as medical care. “Of course, we still have a risk of becoming infected or infecting our families. There is additional psychological stress: fear, grief, frustration, guilt, insomnia, and exhaustion.”
Now, more than a year removed from the start of the pandemic, health care personnel are experiencing compassion fatigue, which she described as the inability to feel compassion for our patients because of our inability to feel compassion for ourselves. “We’re certainly experiencing burnout, although the primary aspect of burnout that we are experiencing is emotional exhaustion,” said Dr. Bernstein, who also is a past president of the American Psychiatric Association.
General risk factors for burnout and distress include sleep deprivation, high levels of work/life conflict, work interrupted by personal concerns, high levels of anger, loneliness, or anxiety, the stress of work relationships/work outcomes, anxiety about competency, difficulty “unplugging” after work, and regular use of alcohol and other drugs. At the same time, she continued, signs of burnout and secondary traumatic stress include sadness, depression, or apathy; feeling easily frustrated; feeling isolated and disconnected from others; excessive worry or fear about something bad happening; feeling like a failure, and feeling tired, exhausted, or overwhelmed.
“Why is this crisis so hard for us docs?” she asked. “Because This can lead to medical errors and unprofessional behavior. There are significant feelings of guilt that ‘I’m not doing enough.’
“This was true for a lot of us in psychiatry who were working virtually early during the pandemic while our medicine colleagues were on the front lines exposing themselves to COVID. Even the people working on the COVID units at the height on the initial surge felt guilty because treatment algorithms were changing almost every day. Fortunately, protocols are more established now, but the sense of not doing enough is pervasive and makes it difficult for us to ask for help.”
Fear of the unknown also posed a challenge to the workforce. “We didn’t know what we were dealing with at first,” she said. “The loss of control and autonomy, which is a major driver of burnout in the best of circumstances, was particularly true here in New York. People were told what to do. They were deployed into new circumstances. We experienced a significant loss of control, both of the virus and of what we were doing, and a widespread sense of isolation and loneliness.”
To cultivate resilience going forward, Dr. Bernstein advocates for the concept of psychological flexibility, which she defined as the ability to stay in contact with the present moment regardless of unpleasant thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations, while choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values. “It is understanding that you can feel demoralized and bad one minute and better the next day,” she said. “This is a key concept for being able to continuously adapt under stressful circumstances and to tolerate uncertainty.”
She advises clinicians to identify safe areas and behaviors, and to maximize their ability to care for themselves and their families – including keeping in touch with colleagues and people you care about. “You also want to take advantage of calming skills and the maintenance of natural body rhythms,” she said. “This includes sensible nutrition and getting adequate rest and exercise.”
Dr. Bernstein also emphasized the importance of trying to maintain hope and optimism while not denying risk. “We also have to think about ethics, to provide the best possible care given the circumstances,” she said. “The crisis standards of care are necessarily different. We are not ethically required to offer futile care, but we must tell the truth.”
She pointed out that resilience is sometimes thought of as returning to the way you were before a stressful or life-altering event. “But here we refer to it as using your coping resources, connecting to others, and cultivating your values and purpose in life as you ride through this time of stress,” Dr. Bernstein said. “You are aware of the time it takes to develop and test for treatment and vaccine efficacy, and to then roll out these interventions, so you do know there will be an end to this, hopefully by the summer. While you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control, your positive relationships, remind yourself of your purpose, and practice gratitude for what you are thankful for in your life. We need to cultivate what is positive and promote the message that emotional health should have the same priority level as physical health. The goal is to flourish.”
Dr. Bernstein reported having no financial disclosures.
When cases of COVID-19 began to surge in New York City in March 2020, Carol A. Bernstein, MD, did her best to practice psychiatry and carry out administrative tasks from a home office, but by mid-May, she became stir-crazy.
“I just couldn’t stand it, anymore,” Dr. Bernstein said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “I came back to work at least just to see my colleagues, because I felt so disconnected. Normally, in a disaster, people come together – whether it’s responding to an earthquake or a fire or whatever. People come together to provide themselves with support. They hug each other and hold each other’s hands. We could not and cannot do that in this pandemic.”
According to Dr. Bernstein, stress, fear, and uncertainty triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic require special attention to the needs of health care personnel.
“Taking care of yourself and encouraging others to do the same sustains the ability to care for those in need,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is vice chair for faculty development and well-being in the departments of psychiatry and behavioral science and obstetrics and gynecology at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. “This includes both meeting practical needs as well as physical and emotional self-care. Everyone is impacted by this, so emotional support needs to be available to everyone. In the psychiatric community, we have triple challenges. We have to take care of our patients, our colleagues, and ourselves. It’s a lot.”
Specific challenges for health care workers include the potential for a surge in care demand and uncertainty about future outbreaks.
“Although we don’t have [personal protective] and respirator shortages at the moment, we’re worried about the vaccine shortages,” she said. Then there’s the fact that patients with comorbid conditions have the highest risk of death and the task of providing supportive care as well as medical care. “Of course, we still have a risk of becoming infected or infecting our families. There is additional psychological stress: fear, grief, frustration, guilt, insomnia, and exhaustion.”
Now, more than a year removed from the start of the pandemic, health care personnel are experiencing compassion fatigue, which she described as the inability to feel compassion for our patients because of our inability to feel compassion for ourselves. “We’re certainly experiencing burnout, although the primary aspect of burnout that we are experiencing is emotional exhaustion,” said Dr. Bernstein, who also is a past president of the American Psychiatric Association.
General risk factors for burnout and distress include sleep deprivation, high levels of work/life conflict, work interrupted by personal concerns, high levels of anger, loneliness, or anxiety, the stress of work relationships/work outcomes, anxiety about competency, difficulty “unplugging” after work, and regular use of alcohol and other drugs. At the same time, she continued, signs of burnout and secondary traumatic stress include sadness, depression, or apathy; feeling easily frustrated; feeling isolated and disconnected from others; excessive worry or fear about something bad happening; feeling like a failure, and feeling tired, exhausted, or overwhelmed.
“Why is this crisis so hard for us docs?” she asked. “Because This can lead to medical errors and unprofessional behavior. There are significant feelings of guilt that ‘I’m not doing enough.’
“This was true for a lot of us in psychiatry who were working virtually early during the pandemic while our medicine colleagues were on the front lines exposing themselves to COVID. Even the people working on the COVID units at the height on the initial surge felt guilty because treatment algorithms were changing almost every day. Fortunately, protocols are more established now, but the sense of not doing enough is pervasive and makes it difficult for us to ask for help.”
Fear of the unknown also posed a challenge to the workforce. “We didn’t know what we were dealing with at first,” she said. “The loss of control and autonomy, which is a major driver of burnout in the best of circumstances, was particularly true here in New York. People were told what to do. They were deployed into new circumstances. We experienced a significant loss of control, both of the virus and of what we were doing, and a widespread sense of isolation and loneliness.”
To cultivate resilience going forward, Dr. Bernstein advocates for the concept of psychological flexibility, which she defined as the ability to stay in contact with the present moment regardless of unpleasant thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations, while choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values. “It is understanding that you can feel demoralized and bad one minute and better the next day,” she said. “This is a key concept for being able to continuously adapt under stressful circumstances and to tolerate uncertainty.”
She advises clinicians to identify safe areas and behaviors, and to maximize their ability to care for themselves and their families – including keeping in touch with colleagues and people you care about. “You also want to take advantage of calming skills and the maintenance of natural body rhythms,” she said. “This includes sensible nutrition and getting adequate rest and exercise.”
Dr. Bernstein also emphasized the importance of trying to maintain hope and optimism while not denying risk. “We also have to think about ethics, to provide the best possible care given the circumstances,” she said. “The crisis standards of care are necessarily different. We are not ethically required to offer futile care, but we must tell the truth.”
She pointed out that resilience is sometimes thought of as returning to the way you were before a stressful or life-altering event. “But here we refer to it as using your coping resources, connecting to others, and cultivating your values and purpose in life as you ride through this time of stress,” Dr. Bernstein said. “You are aware of the time it takes to develop and test for treatment and vaccine efficacy, and to then roll out these interventions, so you do know there will be an end to this, hopefully by the summer. While you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control, your positive relationships, remind yourself of your purpose, and practice gratitude for what you are thankful for in your life. We need to cultivate what is positive and promote the message that emotional health should have the same priority level as physical health. The goal is to flourish.”
Dr. Bernstein reported having no financial disclosures.
FROM NPA 2021
CDC chief lays out attack plan for COVID variants
earlier this week.
As part of JAMA’s Q&A series with JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, Dr. Walensky referenced the blueprint she coathored with Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, and Henry T. Walke, MD, MPH, of the CDC, which was published on Feb. 17 in JAMA.
In the viewpoint article, they explain that the Department of Health & Human Services has established the SARS-CoV-2 Interagency Group to improve coordination among the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense.
Dr. Walensky said the first objective is to reinforce vigilance regarding public health mitigation strategies to decrease the amount of virus that’s circulating.
As part of that strategy, she said, the CDC strongly urges against nonessential travel.
In addition, public health leaders are working on a surveillance system to better understand the SARS-CoV-2 variants. That will take ramping up genome sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and ensuring that sampling is geographically representative.
She said the CDC is partnering with state health labs to obtain about 750 samples every week and is teaming up with commercial labs and academic centers to obtain an interim target of 6,000 samples per week.
She acknowledged the United States “is not where we need to be” with sequencing but has come a long way since January. At that time, they were sequencing 250 samples every week; they are currently sequencing thousands each week.
Data analysis is another concern: “We need to be able to understand at the basic science level what the information means,” Dr. Walensky said.
Researchers aren’t sure how the variants might affect use of convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibody treatments. It is expected that 5% of persons who are vaccinated against COVID-19 will nevertheless contract the disease. Sequencing will help answer whether such persons who have been vaccinated and who subsequently contract the virus are among those 5% or whether have been infected by a variant that evades the vaccine.
Accelerating vaccine administration globally and in the United States is essential, Dr. Walensky said.
As of Feb. 17, 56 million doses had been administered in the United States.
Top three threats
She updated the numbers on the three biggest variant threats.
Regarding B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom, she said: “So far, we’ve had over 1,200 cases in 41 states.” She noted that the variant is likely to be about 50% more transmissible and 30% to 50% more virulent.
“So far, it looks like that strain doesn’t have any real decrease in susceptibility to our vaccines,” she said.
The strain from South Africa (B.1.351) has been found in 19 cases in the United States.
The P.1. variant, which originated in Brazil, has been identified in two cases in two states.
Outlook for March and April
Dr. Bauchner asked Dr. Walensky what she envisions for March and April. He noted that public optimism is high in light of the continued reductions in COVID-19 case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths, as well as the fact that warmer weather is coming and that more vaccinations are on the horizon.
“While I really am hopeful for what could happen in March and April,” Dr. Walensky said, “I really do know that this could go bad so fast. We saw it in November. We saw it in December.”
CDC models have projected that, by March, the more transmissible B.1.1.7 strain is likely to be the dominant strain, she reiterated.
“I worry that it will be spring, and we will all have had enough,” Dr. Walensky said. She noted that some states are already relaxing mask mandates.
“Around that time, life will look and feel a little better, and the motivation for those who might be vaccine hesitant may be diminished,” she said.
Dr. Bauchner also asked her to weigh in on whether a third vaccine, from Johnson & Johnson (J&J), may soon gain FDA emergency-use authorization – and whether its lower expected efficacy rate may result in a tiered system of vaccinations, with higher-risk populations receiving the more efficacious vaccines.
Dr. Walensky said more data are needed before that question can be answered.
“It may very well be that the data point us to the best populations in which to use this vaccine,” she said.
In phase 3 data, the J&J vaccine was shown to be 72% effective in the United States for moderate to severe disease.
Dr. Walensky said it’s important to remember that the projected efficacy for that vaccine is higher than that for the flu shot as well as many other vaccines currently in use for other diseases.
She said it also has several advantages. The vaccine has less-stringent storage requirements, requires just one dose, and protects against hospitalization and death, although it’s less efficacious in protecting against contracting the disease.
“I think many people would opt to get that one if they could get it sooner,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
earlier this week.
As part of JAMA’s Q&A series with JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, Dr. Walensky referenced the blueprint she coathored with Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, and Henry T. Walke, MD, MPH, of the CDC, which was published on Feb. 17 in JAMA.
In the viewpoint article, they explain that the Department of Health & Human Services has established the SARS-CoV-2 Interagency Group to improve coordination among the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense.
Dr. Walensky said the first objective is to reinforce vigilance regarding public health mitigation strategies to decrease the amount of virus that’s circulating.
As part of that strategy, she said, the CDC strongly urges against nonessential travel.
In addition, public health leaders are working on a surveillance system to better understand the SARS-CoV-2 variants. That will take ramping up genome sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and ensuring that sampling is geographically representative.
She said the CDC is partnering with state health labs to obtain about 750 samples every week and is teaming up with commercial labs and academic centers to obtain an interim target of 6,000 samples per week.
She acknowledged the United States “is not where we need to be” with sequencing but has come a long way since January. At that time, they were sequencing 250 samples every week; they are currently sequencing thousands each week.
Data analysis is another concern: “We need to be able to understand at the basic science level what the information means,” Dr. Walensky said.
Researchers aren’t sure how the variants might affect use of convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibody treatments. It is expected that 5% of persons who are vaccinated against COVID-19 will nevertheless contract the disease. Sequencing will help answer whether such persons who have been vaccinated and who subsequently contract the virus are among those 5% or whether have been infected by a variant that evades the vaccine.
Accelerating vaccine administration globally and in the United States is essential, Dr. Walensky said.
As of Feb. 17, 56 million doses had been administered in the United States.
Top three threats
She updated the numbers on the three biggest variant threats.
Regarding B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom, she said: “So far, we’ve had over 1,200 cases in 41 states.” She noted that the variant is likely to be about 50% more transmissible and 30% to 50% more virulent.
“So far, it looks like that strain doesn’t have any real decrease in susceptibility to our vaccines,” she said.
The strain from South Africa (B.1.351) has been found in 19 cases in the United States.
The P.1. variant, which originated in Brazil, has been identified in two cases in two states.
Outlook for March and April
Dr. Bauchner asked Dr. Walensky what she envisions for March and April. He noted that public optimism is high in light of the continued reductions in COVID-19 case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths, as well as the fact that warmer weather is coming and that more vaccinations are on the horizon.
“While I really am hopeful for what could happen in March and April,” Dr. Walensky said, “I really do know that this could go bad so fast. We saw it in November. We saw it in December.”
CDC models have projected that, by March, the more transmissible B.1.1.7 strain is likely to be the dominant strain, she reiterated.
“I worry that it will be spring, and we will all have had enough,” Dr. Walensky said. She noted that some states are already relaxing mask mandates.
“Around that time, life will look and feel a little better, and the motivation for those who might be vaccine hesitant may be diminished,” she said.
Dr. Bauchner also asked her to weigh in on whether a third vaccine, from Johnson & Johnson (J&J), may soon gain FDA emergency-use authorization – and whether its lower expected efficacy rate may result in a tiered system of vaccinations, with higher-risk populations receiving the more efficacious vaccines.
Dr. Walensky said more data are needed before that question can be answered.
“It may very well be that the data point us to the best populations in which to use this vaccine,” she said.
In phase 3 data, the J&J vaccine was shown to be 72% effective in the United States for moderate to severe disease.
Dr. Walensky said it’s important to remember that the projected efficacy for that vaccine is higher than that for the flu shot as well as many other vaccines currently in use for other diseases.
She said it also has several advantages. The vaccine has less-stringent storage requirements, requires just one dose, and protects against hospitalization and death, although it’s less efficacious in protecting against contracting the disease.
“I think many people would opt to get that one if they could get it sooner,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
earlier this week.
As part of JAMA’s Q&A series with JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, Dr. Walensky referenced the blueprint she coathored with Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, and Henry T. Walke, MD, MPH, of the CDC, which was published on Feb. 17 in JAMA.
In the viewpoint article, they explain that the Department of Health & Human Services has established the SARS-CoV-2 Interagency Group to improve coordination among the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense.
Dr. Walensky said the first objective is to reinforce vigilance regarding public health mitigation strategies to decrease the amount of virus that’s circulating.
As part of that strategy, she said, the CDC strongly urges against nonessential travel.
In addition, public health leaders are working on a surveillance system to better understand the SARS-CoV-2 variants. That will take ramping up genome sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and ensuring that sampling is geographically representative.
She said the CDC is partnering with state health labs to obtain about 750 samples every week and is teaming up with commercial labs and academic centers to obtain an interim target of 6,000 samples per week.
She acknowledged the United States “is not where we need to be” with sequencing but has come a long way since January. At that time, they were sequencing 250 samples every week; they are currently sequencing thousands each week.
Data analysis is another concern: “We need to be able to understand at the basic science level what the information means,” Dr. Walensky said.
Researchers aren’t sure how the variants might affect use of convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibody treatments. It is expected that 5% of persons who are vaccinated against COVID-19 will nevertheless contract the disease. Sequencing will help answer whether such persons who have been vaccinated and who subsequently contract the virus are among those 5% or whether have been infected by a variant that evades the vaccine.
Accelerating vaccine administration globally and in the United States is essential, Dr. Walensky said.
As of Feb. 17, 56 million doses had been administered in the United States.
Top three threats
She updated the numbers on the three biggest variant threats.
Regarding B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom, she said: “So far, we’ve had over 1,200 cases in 41 states.” She noted that the variant is likely to be about 50% more transmissible and 30% to 50% more virulent.
“So far, it looks like that strain doesn’t have any real decrease in susceptibility to our vaccines,” she said.
The strain from South Africa (B.1.351) has been found in 19 cases in the United States.
The P.1. variant, which originated in Brazil, has been identified in two cases in two states.
Outlook for March and April
Dr. Bauchner asked Dr. Walensky what she envisions for March and April. He noted that public optimism is high in light of the continued reductions in COVID-19 case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths, as well as the fact that warmer weather is coming and that more vaccinations are on the horizon.
“While I really am hopeful for what could happen in March and April,” Dr. Walensky said, “I really do know that this could go bad so fast. We saw it in November. We saw it in December.”
CDC models have projected that, by March, the more transmissible B.1.1.7 strain is likely to be the dominant strain, she reiterated.
“I worry that it will be spring, and we will all have had enough,” Dr. Walensky said. She noted that some states are already relaxing mask mandates.
“Around that time, life will look and feel a little better, and the motivation for those who might be vaccine hesitant may be diminished,” she said.
Dr. Bauchner also asked her to weigh in on whether a third vaccine, from Johnson & Johnson (J&J), may soon gain FDA emergency-use authorization – and whether its lower expected efficacy rate may result in a tiered system of vaccinations, with higher-risk populations receiving the more efficacious vaccines.
Dr. Walensky said more data are needed before that question can be answered.
“It may very well be that the data point us to the best populations in which to use this vaccine,” she said.
In phase 3 data, the J&J vaccine was shown to be 72% effective in the United States for moderate to severe disease.
Dr. Walensky said it’s important to remember that the projected efficacy for that vaccine is higher than that for the flu shot as well as many other vaccines currently in use for other diseases.
She said it also has several advantages. The vaccine has less-stringent storage requirements, requires just one dose, and protects against hospitalization and death, although it’s less efficacious in protecting against contracting the disease.
“I think many people would opt to get that one if they could get it sooner,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Alien cells may explain COVID-19 brain fog
, a new report suggests.
The authors report five separate post-mortem cases from patients who died with COVID-19 in which large cells resembling megakaryocytes were identified in cortical capillaries. Immunohistochemistry subsequently confirmed their megakaryocyte identity.
They point out that the finding is of interest as – to their knowledge – megakaryocytes have not been found in the brain before.
The observations are described in a research letter published online Feb. 12 in JAMA Neurology.
Bone marrow cells in the brain
Lead author David Nauen, MD, PhD, a neuropathologist from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, reported that he identified these cells in the first analysis of post-mortem brain tissue from a patient who had COVID-19.
“Some other viruses cause changes in the brain such as encephalopathy, and as neurologic symptoms are often reported in COVID-19, I was curious to see if similar effects were seen in brain post-mortem samples from patients who had died with the infection,” Dr. Nauen said.
On his first analysis of the brain tissue of a patient who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen saw no evidence of viral encephalitis, but he observed some “unusually large” cells in the brain capillaries.
“I was taken aback; I couldn’t figure out what they were. Then I realized these cells were megakaryocytes from the bone marrow. I have never seen these cells in the brain before. I asked several colleagues and none of them had either. After extensive literature searches, I could find no evidence of megakaryocytes being in the brain,” Dr. Nauen noted.
Megakaryocytes, he explained, are “very large cells, and the brain capillaries are very small – just large enough to let red blood cells and lymphocytes pass through. To see these very large cells in such vessels is extremely unusual. It looks like they are causing occlusions.”
By occluding flow through individual capillaries, these large cells could cause ischemic alteration in a distinct pattern, potentially resulting in an atypical form of neurologic impairment, the authors suggest.
“This might alter the hemodynamics and put pressure on other vessels, possibly contributing to the increased risk of stroke that has been reported in COVID-19,” Dr. Nauen said. None of the samples he examined came from patients with COVID-19 who had had a stroke, he reported.
Other than the presence of megakaryocytes in the capillaries, the brain looked normal, he said. He has now examined samples from 15 brains of patients who had COVID-19 and megakaryocytes have been found in the brain capillaries in five cases.
New neurologic complication
Classic encephalitis found with other viruses has not been reported in brain post-mortem examinations from patients who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen noted. “The cognitive issues such as grogginess associated with COVID-19 would indicate problems with the cortex but that hasn’t been documented. This occlusion of a multitude of tiny vessels by megalokaryocytes may offer some explanation of the cognitive issues. This is a new kind of vascular insult seen on pathology, and suggests a new kind of neurologic complication,” he added.
The big question is what these megakaryocytes are doing in the brain.
“Megakaryocytes are bone marrow cells. They are not immune cells. Their job is to produce platelets to help the blood clot. They are not normally found outside the bone marrow, but they have been reported in other organs in COVID-19 patients.
“But the big puzzle associated with finding them in the brain is how they get through the very fine network of blood vessels in the lungs. The geometry just doesn’t work. We don’t know which part of the COVID inflammatory response makes this happen,” said Dr. Nauen.
The authors suggest one possibility is that altered endothelial or other signaling is recruiting megakaryocytes into the circulation and somehow permitting them to pass through the lungs.
“We need to try and understand if there is anything distinctive about these megakaryocytes – which proteins are they expressing that may explain why they are behaving in such an unusual way,” said Dr. Nauen.
Noting that many patients with severe COVID-19 have problems with clotting, and megakaryocytes are part of the clotting system, he speculated that some sort of aberrant message is being sent to these cells.
“It is notable that we found megakaryocytes in cortical capillaries in 33% of cases examined. Because the standard brain autopsy sections taken sampled at random [are] only a minute portion of the cortical volume, finding these cells suggests the total burden could be considerable,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Nauen added that to his knowledge, this is the first report of such observations, and the next step is to look for similar findings in larger sample sizes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new report suggests.
The authors report five separate post-mortem cases from patients who died with COVID-19 in which large cells resembling megakaryocytes were identified in cortical capillaries. Immunohistochemistry subsequently confirmed their megakaryocyte identity.
They point out that the finding is of interest as – to their knowledge – megakaryocytes have not been found in the brain before.
The observations are described in a research letter published online Feb. 12 in JAMA Neurology.
Bone marrow cells in the brain
Lead author David Nauen, MD, PhD, a neuropathologist from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, reported that he identified these cells in the first analysis of post-mortem brain tissue from a patient who had COVID-19.
“Some other viruses cause changes in the brain such as encephalopathy, and as neurologic symptoms are often reported in COVID-19, I was curious to see if similar effects were seen in brain post-mortem samples from patients who had died with the infection,” Dr. Nauen said.
On his first analysis of the brain tissue of a patient who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen saw no evidence of viral encephalitis, but he observed some “unusually large” cells in the brain capillaries.
“I was taken aback; I couldn’t figure out what they were. Then I realized these cells were megakaryocytes from the bone marrow. I have never seen these cells in the brain before. I asked several colleagues and none of them had either. After extensive literature searches, I could find no evidence of megakaryocytes being in the brain,” Dr. Nauen noted.
Megakaryocytes, he explained, are “very large cells, and the brain capillaries are very small – just large enough to let red blood cells and lymphocytes pass through. To see these very large cells in such vessels is extremely unusual. It looks like they are causing occlusions.”
By occluding flow through individual capillaries, these large cells could cause ischemic alteration in a distinct pattern, potentially resulting in an atypical form of neurologic impairment, the authors suggest.
“This might alter the hemodynamics and put pressure on other vessels, possibly contributing to the increased risk of stroke that has been reported in COVID-19,” Dr. Nauen said. None of the samples he examined came from patients with COVID-19 who had had a stroke, he reported.
Other than the presence of megakaryocytes in the capillaries, the brain looked normal, he said. He has now examined samples from 15 brains of patients who had COVID-19 and megakaryocytes have been found in the brain capillaries in five cases.
New neurologic complication
Classic encephalitis found with other viruses has not been reported in brain post-mortem examinations from patients who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen noted. “The cognitive issues such as grogginess associated with COVID-19 would indicate problems with the cortex but that hasn’t been documented. This occlusion of a multitude of tiny vessels by megalokaryocytes may offer some explanation of the cognitive issues. This is a new kind of vascular insult seen on pathology, and suggests a new kind of neurologic complication,” he added.
The big question is what these megakaryocytes are doing in the brain.
“Megakaryocytes are bone marrow cells. They are not immune cells. Their job is to produce platelets to help the blood clot. They are not normally found outside the bone marrow, but they have been reported in other organs in COVID-19 patients.
“But the big puzzle associated with finding them in the brain is how they get through the very fine network of blood vessels in the lungs. The geometry just doesn’t work. We don’t know which part of the COVID inflammatory response makes this happen,” said Dr. Nauen.
The authors suggest one possibility is that altered endothelial or other signaling is recruiting megakaryocytes into the circulation and somehow permitting them to pass through the lungs.
“We need to try and understand if there is anything distinctive about these megakaryocytes – which proteins are they expressing that may explain why they are behaving in such an unusual way,” said Dr. Nauen.
Noting that many patients with severe COVID-19 have problems with clotting, and megakaryocytes are part of the clotting system, he speculated that some sort of aberrant message is being sent to these cells.
“It is notable that we found megakaryocytes in cortical capillaries in 33% of cases examined. Because the standard brain autopsy sections taken sampled at random [are] only a minute portion of the cortical volume, finding these cells suggests the total burden could be considerable,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Nauen added that to his knowledge, this is the first report of such observations, and the next step is to look for similar findings in larger sample sizes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new report suggests.
The authors report five separate post-mortem cases from patients who died with COVID-19 in which large cells resembling megakaryocytes were identified in cortical capillaries. Immunohistochemistry subsequently confirmed their megakaryocyte identity.
They point out that the finding is of interest as – to their knowledge – megakaryocytes have not been found in the brain before.
The observations are described in a research letter published online Feb. 12 in JAMA Neurology.
Bone marrow cells in the brain
Lead author David Nauen, MD, PhD, a neuropathologist from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, reported that he identified these cells in the first analysis of post-mortem brain tissue from a patient who had COVID-19.
“Some other viruses cause changes in the brain such as encephalopathy, and as neurologic symptoms are often reported in COVID-19, I was curious to see if similar effects were seen in brain post-mortem samples from patients who had died with the infection,” Dr. Nauen said.
On his first analysis of the brain tissue of a patient who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen saw no evidence of viral encephalitis, but he observed some “unusually large” cells in the brain capillaries.
“I was taken aback; I couldn’t figure out what they were. Then I realized these cells were megakaryocytes from the bone marrow. I have never seen these cells in the brain before. I asked several colleagues and none of them had either. After extensive literature searches, I could find no evidence of megakaryocytes being in the brain,” Dr. Nauen noted.
Megakaryocytes, he explained, are “very large cells, and the brain capillaries are very small – just large enough to let red blood cells and lymphocytes pass through. To see these very large cells in such vessels is extremely unusual. It looks like they are causing occlusions.”
By occluding flow through individual capillaries, these large cells could cause ischemic alteration in a distinct pattern, potentially resulting in an atypical form of neurologic impairment, the authors suggest.
“This might alter the hemodynamics and put pressure on other vessels, possibly contributing to the increased risk of stroke that has been reported in COVID-19,” Dr. Nauen said. None of the samples he examined came from patients with COVID-19 who had had a stroke, he reported.
Other than the presence of megakaryocytes in the capillaries, the brain looked normal, he said. He has now examined samples from 15 brains of patients who had COVID-19 and megakaryocytes have been found in the brain capillaries in five cases.
New neurologic complication
Classic encephalitis found with other viruses has not been reported in brain post-mortem examinations from patients who had COVID-19, Dr. Nauen noted. “The cognitive issues such as grogginess associated with COVID-19 would indicate problems with the cortex but that hasn’t been documented. This occlusion of a multitude of tiny vessels by megalokaryocytes may offer some explanation of the cognitive issues. This is a new kind of vascular insult seen on pathology, and suggests a new kind of neurologic complication,” he added.
The big question is what these megakaryocytes are doing in the brain.
“Megakaryocytes are bone marrow cells. They are not immune cells. Their job is to produce platelets to help the blood clot. They are not normally found outside the bone marrow, but they have been reported in other organs in COVID-19 patients.
“But the big puzzle associated with finding them in the brain is how they get through the very fine network of blood vessels in the lungs. The geometry just doesn’t work. We don’t know which part of the COVID inflammatory response makes this happen,” said Dr. Nauen.
The authors suggest one possibility is that altered endothelial or other signaling is recruiting megakaryocytes into the circulation and somehow permitting them to pass through the lungs.
“We need to try and understand if there is anything distinctive about these megakaryocytes – which proteins are they expressing that may explain why they are behaving in such an unusual way,” said Dr. Nauen.
Noting that many patients with severe COVID-19 have problems with clotting, and megakaryocytes are part of the clotting system, he speculated that some sort of aberrant message is being sent to these cells.
“It is notable that we found megakaryocytes in cortical capillaries in 33% of cases examined. Because the standard brain autopsy sections taken sampled at random [are] only a minute portion of the cortical volume, finding these cells suggests the total burden could be considerable,” the authors wrote.
Dr. Nauen added that to his knowledge, this is the first report of such observations, and the next step is to look for similar findings in larger sample sizes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
How has the pandemic affected rural and urban cancer patients?
Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.
Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).
A new survey has provided some insight into how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted rural and urban cancer patients differently.
The survey showed that urban patients were more likely to report changes to their daily lives, thought themselves more likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2, and were more likely to take measures to mitigate the risk of infection. However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients with regard to changes in social interaction.
Bailee Daniels of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, presented these results at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S04-03).
The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium
Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.
At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes
Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.
Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.
Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.
The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients
There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.
More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).
“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic
Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).
However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).
Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).
In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).
Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).
It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
Future directions
Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.
It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.
As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.
In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.
As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.
Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).
A new survey has provided some insight into how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted rural and urban cancer patients differently.
The survey showed that urban patients were more likely to report changes to their daily lives, thought themselves more likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2, and were more likely to take measures to mitigate the risk of infection. However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients with regard to changes in social interaction.
Bailee Daniels of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, presented these results at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S04-03).
The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium
Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.
At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes
Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.
Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.
Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.
The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients
There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.
More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).
“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic
Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).
However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).
Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).
In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).
Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).
It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
Future directions
Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.
It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.
As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.
In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.
As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.
Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).
A new survey has provided some insight into how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted rural and urban cancer patients differently.
The survey showed that urban patients were more likely to report changes to their daily lives, thought themselves more likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2, and were more likely to take measures to mitigate the risk of infection. However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients with regard to changes in social interaction.
Bailee Daniels of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, presented these results at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S04-03).
The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium
Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.
At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes
Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.
Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.
Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.
The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients
There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.
More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).
“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic
Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).
However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).
Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).
In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).
Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).
It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
Future directions
Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.
It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.
As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.
In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.
As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
FROM AACR: COVID-19 AND CANCER 2021
New child COVID-19 cases decline as total passes 3 million
New COVID-19 cases in children continue to drop each week, but the total number of cases has now surpassed 3 million since the start of the pandemic, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
It was still enough, though, to bring the total to 3.03 million children infected with SARS-CoV-19 in the United States, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly report.
The nation also hit a couple of other ignominious milestones. The cumulative rate of COVID-19 infection now stands at 4,030 per 100,000, so 4% of all children have been infected. Also, children represented 16.9% of all new cases for the week, which equals the highest proportion seen throughout the pandemic, based on data from health departments in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
There have been 241 COVID-19–related deaths in children so far, with 14 reported during the week of Feb. 5-11. Kansas just recorded its first pediatric death, which leaves 10 states that have had no fatalities. Texas, with 39 deaths, has had more than any other state, among the 43 that are reporting mortality by age, the AAP/CHA report showed.
New COVID-19 cases in children continue to drop each week, but the total number of cases has now surpassed 3 million since the start of the pandemic, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
It was still enough, though, to bring the total to 3.03 million children infected with SARS-CoV-19 in the United States, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly report.
The nation also hit a couple of other ignominious milestones. The cumulative rate of COVID-19 infection now stands at 4,030 per 100,000, so 4% of all children have been infected. Also, children represented 16.9% of all new cases for the week, which equals the highest proportion seen throughout the pandemic, based on data from health departments in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
There have been 241 COVID-19–related deaths in children so far, with 14 reported during the week of Feb. 5-11. Kansas just recorded its first pediatric death, which leaves 10 states that have had no fatalities. Texas, with 39 deaths, has had more than any other state, among the 43 that are reporting mortality by age, the AAP/CHA report showed.
New COVID-19 cases in children continue to drop each week, but the total number of cases has now surpassed 3 million since the start of the pandemic, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
It was still enough, though, to bring the total to 3.03 million children infected with SARS-CoV-19 in the United States, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly report.
The nation also hit a couple of other ignominious milestones. The cumulative rate of COVID-19 infection now stands at 4,030 per 100,000, so 4% of all children have been infected. Also, children represented 16.9% of all new cases for the week, which equals the highest proportion seen throughout the pandemic, based on data from health departments in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
There have been 241 COVID-19–related deaths in children so far, with 14 reported during the week of Feb. 5-11. Kansas just recorded its first pediatric death, which leaves 10 states that have had no fatalities. Texas, with 39 deaths, has had more than any other state, among the 43 that are reporting mortality by age, the AAP/CHA report showed.
What to do if an employee tests positive for COVID-19
An increasingly common question I’m receiving is:
As always, it depends, but here is some general advice: The specifics will vary depending on state/local laws, or your particular situation.
First, you need to determine the level of exposure, and whether it requires action. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, actionable exposure occurs 2 days prior to the onset of illness, and lasts 10 days after onset.
If action is required, you’ll need to determine who needs to quarantine and who needs to be tested. Vaccinated employees who have been exposed to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine or be tested if they are fully vaccinated and have remained asymptomatic since the exposure. Those employees should, however, follow all the usual precautions (masks, social distancing, handwashing, etc.) with increased diligence. Remind them that no vaccine is 100% effective, and suggest they self-monitor for symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath, etc.)
All other exposed employees should be tested. A negative test means an individual was not infected at the time the sample was collected, but that does not mean an individual will not get sick later. Some providers are retesting on days 5 and 7 post exposure.
Some experts advise that you monitor exposed employees (vaccinated or not) yourself, with daily temperature readings and inquiries regarding symptoms, and perhaps a daily pulse oximetry check, for 14 days following exposure. Document these screenings in writing. Anyone testing positive or developing a fever or other symptoms should, of course, be sent home and seek medical treatment as necessary.
Employees who develop symptoms or test positive for COVID-19 should remain out of work until all CDC “return-to-work” criteria are met. At this writing, the basic criteria include:
- At least 10 days pass after symptoms first appeared
- At least 24 hours pass after last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications
- Cough, shortness of breath, and any other symptoms improve
Anyone who is significantly immunocompromised may need more time at home, and probably consultation with an infectious disease specialist.
Your facility should be thoroughly cleaned after the exposure. Close off all areas used by the sick individual, and clean and disinfect all areas such as offices, doorknobs, bathrooms, common areas, and shared electronic equipment. Of course, the cleaners should wear gowns, gloves, masks, and goggles. Some practices are hiring cleaning crews to professionally disinfect their offices. Once the area has been disinfected, it can be reopened for use. Workers without close contact with the person who is sick can return to work immediately after disinfection.
If the potential infected area is widespread and cannot be isolated to a room or rooms where doors can be shut, it may be prudent to temporarily close your office, send staff home, and divert patients to other locations if they cannot be rescheduled. Once your facility is cleaned and disinfected and staff have been cleared, your office may reopen.
Use enhanced precautions for any staff or patients who are immunocompromised, or otherwise fall into the high-risk category, to keep them out of the path of potential exposure areas and allow them to self-quarantine if they desire.
You should continue following existing leave policies (paid time off, vacation, sick, short-term disability, leave of absence, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act). If the employee was exposed at work, contact your workers’ compensation carrier regarding lost wages. Unless your state laws specify otherwise, you are under no obligation to pay beyond your policies, but you may do so if you choose.
Of course, you can take proactive steps to prevent unnecessary exposure and avoid closures in the first place; for example:
- Call patients prior to their visit, or question them upon arrival, regarding fever, shortness of breath, and other COVID-19 symptoms.
- Check employees’ temperatures every morning.
- Check patients’ temperatures as they enter the office.
- Require everyone, patients and employees alike, to wear face coverings.
- Ask patients to leave friends and family members at home.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
An increasingly common question I’m receiving is:
As always, it depends, but here is some general advice: The specifics will vary depending on state/local laws, or your particular situation.
First, you need to determine the level of exposure, and whether it requires action. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, actionable exposure occurs 2 days prior to the onset of illness, and lasts 10 days after onset.
If action is required, you’ll need to determine who needs to quarantine and who needs to be tested. Vaccinated employees who have been exposed to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine or be tested if they are fully vaccinated and have remained asymptomatic since the exposure. Those employees should, however, follow all the usual precautions (masks, social distancing, handwashing, etc.) with increased diligence. Remind them that no vaccine is 100% effective, and suggest they self-monitor for symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath, etc.)
All other exposed employees should be tested. A negative test means an individual was not infected at the time the sample was collected, but that does not mean an individual will not get sick later. Some providers are retesting on days 5 and 7 post exposure.
Some experts advise that you monitor exposed employees (vaccinated or not) yourself, with daily temperature readings and inquiries regarding symptoms, and perhaps a daily pulse oximetry check, for 14 days following exposure. Document these screenings in writing. Anyone testing positive or developing a fever or other symptoms should, of course, be sent home and seek medical treatment as necessary.
Employees who develop symptoms or test positive for COVID-19 should remain out of work until all CDC “return-to-work” criteria are met. At this writing, the basic criteria include:
- At least 10 days pass after symptoms first appeared
- At least 24 hours pass after last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications
- Cough, shortness of breath, and any other symptoms improve
Anyone who is significantly immunocompromised may need more time at home, and probably consultation with an infectious disease specialist.
Your facility should be thoroughly cleaned after the exposure. Close off all areas used by the sick individual, and clean and disinfect all areas such as offices, doorknobs, bathrooms, common areas, and shared electronic equipment. Of course, the cleaners should wear gowns, gloves, masks, and goggles. Some practices are hiring cleaning crews to professionally disinfect their offices. Once the area has been disinfected, it can be reopened for use. Workers without close contact with the person who is sick can return to work immediately after disinfection.
If the potential infected area is widespread and cannot be isolated to a room or rooms where doors can be shut, it may be prudent to temporarily close your office, send staff home, and divert patients to other locations if they cannot be rescheduled. Once your facility is cleaned and disinfected and staff have been cleared, your office may reopen.
Use enhanced precautions for any staff or patients who are immunocompromised, or otherwise fall into the high-risk category, to keep them out of the path of potential exposure areas and allow them to self-quarantine if they desire.
You should continue following existing leave policies (paid time off, vacation, sick, short-term disability, leave of absence, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act). If the employee was exposed at work, contact your workers’ compensation carrier regarding lost wages. Unless your state laws specify otherwise, you are under no obligation to pay beyond your policies, but you may do so if you choose.
Of course, you can take proactive steps to prevent unnecessary exposure and avoid closures in the first place; for example:
- Call patients prior to their visit, or question them upon arrival, regarding fever, shortness of breath, and other COVID-19 symptoms.
- Check employees’ temperatures every morning.
- Check patients’ temperatures as they enter the office.
- Require everyone, patients and employees alike, to wear face coverings.
- Ask patients to leave friends and family members at home.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
An increasingly common question I’m receiving is:
As always, it depends, but here is some general advice: The specifics will vary depending on state/local laws, or your particular situation.
First, you need to determine the level of exposure, and whether it requires action. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, actionable exposure occurs 2 days prior to the onset of illness, and lasts 10 days after onset.
If action is required, you’ll need to determine who needs to quarantine and who needs to be tested. Vaccinated employees who have been exposed to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine or be tested if they are fully vaccinated and have remained asymptomatic since the exposure. Those employees should, however, follow all the usual precautions (masks, social distancing, handwashing, etc.) with increased diligence. Remind them that no vaccine is 100% effective, and suggest they self-monitor for symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath, etc.)
All other exposed employees should be tested. A negative test means an individual was not infected at the time the sample was collected, but that does not mean an individual will not get sick later. Some providers are retesting on days 5 and 7 post exposure.
Some experts advise that you monitor exposed employees (vaccinated or not) yourself, with daily temperature readings and inquiries regarding symptoms, and perhaps a daily pulse oximetry check, for 14 days following exposure. Document these screenings in writing. Anyone testing positive or developing a fever or other symptoms should, of course, be sent home and seek medical treatment as necessary.
Employees who develop symptoms or test positive for COVID-19 should remain out of work until all CDC “return-to-work” criteria are met. At this writing, the basic criteria include:
- At least 10 days pass after symptoms first appeared
- At least 24 hours pass after last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications
- Cough, shortness of breath, and any other symptoms improve
Anyone who is significantly immunocompromised may need more time at home, and probably consultation with an infectious disease specialist.
Your facility should be thoroughly cleaned after the exposure. Close off all areas used by the sick individual, and clean and disinfect all areas such as offices, doorknobs, bathrooms, common areas, and shared electronic equipment. Of course, the cleaners should wear gowns, gloves, masks, and goggles. Some practices are hiring cleaning crews to professionally disinfect their offices. Once the area has been disinfected, it can be reopened for use. Workers without close contact with the person who is sick can return to work immediately after disinfection.
If the potential infected area is widespread and cannot be isolated to a room or rooms where doors can be shut, it may be prudent to temporarily close your office, send staff home, and divert patients to other locations if they cannot be rescheduled. Once your facility is cleaned and disinfected and staff have been cleared, your office may reopen.
Use enhanced precautions for any staff or patients who are immunocompromised, or otherwise fall into the high-risk category, to keep them out of the path of potential exposure areas and allow them to self-quarantine if they desire.
You should continue following existing leave policies (paid time off, vacation, sick, short-term disability, leave of absence, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act). If the employee was exposed at work, contact your workers’ compensation carrier regarding lost wages. Unless your state laws specify otherwise, you are under no obligation to pay beyond your policies, but you may do so if you choose.
Of course, you can take proactive steps to prevent unnecessary exposure and avoid closures in the first place; for example:
- Call patients prior to their visit, or question them upon arrival, regarding fever, shortness of breath, and other COVID-19 symptoms.
- Check employees’ temperatures every morning.
- Check patients’ temperatures as they enter the office.
- Require everyone, patients and employees alike, to wear face coverings.
- Ask patients to leave friends and family members at home.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
One-third of health care workers leery of getting COVID-19 vaccine, survey shows
Moreover, 54% of direct care providers indicated that they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 60% of noncare providers.
The findings come from what is believed to be the largest survey of health care provider attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, published online Jan. 25 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
“We have shown that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by age, gender, race and hospital role, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance,” Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, State University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y, the study’s corresponding author, told this news organization. “Building trust in authorities and confidence in vaccines is a complex and time-consuming process that requires commitment and resources. We have to make those investments as hesitancy can severely undermine vaccination coverage. Because health care providers are members of our communities, it is possible that their views are shared by the public at large. Our findings can assist public health professionals as a starting point of discussion and engagement with communities to ensure that we vaccinate at least 80% of the public to end the pandemic.”
For the study, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues emailed an anonymous survey to 9,565 employees of State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, an academic medical center that cares for an estimated 1.8 million people. The survey, which contained questions intended to evaluate attitudes, belief, and willingness to get vaccinated, took place between Nov. 23 and Dec. 5, about a week before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted the first emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.
Survey recipients included physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists, medical and nursing students, allied health professionals, and nonclinical ancillary staff.
Of the 9,565 surveys sent, 5,287 responses were collected and used in the final analysis, for a response rate of 55%. The mean age of respondents was 43, 73% were female, 85% were White, 6% were Asian, 5% were Black/African American, and the rest were Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or from other races. More than half of respondents (59%) reported that they provided direct patient care, and 32% said they provided care for patients with COVID-19.
Of all survey respondents, 58% expressed their intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but this varied by their role in the health care system. For example, in response to the statement, “If a vaccine were offered free of charge, I would take it,” 80% of scientists and physicians agreed that they would, while colleagues in other roles were unsure whether they would take the vaccine, including 34% of registered nurses, 32% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master’s-level clinicians. These differences across roles were significant (P less than .001).
The researchers also found that direct patient care or care for COVID-19 patients was associated with lower vaccination intent. For example, 54% of direct care providers and 62% of non-care providers indicated they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 52% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients vs. 61% of those who had not (P less than .001).
“This was a really surprising finding,” said Dr. Shaw, who is a pediatric infectious diseases physician at SUNY Upstate. “In general, one would expect that perceived severity of disease would lead to a greater desire to get vaccinated. Because our question did not address severity of disease, it is possible that we oversampled respondents who took care of patients with mild disease (i.e., in an outpatient setting). This could have led to an underestimation of disease severity and resulted in lower vaccination intent.”
A focus on rebuilding trust
Survey respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine were older (a mean age of 44 years), compared with those who were not sure or who disagreed (a mean age of 42 vs. 38 years, respectively; P less than .001). In addition, fewer females agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine (54% vs. 73% of males), whereas those who self-identified as Black/African American were least likely to want to get vaccinated, compared with those from other ethnic groups (31%, compared with 74% of Asians, 58% of Whites, and 39% of American Indians or Alaska Natives).
“We are deeply aware of the poor decisions scientists made in the past, which led to a prevailing skepticism and ‘feeling like guinea pigs’ among people of color, especially Black adults,” Dr. Shaw said. “Black adults are less likely, compared [with] White adults, to have confidence that scientists act in the public interest. Rebuilding trust will take time and has to start with addressing health care disparities. In addition, we need to acknowledge contributions of Black researchers to science. For example, until recently very few knew that the Moderna vaccine was developed [with the help of] Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who is Black.”
The top five main areas of unease that all respondents expressed about a COVID-19 vaccine were concern about adverse events/side effects (47%), efficacy (15%), rushed release (11%), safety (11%), and the research and authorization process (3%).
“I think it is important that fellow clinicians recognize that, in order to boost vaccine confidence we will need careful, individually tailored communication strategies,” Dr. Shaw said. “A consideration should be given to those [strategies] that utilize interpersonal channels that deliver leadership by example and leverage influencers in the institution to encourage wider adoption of vaccination.”
Aaron M. Milstone, MD, MHS, asked to comment on the research, recommended that health care workers advocate for the vaccine and encourage their patients, friends, and loved ones to get vaccinated. “Soon, COVID-19 will have taken more than half a million lives in the U.S.,” said Dr. Milstone, a pediatric epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Although vaccines can have side effects like fever and muscle aches, and very, very rare more serious side effects, the risks of dying from COVID are much greater than the risk of a serious vaccine reaction. The study’s authors shed light on the ongoing need for leaders of all communities to support the COVID vaccines, not just the scientific community, but religious leaders, political leaders, and community leaders.”
Addressing vaccine hesitancy
Informed by their own survey, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues have developed a plan to address vaccine hesitancy to ensure high vaccine uptake at SUNY Upstate. Those strategies include, but aren’t limited to, institution-wide forums for all employees on COVID-19 vaccine safety, risks, and benefits followed by Q&A sessions, grand rounds for providers summarizing clinical trial data on mRNA vaccines, development of an Ask COVID email line for staff to ask vaccine-related questions, and a detailed vaccine-specific FAQ document.
In addition, SUNY Upstate experts have engaged in numerous media interviews to provide education and updates on the benefits of vaccination to public and staff, stationary vaccine locations, and mobile COVID-19 vaccine carts. “To date, the COVID-19 vaccination process has been well received, and we anticipate strong vaccine uptake,” she said.
Dr. Shaw acknowledged certain limitations of the survey, including its cross-sectional design and the fact that it was conducted in a single health care system in the northeastern United States. “Thus, generalizability to other regions of the U.S. and other countries may be limited,” Dr. Shaw said. “The study was also conducted before EUA [emergency use authorization] was granted to either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. It is therefore likely that vaccine acceptance will change over time as more people get vaccinated.”
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Milstone disclosed that he has received a research grant from Merck, but it is not related to vaccines.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Moreover, 54% of direct care providers indicated that they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 60% of noncare providers.
The findings come from what is believed to be the largest survey of health care provider attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, published online Jan. 25 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
“We have shown that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by age, gender, race and hospital role, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance,” Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, State University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y, the study’s corresponding author, told this news organization. “Building trust in authorities and confidence in vaccines is a complex and time-consuming process that requires commitment and resources. We have to make those investments as hesitancy can severely undermine vaccination coverage. Because health care providers are members of our communities, it is possible that their views are shared by the public at large. Our findings can assist public health professionals as a starting point of discussion and engagement with communities to ensure that we vaccinate at least 80% of the public to end the pandemic.”
For the study, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues emailed an anonymous survey to 9,565 employees of State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, an academic medical center that cares for an estimated 1.8 million people. The survey, which contained questions intended to evaluate attitudes, belief, and willingness to get vaccinated, took place between Nov. 23 and Dec. 5, about a week before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted the first emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.
Survey recipients included physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists, medical and nursing students, allied health professionals, and nonclinical ancillary staff.
Of the 9,565 surveys sent, 5,287 responses were collected and used in the final analysis, for a response rate of 55%. The mean age of respondents was 43, 73% were female, 85% were White, 6% were Asian, 5% were Black/African American, and the rest were Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or from other races. More than half of respondents (59%) reported that they provided direct patient care, and 32% said they provided care for patients with COVID-19.
Of all survey respondents, 58% expressed their intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but this varied by their role in the health care system. For example, in response to the statement, “If a vaccine were offered free of charge, I would take it,” 80% of scientists and physicians agreed that they would, while colleagues in other roles were unsure whether they would take the vaccine, including 34% of registered nurses, 32% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master’s-level clinicians. These differences across roles were significant (P less than .001).
The researchers also found that direct patient care or care for COVID-19 patients was associated with lower vaccination intent. For example, 54% of direct care providers and 62% of non-care providers indicated they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 52% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients vs. 61% of those who had not (P less than .001).
“This was a really surprising finding,” said Dr. Shaw, who is a pediatric infectious diseases physician at SUNY Upstate. “In general, one would expect that perceived severity of disease would lead to a greater desire to get vaccinated. Because our question did not address severity of disease, it is possible that we oversampled respondents who took care of patients with mild disease (i.e., in an outpatient setting). This could have led to an underestimation of disease severity and resulted in lower vaccination intent.”
A focus on rebuilding trust
Survey respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine were older (a mean age of 44 years), compared with those who were not sure or who disagreed (a mean age of 42 vs. 38 years, respectively; P less than .001). In addition, fewer females agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine (54% vs. 73% of males), whereas those who self-identified as Black/African American were least likely to want to get vaccinated, compared with those from other ethnic groups (31%, compared with 74% of Asians, 58% of Whites, and 39% of American Indians or Alaska Natives).
“We are deeply aware of the poor decisions scientists made in the past, which led to a prevailing skepticism and ‘feeling like guinea pigs’ among people of color, especially Black adults,” Dr. Shaw said. “Black adults are less likely, compared [with] White adults, to have confidence that scientists act in the public interest. Rebuilding trust will take time and has to start with addressing health care disparities. In addition, we need to acknowledge contributions of Black researchers to science. For example, until recently very few knew that the Moderna vaccine was developed [with the help of] Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who is Black.”
The top five main areas of unease that all respondents expressed about a COVID-19 vaccine were concern about adverse events/side effects (47%), efficacy (15%), rushed release (11%), safety (11%), and the research and authorization process (3%).
“I think it is important that fellow clinicians recognize that, in order to boost vaccine confidence we will need careful, individually tailored communication strategies,” Dr. Shaw said. “A consideration should be given to those [strategies] that utilize interpersonal channels that deliver leadership by example and leverage influencers in the institution to encourage wider adoption of vaccination.”
Aaron M. Milstone, MD, MHS, asked to comment on the research, recommended that health care workers advocate for the vaccine and encourage their patients, friends, and loved ones to get vaccinated. “Soon, COVID-19 will have taken more than half a million lives in the U.S.,” said Dr. Milstone, a pediatric epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Although vaccines can have side effects like fever and muscle aches, and very, very rare more serious side effects, the risks of dying from COVID are much greater than the risk of a serious vaccine reaction. The study’s authors shed light on the ongoing need for leaders of all communities to support the COVID vaccines, not just the scientific community, but religious leaders, political leaders, and community leaders.”
Addressing vaccine hesitancy
Informed by their own survey, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues have developed a plan to address vaccine hesitancy to ensure high vaccine uptake at SUNY Upstate. Those strategies include, but aren’t limited to, institution-wide forums for all employees on COVID-19 vaccine safety, risks, and benefits followed by Q&A sessions, grand rounds for providers summarizing clinical trial data on mRNA vaccines, development of an Ask COVID email line for staff to ask vaccine-related questions, and a detailed vaccine-specific FAQ document.
In addition, SUNY Upstate experts have engaged in numerous media interviews to provide education and updates on the benefits of vaccination to public and staff, stationary vaccine locations, and mobile COVID-19 vaccine carts. “To date, the COVID-19 vaccination process has been well received, and we anticipate strong vaccine uptake,” she said.
Dr. Shaw acknowledged certain limitations of the survey, including its cross-sectional design and the fact that it was conducted in a single health care system in the northeastern United States. “Thus, generalizability to other regions of the U.S. and other countries may be limited,” Dr. Shaw said. “The study was also conducted before EUA [emergency use authorization] was granted to either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. It is therefore likely that vaccine acceptance will change over time as more people get vaccinated.”
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Milstone disclosed that he has received a research grant from Merck, but it is not related to vaccines.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Moreover, 54% of direct care providers indicated that they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 60% of noncare providers.
The findings come from what is believed to be the largest survey of health care provider attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, published online Jan. 25 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
“We have shown that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by age, gender, race and hospital role, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance,” Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, State University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y, the study’s corresponding author, told this news organization. “Building trust in authorities and confidence in vaccines is a complex and time-consuming process that requires commitment and resources. We have to make those investments as hesitancy can severely undermine vaccination coverage. Because health care providers are members of our communities, it is possible that their views are shared by the public at large. Our findings can assist public health professionals as a starting point of discussion and engagement with communities to ensure that we vaccinate at least 80% of the public to end the pandemic.”
For the study, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues emailed an anonymous survey to 9,565 employees of State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, an academic medical center that cares for an estimated 1.8 million people. The survey, which contained questions intended to evaluate attitudes, belief, and willingness to get vaccinated, took place between Nov. 23 and Dec. 5, about a week before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted the first emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.
Survey recipients included physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists, medical and nursing students, allied health professionals, and nonclinical ancillary staff.
Of the 9,565 surveys sent, 5,287 responses were collected and used in the final analysis, for a response rate of 55%. The mean age of respondents was 43, 73% were female, 85% were White, 6% were Asian, 5% were Black/African American, and the rest were Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or from other races. More than half of respondents (59%) reported that they provided direct patient care, and 32% said they provided care for patients with COVID-19.
Of all survey respondents, 58% expressed their intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but this varied by their role in the health care system. For example, in response to the statement, “If a vaccine were offered free of charge, I would take it,” 80% of scientists and physicians agreed that they would, while colleagues in other roles were unsure whether they would take the vaccine, including 34% of registered nurses, 32% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master’s-level clinicians. These differences across roles were significant (P less than .001).
The researchers also found that direct patient care or care for COVID-19 patients was associated with lower vaccination intent. For example, 54% of direct care providers and 62% of non-care providers indicated they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 52% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients vs. 61% of those who had not (P less than .001).
“This was a really surprising finding,” said Dr. Shaw, who is a pediatric infectious diseases physician at SUNY Upstate. “In general, one would expect that perceived severity of disease would lead to a greater desire to get vaccinated. Because our question did not address severity of disease, it is possible that we oversampled respondents who took care of patients with mild disease (i.e., in an outpatient setting). This could have led to an underestimation of disease severity and resulted in lower vaccination intent.”
A focus on rebuilding trust
Survey respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine were older (a mean age of 44 years), compared with those who were not sure or who disagreed (a mean age of 42 vs. 38 years, respectively; P less than .001). In addition, fewer females agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine (54% vs. 73% of males), whereas those who self-identified as Black/African American were least likely to want to get vaccinated, compared with those from other ethnic groups (31%, compared with 74% of Asians, 58% of Whites, and 39% of American Indians or Alaska Natives).
“We are deeply aware of the poor decisions scientists made in the past, which led to a prevailing skepticism and ‘feeling like guinea pigs’ among people of color, especially Black adults,” Dr. Shaw said. “Black adults are less likely, compared [with] White adults, to have confidence that scientists act in the public interest. Rebuilding trust will take time and has to start with addressing health care disparities. In addition, we need to acknowledge contributions of Black researchers to science. For example, until recently very few knew that the Moderna vaccine was developed [with the help of] Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who is Black.”
The top five main areas of unease that all respondents expressed about a COVID-19 vaccine were concern about adverse events/side effects (47%), efficacy (15%), rushed release (11%), safety (11%), and the research and authorization process (3%).
“I think it is important that fellow clinicians recognize that, in order to boost vaccine confidence we will need careful, individually tailored communication strategies,” Dr. Shaw said. “A consideration should be given to those [strategies] that utilize interpersonal channels that deliver leadership by example and leverage influencers in the institution to encourage wider adoption of vaccination.”
Aaron M. Milstone, MD, MHS, asked to comment on the research, recommended that health care workers advocate for the vaccine and encourage their patients, friends, and loved ones to get vaccinated. “Soon, COVID-19 will have taken more than half a million lives in the U.S.,” said Dr. Milstone, a pediatric epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Although vaccines can have side effects like fever and muscle aches, and very, very rare more serious side effects, the risks of dying from COVID are much greater than the risk of a serious vaccine reaction. The study’s authors shed light on the ongoing need for leaders of all communities to support the COVID vaccines, not just the scientific community, but religious leaders, political leaders, and community leaders.”
Addressing vaccine hesitancy
Informed by their own survey, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues have developed a plan to address vaccine hesitancy to ensure high vaccine uptake at SUNY Upstate. Those strategies include, but aren’t limited to, institution-wide forums for all employees on COVID-19 vaccine safety, risks, and benefits followed by Q&A sessions, grand rounds for providers summarizing clinical trial data on mRNA vaccines, development of an Ask COVID email line for staff to ask vaccine-related questions, and a detailed vaccine-specific FAQ document.
In addition, SUNY Upstate experts have engaged in numerous media interviews to provide education and updates on the benefits of vaccination to public and staff, stationary vaccine locations, and mobile COVID-19 vaccine carts. “To date, the COVID-19 vaccination process has been well received, and we anticipate strong vaccine uptake,” she said.
Dr. Shaw acknowledged certain limitations of the survey, including its cross-sectional design and the fact that it was conducted in a single health care system in the northeastern United States. “Thus, generalizability to other regions of the U.S. and other countries may be limited,” Dr. Shaw said. “The study was also conducted before EUA [emergency use authorization] was granted to either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. It is therefore likely that vaccine acceptance will change over time as more people get vaccinated.”
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Milstone disclosed that he has received a research grant from Merck, but it is not related to vaccines.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Survey: Most patients support teledermatology
Many medical practices turned to telemedicine when the pandemic shut down the economy last spring, but what do dermatology patients think about the socially distant approach?
and 80% said that they would consider another such visit in the future, according to a survey conducted at George Washington University in Washington.
Although “telehealth is not without its drawbacks … it is clear from this study that the majority of patients feel positively towards teledermatology during the COVID-19 pandemic and [believe it] can be a suitable alternative for patients who are unable to meet with their providers in person,” Samuel Yeroushalmi, Sarah H. Millan, and associates at the university said in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.
When presented with a set of statements about the telehealth experience, the 168 survey respondents largely agreed that the overall appointment was satisfactory (80.8%), that minimal barriers were present (78.1%), and that the quality of care was similar to an in-person visit (62.5%), the investigators said.
Other factors, however, were not as well supported. Less than half (47.2%) of the respondents agreed that the telehealth appointments were more cost effective, and just over half (54.7%) agreed that they provided an adequate skin exam, they reported.
Of the set of 14 statements given to the patients – all of whom had at least one telehealth visit with the GW clinic between March 2 and June 17, 2020 – the one on the adequacy of the skin exam provided the largest share of disagreement at 27.1%, Mr. Yeroushalmi and Ms. Millan, medical students at the university and coauthors.
The lack of physical touch was mentioned most often (26.8%) when respondents were asked about their reasons for disliking telehealth visits, followed by the feeling that they had received an inadequate assessment (15.7%), they said.
Despite these drawbacks, “the convenience and efficacy of telehealth as well as its ability to maintain separation while social distancing recommendations are in place make it an effective way for dermatologists to continue to provide quality and safe care during the pandemics as well as during potential future public health crises,” the investigators concluded.
Many medical practices turned to telemedicine when the pandemic shut down the economy last spring, but what do dermatology patients think about the socially distant approach?
and 80% said that they would consider another such visit in the future, according to a survey conducted at George Washington University in Washington.
Although “telehealth is not without its drawbacks … it is clear from this study that the majority of patients feel positively towards teledermatology during the COVID-19 pandemic and [believe it] can be a suitable alternative for patients who are unable to meet with their providers in person,” Samuel Yeroushalmi, Sarah H. Millan, and associates at the university said in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.
When presented with a set of statements about the telehealth experience, the 168 survey respondents largely agreed that the overall appointment was satisfactory (80.8%), that minimal barriers were present (78.1%), and that the quality of care was similar to an in-person visit (62.5%), the investigators said.
Other factors, however, were not as well supported. Less than half (47.2%) of the respondents agreed that the telehealth appointments were more cost effective, and just over half (54.7%) agreed that they provided an adequate skin exam, they reported.
Of the set of 14 statements given to the patients – all of whom had at least one telehealth visit with the GW clinic between March 2 and June 17, 2020 – the one on the adequacy of the skin exam provided the largest share of disagreement at 27.1%, Mr. Yeroushalmi and Ms. Millan, medical students at the university and coauthors.
The lack of physical touch was mentioned most often (26.8%) when respondents were asked about their reasons for disliking telehealth visits, followed by the feeling that they had received an inadequate assessment (15.7%), they said.
Despite these drawbacks, “the convenience and efficacy of telehealth as well as its ability to maintain separation while social distancing recommendations are in place make it an effective way for dermatologists to continue to provide quality and safe care during the pandemics as well as during potential future public health crises,” the investigators concluded.
Many medical practices turned to telemedicine when the pandemic shut down the economy last spring, but what do dermatology patients think about the socially distant approach?
and 80% said that they would consider another such visit in the future, according to a survey conducted at George Washington University in Washington.
Although “telehealth is not without its drawbacks … it is clear from this study that the majority of patients feel positively towards teledermatology during the COVID-19 pandemic and [believe it] can be a suitable alternative for patients who are unable to meet with their providers in person,” Samuel Yeroushalmi, Sarah H. Millan, and associates at the university said in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.
When presented with a set of statements about the telehealth experience, the 168 survey respondents largely agreed that the overall appointment was satisfactory (80.8%), that minimal barriers were present (78.1%), and that the quality of care was similar to an in-person visit (62.5%), the investigators said.
Other factors, however, were not as well supported. Less than half (47.2%) of the respondents agreed that the telehealth appointments were more cost effective, and just over half (54.7%) agreed that they provided an adequate skin exam, they reported.
Of the set of 14 statements given to the patients – all of whom had at least one telehealth visit with the GW clinic between March 2 and June 17, 2020 – the one on the adequacy of the skin exam provided the largest share of disagreement at 27.1%, Mr. Yeroushalmi and Ms. Millan, medical students at the university and coauthors.
The lack of physical touch was mentioned most often (26.8%) when respondents were asked about their reasons for disliking telehealth visits, followed by the feeling that they had received an inadequate assessment (15.7%), they said.
Despite these drawbacks, “the convenience and efficacy of telehealth as well as its ability to maintain separation while social distancing recommendations are in place make it an effective way for dermatologists to continue to provide quality and safe care during the pandemics as well as during potential future public health crises,” the investigators concluded.
FROM JOURNAL OF DRUGS IN DERMATOLOGY