User login
How some COVID-19 vaccines could cause rare blood clots
on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.
This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.
According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.
In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.
“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness.
“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.
Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria.
This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.
“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized
Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.
Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses.
Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system.
The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.
There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.
The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.
Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans.
Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.
There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.
Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport.
But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.
The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1.
Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.
On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.
The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.
The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.
So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.
A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.
The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.
“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
Studies suggest possible mechanism
On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.
The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.
These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.
It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.
The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).
It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.
“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”
No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.
Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising.
Grappling with evidence
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.
Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.
With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.
They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.
Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.
“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.
“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.
This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.
According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.
In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.
“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness.
“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.
Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria.
This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.
“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized
Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.
Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses.
Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system.
The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.
There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.
The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.
Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans.
Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.
There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.
Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport.
But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.
The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1.
Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.
On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.
The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.
The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.
So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.
A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.
The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.
“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
Studies suggest possible mechanism
On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.
The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.
These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.
It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.
The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).
It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.
“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”
No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.
Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising.
Grappling with evidence
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.
Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.
With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.
They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.
Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.
“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.
“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.
This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.
According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.
In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.
“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness.
“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.
Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria.
This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.
“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized
Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.
Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses.
Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system.
The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.
There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.
The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.
Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans.
Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.
There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.
Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport.
But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.
The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1.
Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.
On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.
The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.
The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.
So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.
A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.
The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.
“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
Studies suggest possible mechanism
On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.
The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.
These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.
It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.
The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).
It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.
“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”
No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.
Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising.
Grappling with evidence
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.
Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.
With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.
They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.
Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.
“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.
“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New data dim hopes for ‘triumph of drug discovery’
Hopes for a new category of agents recently hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” have been dimmed somewhat by new data showing many types of acquired resistance.
KRAS is one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer and has long been thought “undruggable” – but novel drugs acting specifically on the KRAS G12C mutation have shown promise in clinical trials.
Early results with the experimental KRAS inhibitors sotorasib and adagrasib were deemed promising, but new data presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract LB002) have splashed cold water on that enthusiasm.
The efficacy of these new drugs looks to be threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.
Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported data from 30 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) bearing the KRAS G12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with adagrasib in clinical trials. Investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to adagrasib in these patients.
“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRAS G12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” Dr. Awad said in a mini-symposium presentation.
“Several cases displayed multiple resistance mechanisms, and novel combinatorial strategies will be necessary to delay or overcome resistance in KRAS G12C-mutant cancers,” he said.
Inactivating KRAS
The KRAS G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form.
But the mutation has been considered too tough to target because of the KRAS gene’s strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate, an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug-binding sites.
Sotorasib and adagrasib are small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitors of KRAS that interact with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drugs inhibit oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.
Multiple mutations, histologic transformations
Dr. Awad and colleagues studied biopsy samples and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from 30 patients both at baseline and after administration of adagrasib monotherapy. The patients all had initial responses to the drug but then experienced disease progression.
The investigators used mutagenesis screens to identify mechanisms of resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors.
The 30 patients included 23 with NSCLC and 7 with CRC. Eighteen had unknown mechanisms of resistance, and putative resistance mechanisms were identified in the other 12 patients. Of this latter group, seven appeared to have single resistance mechanisms, and five had multiple mechanisms of resistance.
One patient with NSCLC who had radiographic evidence of response followed by progression was found to have had a novel KRAS Y96C mutation, and three had novel KRAS mutations in other gene regions, with multiple concurrent alterations in genes implicated in other forms of cancer, such as PTEN, BRAF, and MAP2K1.
The investigators also identified amplifications of the KRAS G12C allele, and MET.
In two patients, NSCLC underwent histologic transformation from adenocarcinoma at baseline to squamous cell carcinoma at the time of acquired resistance to the drug. No genomic resistance mechanisms were detected in either of these patients, Dr. Awad said.
“In several cases, we see multiple mechanisms or co-occurring alterations in each individual patient, with the suggestion that perhaps the multiple mutations or resistance mechanism may be more common in the colorectal population, particularly with acquired gene fusions, than in the lung cancer population, although larger datasets will be needed to confirm this observation,” he said.
Does duration of response matter?
In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Awad was asked about clinical responses in the patients who developed resistance.
“In this initial reporting of resistance mechanisms we did not overlay or report out the clinical outcomes, including the durations of response or the time to disease progression, in part because this is an ongoing clinical trial, and those data will be reported in full at a later time,” Dr. Awad replied. “But I think it will be really important to identify whether patients are more likely to develop resistance earlier versus later or have different resistance mechanisms.”
Dr. Awad commented further that the resistance to adagrasib appeared to be acquired. “These resistance mutations were not detected to the level of detection at the baseline samples. So presumably they may be present at some low levels at the time of initial diagnosis, or they emerge over the course of therapy,” he said.
“Many of the resistance mechanisms appear to be more subclonal, occurring at an allele fraction lower than the original KRAS G12C mutation, which we know is the clonal event in the entire population of the cancer, and I think when we’re seeing these multiple resistance mechanisms emerging, they are potentially each representing different subclones that can develop simultaneously,” he added.
Adagrasib trials are supported by Mirati Therapeutics. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for Mirati and others, and institutional research support from several different companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hopes for a new category of agents recently hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” have been dimmed somewhat by new data showing many types of acquired resistance.
KRAS is one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer and has long been thought “undruggable” – but novel drugs acting specifically on the KRAS G12C mutation have shown promise in clinical trials.
Early results with the experimental KRAS inhibitors sotorasib and adagrasib were deemed promising, but new data presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract LB002) have splashed cold water on that enthusiasm.
The efficacy of these new drugs looks to be threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.
Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported data from 30 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) bearing the KRAS G12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with adagrasib in clinical trials. Investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to adagrasib in these patients.
“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRAS G12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” Dr. Awad said in a mini-symposium presentation.
“Several cases displayed multiple resistance mechanisms, and novel combinatorial strategies will be necessary to delay or overcome resistance in KRAS G12C-mutant cancers,” he said.
Inactivating KRAS
The KRAS G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form.
But the mutation has been considered too tough to target because of the KRAS gene’s strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate, an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug-binding sites.
Sotorasib and adagrasib are small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitors of KRAS that interact with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drugs inhibit oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.
Multiple mutations, histologic transformations
Dr. Awad and colleagues studied biopsy samples and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from 30 patients both at baseline and after administration of adagrasib monotherapy. The patients all had initial responses to the drug but then experienced disease progression.
The investigators used mutagenesis screens to identify mechanisms of resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors.
The 30 patients included 23 with NSCLC and 7 with CRC. Eighteen had unknown mechanisms of resistance, and putative resistance mechanisms were identified in the other 12 patients. Of this latter group, seven appeared to have single resistance mechanisms, and five had multiple mechanisms of resistance.
One patient with NSCLC who had radiographic evidence of response followed by progression was found to have had a novel KRAS Y96C mutation, and three had novel KRAS mutations in other gene regions, with multiple concurrent alterations in genes implicated in other forms of cancer, such as PTEN, BRAF, and MAP2K1.
The investigators also identified amplifications of the KRAS G12C allele, and MET.
In two patients, NSCLC underwent histologic transformation from adenocarcinoma at baseline to squamous cell carcinoma at the time of acquired resistance to the drug. No genomic resistance mechanisms were detected in either of these patients, Dr. Awad said.
“In several cases, we see multiple mechanisms or co-occurring alterations in each individual patient, with the suggestion that perhaps the multiple mutations or resistance mechanism may be more common in the colorectal population, particularly with acquired gene fusions, than in the lung cancer population, although larger datasets will be needed to confirm this observation,” he said.
Does duration of response matter?
In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Awad was asked about clinical responses in the patients who developed resistance.
“In this initial reporting of resistance mechanisms we did not overlay or report out the clinical outcomes, including the durations of response or the time to disease progression, in part because this is an ongoing clinical trial, and those data will be reported in full at a later time,” Dr. Awad replied. “But I think it will be really important to identify whether patients are more likely to develop resistance earlier versus later or have different resistance mechanisms.”
Dr. Awad commented further that the resistance to adagrasib appeared to be acquired. “These resistance mutations were not detected to the level of detection at the baseline samples. So presumably they may be present at some low levels at the time of initial diagnosis, or they emerge over the course of therapy,” he said.
“Many of the resistance mechanisms appear to be more subclonal, occurring at an allele fraction lower than the original KRAS G12C mutation, which we know is the clonal event in the entire population of the cancer, and I think when we’re seeing these multiple resistance mechanisms emerging, they are potentially each representing different subclones that can develop simultaneously,” he added.
Adagrasib trials are supported by Mirati Therapeutics. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for Mirati and others, and institutional research support from several different companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hopes for a new category of agents recently hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” have been dimmed somewhat by new data showing many types of acquired resistance.
KRAS is one of the most frequently mutated oncogenes in human cancer and has long been thought “undruggable” – but novel drugs acting specifically on the KRAS G12C mutation have shown promise in clinical trials.
Early results with the experimental KRAS inhibitors sotorasib and adagrasib were deemed promising, but new data presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract LB002) have splashed cold water on that enthusiasm.
The efficacy of these new drugs looks to be threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.
Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported data from 30 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) bearing the KRAS G12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with adagrasib in clinical trials. Investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to adagrasib in these patients.
“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRAS G12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” Dr. Awad said in a mini-symposium presentation.
“Several cases displayed multiple resistance mechanisms, and novel combinatorial strategies will be necessary to delay or overcome resistance in KRAS G12C-mutant cancers,” he said.
Inactivating KRAS
The KRAS G12C mutation is a glycine-to-cysteine substitution that results in the oncogene being switched on in its active form.
But the mutation has been considered too tough to target because of the KRAS gene’s strong binding affinity for guanosine triphosphate, an essential building block of RNA synthesis, and by a lack of accessible drug-binding sites.
Sotorasib and adagrasib are small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitors of KRAS that interact with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drugs inhibit oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.
Multiple mutations, histologic transformations
Dr. Awad and colleagues studied biopsy samples and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from 30 patients both at baseline and after administration of adagrasib monotherapy. The patients all had initial responses to the drug but then experienced disease progression.
The investigators used mutagenesis screens to identify mechanisms of resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors.
The 30 patients included 23 with NSCLC and 7 with CRC. Eighteen had unknown mechanisms of resistance, and putative resistance mechanisms were identified in the other 12 patients. Of this latter group, seven appeared to have single resistance mechanisms, and five had multiple mechanisms of resistance.
One patient with NSCLC who had radiographic evidence of response followed by progression was found to have had a novel KRAS Y96C mutation, and three had novel KRAS mutations in other gene regions, with multiple concurrent alterations in genes implicated in other forms of cancer, such as PTEN, BRAF, and MAP2K1.
The investigators also identified amplifications of the KRAS G12C allele, and MET.
In two patients, NSCLC underwent histologic transformation from adenocarcinoma at baseline to squamous cell carcinoma at the time of acquired resistance to the drug. No genomic resistance mechanisms were detected in either of these patients, Dr. Awad said.
“In several cases, we see multiple mechanisms or co-occurring alterations in each individual patient, with the suggestion that perhaps the multiple mutations or resistance mechanism may be more common in the colorectal population, particularly with acquired gene fusions, than in the lung cancer population, although larger datasets will be needed to confirm this observation,” he said.
Does duration of response matter?
In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Awad was asked about clinical responses in the patients who developed resistance.
“In this initial reporting of resistance mechanisms we did not overlay or report out the clinical outcomes, including the durations of response or the time to disease progression, in part because this is an ongoing clinical trial, and those data will be reported in full at a later time,” Dr. Awad replied. “But I think it will be really important to identify whether patients are more likely to develop resistance earlier versus later or have different resistance mechanisms.”
Dr. Awad commented further that the resistance to adagrasib appeared to be acquired. “These resistance mutations were not detected to the level of detection at the baseline samples. So presumably they may be present at some low levels at the time of initial diagnosis, or they emerge over the course of therapy,” he said.
“Many of the resistance mechanisms appear to be more subclonal, occurring at an allele fraction lower than the original KRAS G12C mutation, which we know is the clonal event in the entire population of the cancer, and I think when we’re seeing these multiple resistance mechanisms emerging, they are potentially each representing different subclones that can develop simultaneously,” he added.
Adagrasib trials are supported by Mirati Therapeutics. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for Mirati and others, and institutional research support from several different companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AACR 2021
Adjunctive MDMA safe, effective for severe PTSD
Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.
MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.
MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
Growing interest
, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.
As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.
The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.
In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.
The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.
Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
‘Dramatic improvement’
Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.
The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.
Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.
“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”
Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”
In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
Carefully controlled
Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.
In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.
Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.
There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.
The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.
“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”
However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
‘On the right track’
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”
“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.
He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”
The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.
The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.
MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.
MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
Growing interest
, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.
As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.
The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.
In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.
The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.
Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
‘Dramatic improvement’
Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.
The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.
Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.
“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”
Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”
In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
Carefully controlled
Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.
In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.
Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.
There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.
The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.
“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”
However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
‘On the right track’
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”
“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.
He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”
The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.
The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.
MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.
MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
Growing interest
, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.
As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.
The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.
In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.
The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.
Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
‘Dramatic improvement’
Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.
The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.
Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.
“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”
Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”
In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
Carefully controlled
Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.
In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.
Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.
There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.
The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.
“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”
However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
‘On the right track’
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”
“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.
He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”
The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.
The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ubrogepant safety and efficacy not affected by triptan therapy
according to a study published in Headache.
“The goal is to get migraine attacks under control as quickly as you can with as few adverse events as possible,” said lead author Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad, California. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and well tolerated because it has few adverse events.”
Migraine disorder is the third most prevalent disease, and at least one person living in 25% of all U.S. households has the condition.
Clinicians have a wide range of medications at their disposal to treat migraines. These drug classes include triptans, ditans, NSAIDs, dihydroergotamine, and combination analgesics. Although numerous pharmacologic options are available to manage this patient population, an estimated 95% of patients who take oral medications to alleviate their migraine symptoms still fail to achieve relief with at least one acute episode.
Triptans remain a common option and first-line choice for acute migraine relief, but poor tolerability, among other factors, continue to limit their effectiveness. Moreover, their vasoconstrictive properties preclude their use in specific patient populations, such as those who have hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and cerebral vascular accident. These circumstances, combined with other unmet clinical needs in migraine, have prompted researchers to explore new options, including a newer class of drugs – CGRP receptor antagonists. An endogenous protein, CGRP, has inflammatory and pronociceptive properties that play an active role in contributing to migraine pathogenesis.
Efficacy analyzed by triptan response
To investigate the effects of anti-CGRP treatment in patients with migraine who have a previous history of triptan use, researchers conducted two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, single-attack trials, known as ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II.
Trial participants ranged in age from 18 to 75 years with a documented history of migraines with or without aura. In ACHIEVE I, investigators randomized 1,327 participants 1:1:1 to receive placebo, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg and placebo. Randomized patients in ACHIEVE II (n = 1,355) received placebo, ubrogepant 25 mg, or ubrogepant 50 mg to treat a single episode. During the screening process, researchers further placed patients in one of three groups based on their previous triptan use – triptan responder, triptan-insufficient responder, and triptan naive. Patients were further randomized based on their previous experience with triptans and whether they currently used them for migraine prevention. Patients participating in the study had up to 60 days to treat one qualifying migraine of moderate or severe nature at home.
The studies had two primary endpoints. The first was freedom from pain at the 2-hour mark following the initial dose, defined as decreased headache severity from moderate or severe at baseline to no pain. The other primary endpoint was the absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (MBS) – photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea – 2 hours after the initial ubrogepant dose.
The pooled analysis collated data from 1,799 patients in both studies (placebo, n = 912; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 887). Patients fell into the following categories: 682 triptan responders (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant, n = 332); 451 triptan-insufficient responders (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 triptan naive (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 337).
Based on the data, approximately 25% of the patients enrolled in the study fell into the triptan-insufficient category. Of this subpopulation, about 80% of the patients in each treatment group experienced insufficient efficacy when using triptans. In each treatment group of insufficient responders, approximately 17% of patients cited tolerability issues, and 3% had contraindications that precluded them from triptan therapy.
The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment-related TEAEs did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups. The highest percentage of participants experiencing a treatment-related TEAE in the pooled ubrogepant 50-mg treatment group was found in the triptan-insufficient responders (10.4%), whereas the highest percentage in the placebo group was found in the triptan-naive subgroup (9.7%). No serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in any subgroup.
The researchers concluded that “ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan naive based on their historical experience with triptans.”
Payers limit use
Despite the promising data, payer hurdles limit ubrogepant’s use, said Stewart Tepper, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tepper, a professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., was not involved in the study. “The study shows that ubrogepant will work as well as those who have not responded well to triptans, which is key,” Dr. Tepper said. “However, payers have set up step edits in which patients aren’t allowed to get ubrogepant unless they fail therapy with at least two triptans.”
Dr. Blumenfeld discounts the rationale behind requiring patients to try a second triptan after failing initial triptan therapy. “There are plenty of studies showing that if you fail one triptan, you’re likely to fail another,” he said. “Why would you put the patient on a different triptan when you could switch them to another drug with a different mechanism of action?”
The results showed that more patients in the ubrogepant 50-mg arm achieved pain freedom than those in the placebo arm within 2 hours after the initial dose in each group.
“Migraine is a very disabling condition, so you want to get the attack under control as quickly as possible while limiting the risk for potential side effects,” said Dr. Blumenfeld. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and with very few adverse effects, but its use is limited because insurance companies require the failure of several triptans.”
One limitation of the study is that it is a subanalysis.
Dr. Blumenfeld has disclosed advisory board service, consulting, speaking, and authorship for AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Theranica, and Zoscano.
according to a study published in Headache.
“The goal is to get migraine attacks under control as quickly as you can with as few adverse events as possible,” said lead author Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad, California. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and well tolerated because it has few adverse events.”
Migraine disorder is the third most prevalent disease, and at least one person living in 25% of all U.S. households has the condition.
Clinicians have a wide range of medications at their disposal to treat migraines. These drug classes include triptans, ditans, NSAIDs, dihydroergotamine, and combination analgesics. Although numerous pharmacologic options are available to manage this patient population, an estimated 95% of patients who take oral medications to alleviate their migraine symptoms still fail to achieve relief with at least one acute episode.
Triptans remain a common option and first-line choice for acute migraine relief, but poor tolerability, among other factors, continue to limit their effectiveness. Moreover, their vasoconstrictive properties preclude their use in specific patient populations, such as those who have hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and cerebral vascular accident. These circumstances, combined with other unmet clinical needs in migraine, have prompted researchers to explore new options, including a newer class of drugs – CGRP receptor antagonists. An endogenous protein, CGRP, has inflammatory and pronociceptive properties that play an active role in contributing to migraine pathogenesis.
Efficacy analyzed by triptan response
To investigate the effects of anti-CGRP treatment in patients with migraine who have a previous history of triptan use, researchers conducted two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, single-attack trials, known as ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II.
Trial participants ranged in age from 18 to 75 years with a documented history of migraines with or without aura. In ACHIEVE I, investigators randomized 1,327 participants 1:1:1 to receive placebo, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg and placebo. Randomized patients in ACHIEVE II (n = 1,355) received placebo, ubrogepant 25 mg, or ubrogepant 50 mg to treat a single episode. During the screening process, researchers further placed patients in one of three groups based on their previous triptan use – triptan responder, triptan-insufficient responder, and triptan naive. Patients were further randomized based on their previous experience with triptans and whether they currently used them for migraine prevention. Patients participating in the study had up to 60 days to treat one qualifying migraine of moderate or severe nature at home.
The studies had two primary endpoints. The first was freedom from pain at the 2-hour mark following the initial dose, defined as decreased headache severity from moderate or severe at baseline to no pain. The other primary endpoint was the absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (MBS) – photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea – 2 hours after the initial ubrogepant dose.
The pooled analysis collated data from 1,799 patients in both studies (placebo, n = 912; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 887). Patients fell into the following categories: 682 triptan responders (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant, n = 332); 451 triptan-insufficient responders (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 triptan naive (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 337).
Based on the data, approximately 25% of the patients enrolled in the study fell into the triptan-insufficient category. Of this subpopulation, about 80% of the patients in each treatment group experienced insufficient efficacy when using triptans. In each treatment group of insufficient responders, approximately 17% of patients cited tolerability issues, and 3% had contraindications that precluded them from triptan therapy.
The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment-related TEAEs did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups. The highest percentage of participants experiencing a treatment-related TEAE in the pooled ubrogepant 50-mg treatment group was found in the triptan-insufficient responders (10.4%), whereas the highest percentage in the placebo group was found in the triptan-naive subgroup (9.7%). No serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in any subgroup.
The researchers concluded that “ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan naive based on their historical experience with triptans.”
Payers limit use
Despite the promising data, payer hurdles limit ubrogepant’s use, said Stewart Tepper, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tepper, a professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., was not involved in the study. “The study shows that ubrogepant will work as well as those who have not responded well to triptans, which is key,” Dr. Tepper said. “However, payers have set up step edits in which patients aren’t allowed to get ubrogepant unless they fail therapy with at least two triptans.”
Dr. Blumenfeld discounts the rationale behind requiring patients to try a second triptan after failing initial triptan therapy. “There are plenty of studies showing that if you fail one triptan, you’re likely to fail another,” he said. “Why would you put the patient on a different triptan when you could switch them to another drug with a different mechanism of action?”
The results showed that more patients in the ubrogepant 50-mg arm achieved pain freedom than those in the placebo arm within 2 hours after the initial dose in each group.
“Migraine is a very disabling condition, so you want to get the attack under control as quickly as possible while limiting the risk for potential side effects,” said Dr. Blumenfeld. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and with very few adverse effects, but its use is limited because insurance companies require the failure of several triptans.”
One limitation of the study is that it is a subanalysis.
Dr. Blumenfeld has disclosed advisory board service, consulting, speaking, and authorship for AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Theranica, and Zoscano.
according to a study published in Headache.
“The goal is to get migraine attacks under control as quickly as you can with as few adverse events as possible,” said lead author Andrew Blumenfeld, MD, director of the Headache Center of Southern California in Carlsbad, California. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and well tolerated because it has few adverse events.”
Migraine disorder is the third most prevalent disease, and at least one person living in 25% of all U.S. households has the condition.
Clinicians have a wide range of medications at their disposal to treat migraines. These drug classes include triptans, ditans, NSAIDs, dihydroergotamine, and combination analgesics. Although numerous pharmacologic options are available to manage this patient population, an estimated 95% of patients who take oral medications to alleviate their migraine symptoms still fail to achieve relief with at least one acute episode.
Triptans remain a common option and first-line choice for acute migraine relief, but poor tolerability, among other factors, continue to limit their effectiveness. Moreover, their vasoconstrictive properties preclude their use in specific patient populations, such as those who have hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and cerebral vascular accident. These circumstances, combined with other unmet clinical needs in migraine, have prompted researchers to explore new options, including a newer class of drugs – CGRP receptor antagonists. An endogenous protein, CGRP, has inflammatory and pronociceptive properties that play an active role in contributing to migraine pathogenesis.
Efficacy analyzed by triptan response
To investigate the effects of anti-CGRP treatment in patients with migraine who have a previous history of triptan use, researchers conducted two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, single-attack trials, known as ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II.
Trial participants ranged in age from 18 to 75 years with a documented history of migraines with or without aura. In ACHIEVE I, investigators randomized 1,327 participants 1:1:1 to receive placebo, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg and placebo. Randomized patients in ACHIEVE II (n = 1,355) received placebo, ubrogepant 25 mg, or ubrogepant 50 mg to treat a single episode. During the screening process, researchers further placed patients in one of three groups based on their previous triptan use – triptan responder, triptan-insufficient responder, and triptan naive. Patients were further randomized based on their previous experience with triptans and whether they currently used them for migraine prevention. Patients participating in the study had up to 60 days to treat one qualifying migraine of moderate or severe nature at home.
The studies had two primary endpoints. The first was freedom from pain at the 2-hour mark following the initial dose, defined as decreased headache severity from moderate or severe at baseline to no pain. The other primary endpoint was the absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (MBS) – photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea – 2 hours after the initial ubrogepant dose.
The pooled analysis collated data from 1,799 patients in both studies (placebo, n = 912; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 887). Patients fell into the following categories: 682 triptan responders (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant, n = 332); 451 triptan-insufficient responders (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 triptan naive (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 337).
Based on the data, approximately 25% of the patients enrolled in the study fell into the triptan-insufficient category. Of this subpopulation, about 80% of the patients in each treatment group experienced insufficient efficacy when using triptans. In each treatment group of insufficient responders, approximately 17% of patients cited tolerability issues, and 3% had contraindications that precluded them from triptan therapy.
The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and treatment-related TEAEs did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups. The highest percentage of participants experiencing a treatment-related TEAE in the pooled ubrogepant 50-mg treatment group was found in the triptan-insufficient responders (10.4%), whereas the highest percentage in the placebo group was found in the triptan-naive subgroup (9.7%). No serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in any subgroup.
The researchers concluded that “ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan naive based on their historical experience with triptans.”
Payers limit use
Despite the promising data, payer hurdles limit ubrogepant’s use, said Stewart Tepper, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tepper, a professor of neurology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., was not involved in the study. “The study shows that ubrogepant will work as well as those who have not responded well to triptans, which is key,” Dr. Tepper said. “However, payers have set up step edits in which patients aren’t allowed to get ubrogepant unless they fail therapy with at least two triptans.”
Dr. Blumenfeld discounts the rationale behind requiring patients to try a second triptan after failing initial triptan therapy. “There are plenty of studies showing that if you fail one triptan, you’re likely to fail another,” he said. “Why would you put the patient on a different triptan when you could switch them to another drug with a different mechanism of action?”
The results showed that more patients in the ubrogepant 50-mg arm achieved pain freedom than those in the placebo arm within 2 hours after the initial dose in each group.
“Migraine is a very disabling condition, so you want to get the attack under control as quickly as possible while limiting the risk for potential side effects,” said Dr. Blumenfeld. “Ubrogepant is very efficacious and with very few adverse effects, but its use is limited because insurance companies require the failure of several triptans.”
One limitation of the study is that it is a subanalysis.
Dr. Blumenfeld has disclosed advisory board service, consulting, speaking, and authorship for AbbVie, Alder, Amgen, Biohaven, Lilly, Novartis, Teva, Theranica, and Zoscano.
FROM HEADACHE
Hospitalization not rare for children with COVID, study says
Nearly a third of those had severe disease that required mechanical ventilation or admission to an intensive care unit, according to a new study published in JAMA Network Open on April 9.*
That means about 1 in 9 kids with COVID-19 in this cohort needed hospitalization, and about 1 in 28 had severe COVID-19.
“Although most children with COVID-19 experience mild illness, some children develop serious illness that leads to hospitalization, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, and death,” the researchers wrote.
The research team analyzed discharge data from 869 medical facilities in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release. They looked for COVID-19 patients ages 18 and under who had an in-patient or emergency department visit between March and October 2020.
More than 20,700 children with COVID-19 had an in-patient or an emergency department visit, and 2,430 were hospitalized with COVID-19. Among those, 756 children had severe COVID-19 and were admitted to an intensive care unit or needed mechanical ventilation.
About 53% of the COVID-19 patients were girls, and about 54% were between ages 12-18. In addition, about 29% had at least one chronic condition.
Similar to COVID-19 studies in adults, Hispanic, Latino and Black patients were overrepresented. About 39% of the children were Hispanic or Latino, and 24% were Black. However, the researchers didn’t find an association between severe COVID-19 and race or ethnicity.
The likelihood of severe COVID-19 increased if the patient had at least one chronic condition, was male, or was between ages 2-11.
“Understanding factors associated with severe COVID-19 disease among children could help inform prevention and control strategies,” they added. “Reducing infection risk through community mitigation strategies is critical for protecting children from COVID-19 and preventing poor outcomes.”
As of April 8, more than 3.54 million U.S. children have tested positive for COVID-19, according to the latest report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association. Cases among children are increasing slightly, with about 73,000 new cases reported during the first week of April.
Children represent about 13.5% of the COVID-19 cases in the country, according to the report. Among the 24 states that provide data, children represented 1% to 3% of all COVID-19 hospitalizations, and less than 2% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in hospitalization.
“At this time, it appears that severe illness due to COVID-19 is rare among children,” the two groups wrote.
“However, there is an urgent need to collect more data on longer-term impacts of the pandemic on children, including ways the virus may harm the long-term physical health of infected children, as well as its emotional and mental health effects,” they added.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
*CORRECTION, 6/7/21 – This story has been corrected to clarify that the patient sample study reflects only those children who presented to an emergency department or received inpatient care for COVID-19 in a hospital network and were included in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release. A previous version of the story incorrectly implied that 12% of all U.S. children with COVID-19 had required inpatient care.
Nearly a third of those had severe disease that required mechanical ventilation or admission to an intensive care unit, according to a new study published in JAMA Network Open on April 9.*
That means about 1 in 9 kids with COVID-19 in this cohort needed hospitalization, and about 1 in 28 had severe COVID-19.
“Although most children with COVID-19 experience mild illness, some children develop serious illness that leads to hospitalization, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, and death,” the researchers wrote.
The research team analyzed discharge data from 869 medical facilities in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release. They looked for COVID-19 patients ages 18 and under who had an in-patient or emergency department visit between March and October 2020.
More than 20,700 children with COVID-19 had an in-patient or an emergency department visit, and 2,430 were hospitalized with COVID-19. Among those, 756 children had severe COVID-19 and were admitted to an intensive care unit or needed mechanical ventilation.
About 53% of the COVID-19 patients were girls, and about 54% were between ages 12-18. In addition, about 29% had at least one chronic condition.
Similar to COVID-19 studies in adults, Hispanic, Latino and Black patients were overrepresented. About 39% of the children were Hispanic or Latino, and 24% were Black. However, the researchers didn’t find an association between severe COVID-19 and race or ethnicity.
The likelihood of severe COVID-19 increased if the patient had at least one chronic condition, was male, or was between ages 2-11.
“Understanding factors associated with severe COVID-19 disease among children could help inform prevention and control strategies,” they added. “Reducing infection risk through community mitigation strategies is critical for protecting children from COVID-19 and preventing poor outcomes.”
As of April 8, more than 3.54 million U.S. children have tested positive for COVID-19, according to the latest report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association. Cases among children are increasing slightly, with about 73,000 new cases reported during the first week of April.
Children represent about 13.5% of the COVID-19 cases in the country, according to the report. Among the 24 states that provide data, children represented 1% to 3% of all COVID-19 hospitalizations, and less than 2% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in hospitalization.
“At this time, it appears that severe illness due to COVID-19 is rare among children,” the two groups wrote.
“However, there is an urgent need to collect more data on longer-term impacts of the pandemic on children, including ways the virus may harm the long-term physical health of infected children, as well as its emotional and mental health effects,” they added.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
*CORRECTION, 6/7/21 – This story has been corrected to clarify that the patient sample study reflects only those children who presented to an emergency department or received inpatient care for COVID-19 in a hospital network and were included in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release. A previous version of the story incorrectly implied that 12% of all U.S. children with COVID-19 had required inpatient care.
Nearly a third of those had severe disease that required mechanical ventilation or admission to an intensive care unit, according to a new study published in JAMA Network Open on April 9.*
That means about 1 in 9 kids with COVID-19 in this cohort needed hospitalization, and about 1 in 28 had severe COVID-19.
“Although most children with COVID-19 experience mild illness, some children develop serious illness that leads to hospitalization, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, and death,” the researchers wrote.
The research team analyzed discharge data from 869 medical facilities in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release. They looked for COVID-19 patients ages 18 and under who had an in-patient or emergency department visit between March and October 2020.
More than 20,700 children with COVID-19 had an in-patient or an emergency department visit, and 2,430 were hospitalized with COVID-19. Among those, 756 children had severe COVID-19 and were admitted to an intensive care unit or needed mechanical ventilation.
About 53% of the COVID-19 patients were girls, and about 54% were between ages 12-18. In addition, about 29% had at least one chronic condition.
Similar to COVID-19 studies in adults, Hispanic, Latino and Black patients were overrepresented. About 39% of the children were Hispanic or Latino, and 24% were Black. However, the researchers didn’t find an association between severe COVID-19 and race or ethnicity.
The likelihood of severe COVID-19 increased if the patient had at least one chronic condition, was male, or was between ages 2-11.
“Understanding factors associated with severe COVID-19 disease among children could help inform prevention and control strategies,” they added. “Reducing infection risk through community mitigation strategies is critical for protecting children from COVID-19 and preventing poor outcomes.”
As of April 8, more than 3.54 million U.S. children have tested positive for COVID-19, according to the latest report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association. Cases among children are increasing slightly, with about 73,000 new cases reported during the first week of April.
Children represent about 13.5% of the COVID-19 cases in the country, according to the report. Among the 24 states that provide data, children represented 1% to 3% of all COVID-19 hospitalizations, and less than 2% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in hospitalization.
“At this time, it appears that severe illness due to COVID-19 is rare among children,” the two groups wrote.
“However, there is an urgent need to collect more data on longer-term impacts of the pandemic on children, including ways the virus may harm the long-term physical health of infected children, as well as its emotional and mental health effects,” they added.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
*CORRECTION, 6/7/21 – This story has been corrected to clarify that the patient sample study reflects only those children who presented to an emergency department or received inpatient care for COVID-19 in a hospital network and were included in the Premier Healthcare Database Special COVID-19 Release. A previous version of the story incorrectly implied that 12% of all U.S. children with COVID-19 had required inpatient care.
How to counsel worried patients about the J&J vaccine news
On April 13, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration issued a joint statement recommending a pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine administration, pending review of six reported U.S. cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot occurring after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. To date, more than 6.8 million doses of that vaccine have been given in the United States, so at this point the rate of detected cases of this problem is less than one in a million.
The six cases occurred in women aged 18-48 years, and symptoms occurred 6-13 days after vaccination. In these cases, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis was seen in addition to thrombocytopenia.
Physicians may receive calls from concerned patients who have received a COVID vaccine. However, more than 95% of the vaccine administrations in the United States to date have been the Pfizer and Moderna messenger RNA vaccines. No association between these vaccines and blood clots has been detected. Also, these six cases occurred within 2 weeks of Johnson & Johnson vaccination, so even among those receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, those who are more than 3 weeks out from their vaccination have no need for concern regarding this rare complication.
Physicians should counsel those who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine less than 3 weeks ago to watch for easy bruising, gum bleeding, nose bleeds, leg or arm pain or swelling, severe headache or abdominal pain, shortness of breath, or chest pain. If they notice one or more of those symptoms, they should seek medical attention.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on April 14 to review the six U.S. cases of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and determine their significance.
Several cases of unusual thromboses and thrombocytopenia have been detected after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, which uses the same adenovirus vector technology as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but which is not authorized for use in the United States. The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine uses a recombinant deficient chimpanzee adenovirus to deliver the message to cells to produce antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses a recombinant deficient human adenovirus to deliver this same message.
Two recent reports in the New England Journal of Medicine have reported on thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. Both of these reports identified high levels of IgG antibodies to platelet factor 4–polyanion complexes, similar to the mechanism of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. The term vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia was proposed for this phenomenon. Treatment of this condition involves administration of intravenous immunoglobulin and nonheparin anticoagulants. Recent updates from the World Health Organization report that 169 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 53 of splanchnic venous thrombosis occurred after 34 million doses of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was administered in the European Union and United Kingdom.
While this pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccination is disappointing news amid increased cases in parts of the country, the Johnson & Johnson vaccines make up less than 5% of the U.S. vaccine doses administered to date. According to the CDC, more than 122 million Americans have received at least one dose and more than 75 million are fully vaccinated.
Dr. Patterson has received an honorarium from Pfizer for an antifungal symposium and is a subinvestigator for the Novavax vaccine. Her spouse served as a consultant for SCYNEXIS, as a speaker for Gilead Sciences and Basilea, and has received a research grant from the National Institutes of Health for the ACTT remdesivir trial.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On April 13, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration issued a joint statement recommending a pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine administration, pending review of six reported U.S. cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot occurring after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. To date, more than 6.8 million doses of that vaccine have been given in the United States, so at this point the rate of detected cases of this problem is less than one in a million.
The six cases occurred in women aged 18-48 years, and symptoms occurred 6-13 days after vaccination. In these cases, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis was seen in addition to thrombocytopenia.
Physicians may receive calls from concerned patients who have received a COVID vaccine. However, more than 95% of the vaccine administrations in the United States to date have been the Pfizer and Moderna messenger RNA vaccines. No association between these vaccines and blood clots has been detected. Also, these six cases occurred within 2 weeks of Johnson & Johnson vaccination, so even among those receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, those who are more than 3 weeks out from their vaccination have no need for concern regarding this rare complication.
Physicians should counsel those who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine less than 3 weeks ago to watch for easy bruising, gum bleeding, nose bleeds, leg or arm pain or swelling, severe headache or abdominal pain, shortness of breath, or chest pain. If they notice one or more of those symptoms, they should seek medical attention.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on April 14 to review the six U.S. cases of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and determine their significance.
Several cases of unusual thromboses and thrombocytopenia have been detected after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, which uses the same adenovirus vector technology as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but which is not authorized for use in the United States. The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine uses a recombinant deficient chimpanzee adenovirus to deliver the message to cells to produce antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses a recombinant deficient human adenovirus to deliver this same message.
Two recent reports in the New England Journal of Medicine have reported on thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. Both of these reports identified high levels of IgG antibodies to platelet factor 4–polyanion complexes, similar to the mechanism of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. The term vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia was proposed for this phenomenon. Treatment of this condition involves administration of intravenous immunoglobulin and nonheparin anticoagulants. Recent updates from the World Health Organization report that 169 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 53 of splanchnic venous thrombosis occurred after 34 million doses of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was administered in the European Union and United Kingdom.
While this pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccination is disappointing news amid increased cases in parts of the country, the Johnson & Johnson vaccines make up less than 5% of the U.S. vaccine doses administered to date. According to the CDC, more than 122 million Americans have received at least one dose and more than 75 million are fully vaccinated.
Dr. Patterson has received an honorarium from Pfizer for an antifungal symposium and is a subinvestigator for the Novavax vaccine. Her spouse served as a consultant for SCYNEXIS, as a speaker for Gilead Sciences and Basilea, and has received a research grant from the National Institutes of Health for the ACTT remdesivir trial.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On April 13, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration issued a joint statement recommending a pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine administration, pending review of six reported U.S. cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot occurring after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. To date, more than 6.8 million doses of that vaccine have been given in the United States, so at this point the rate of detected cases of this problem is less than one in a million.
The six cases occurred in women aged 18-48 years, and symptoms occurred 6-13 days after vaccination. In these cases, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis was seen in addition to thrombocytopenia.
Physicians may receive calls from concerned patients who have received a COVID vaccine. However, more than 95% of the vaccine administrations in the United States to date have been the Pfizer and Moderna messenger RNA vaccines. No association between these vaccines and blood clots has been detected. Also, these six cases occurred within 2 weeks of Johnson & Johnson vaccination, so even among those receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, those who are more than 3 weeks out from their vaccination have no need for concern regarding this rare complication.
Physicians should counsel those who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine less than 3 weeks ago to watch for easy bruising, gum bleeding, nose bleeds, leg or arm pain or swelling, severe headache or abdominal pain, shortness of breath, or chest pain. If they notice one or more of those symptoms, they should seek medical attention.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on April 14 to review the six U.S. cases of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and determine their significance.
Several cases of unusual thromboses and thrombocytopenia have been detected after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, which uses the same adenovirus vector technology as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but which is not authorized for use in the United States. The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine uses a recombinant deficient chimpanzee adenovirus to deliver the message to cells to produce antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses a recombinant deficient human adenovirus to deliver this same message.
Two recent reports in the New England Journal of Medicine have reported on thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. Both of these reports identified high levels of IgG antibodies to platelet factor 4–polyanion complexes, similar to the mechanism of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. The term vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia was proposed for this phenomenon. Treatment of this condition involves administration of intravenous immunoglobulin and nonheparin anticoagulants. Recent updates from the World Health Organization report that 169 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 53 of splanchnic venous thrombosis occurred after 34 million doses of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was administered in the European Union and United Kingdom.
While this pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccination is disappointing news amid increased cases in parts of the country, the Johnson & Johnson vaccines make up less than 5% of the U.S. vaccine doses administered to date. According to the CDC, more than 122 million Americans have received at least one dose and more than 75 million are fully vaccinated.
Dr. Patterson has received an honorarium from Pfizer for an antifungal symposium and is a subinvestigator for the Novavax vaccine. Her spouse served as a consultant for SCYNEXIS, as a speaker for Gilead Sciences and Basilea, and has received a research grant from the National Institutes of Health for the ACTT remdesivir trial.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 vaccine failure in patients with blood cancers
COVID vaccines do not work well for patients with hematologic malignancies, new data suggest.
A small study involving 67 such patients shows that nearly half did not produce antibodies and were therefore still at risk of contracting COVID-19, even though they had all received both doses of one of the new mRNA COVID vaccines (Moderna or Pfizer).
“[This] is in stark contrast with the results of phase 1 mRNA vaccine immunogenicity trials, in which robust antibody responses were seen in essentially 100% of participants,” said the authors, led by Mounzer Agha, MD, director of the Mario Lemieux Center for Blood Cancers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center.
“Clinicians caring for patients with hematological malignancies and other immunocompromising conditions should be aware of the possibility of COVID-19 vaccine failure,” they emphasized.
“It’s critically important for these patients to be aware of their continued risk [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] and to seek prompt medical attention if they have COVID-19 symptoms, even after vaccination,” Dr. Agha said in a statement.
The study was published online on April 9 as preprint in medRxiv and has not yet undergone peer review.
Antibody responses
The authors analyzed responses in a group of 67 patients who had a hematologic malignancy, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Approximately 45% of the patients were receiving therapy for their cancer at the time of vaccination; the rest were under observation.
All patients received two doses of an mRNA COVID vaccine and so were considered to be fully vaccinated.
Antibody responses for these fully vaccinated patients were then analyzed. The median duration between receipt of the second dose of the vaccine and the antibody test was 23 days.
“In total ... 46.3% ... had a negative antibody result after vaccination and were therefore considered to be vaccine nonresponders,” the authors reported.
The worst responses occurred in patients with CLL, of whom only 23% produced measurable antibodies to either vaccine, although approximately 70% of these patients were not receiving any form of cancer therapy at the time of vaccination.
Older patients were more likely not to have a response to either vaccine compared with younger patients, the investigators added.
In contrast, gender, immunoglobulin G levels, the number of days between the second dose and the measurement of antibodies, and status of cancer therapy did not differ among patients who had a response to the vaccines and those who did not.
“Our findings underscore the importance of adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent COVID-19 in hematological malignancy patients,” the authors wrote. This is particularly important, given the fact that among patients with hematologic malignancies who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the mortality rate is in excess of 30%.
Moreover, among such patients, viral shedding may be prolonged, often lasting several months. As such, “these patients should be advised to wear masks and observe social distancing regardless of vaccination status,” the investigators advised.
As of March 2021, guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has allowed gatherings of unmasked people who have been vaccinated and of those at low risk for COVID-19 who have not yet been vaccinated. “As we see more national guidance allowing for unmasked gatherings among vaccinated people, clinicians should counsel their immunocompromised patients about the possibility that COVID-19 vaccines may not fully protect them against SARS-CoV-2,” coauthor Ghady Haidar, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, said in a statement.
“Our results show that the odds of the vaccine producing an antibody response in people with hematologic malignancies are the equivalent of a coin flip,” he said.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID vaccines do not work well for patients with hematologic malignancies, new data suggest.
A small study involving 67 such patients shows that nearly half did not produce antibodies and were therefore still at risk of contracting COVID-19, even though they had all received both doses of one of the new mRNA COVID vaccines (Moderna or Pfizer).
“[This] is in stark contrast with the results of phase 1 mRNA vaccine immunogenicity trials, in which robust antibody responses were seen in essentially 100% of participants,” said the authors, led by Mounzer Agha, MD, director of the Mario Lemieux Center for Blood Cancers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center.
“Clinicians caring for patients with hematological malignancies and other immunocompromising conditions should be aware of the possibility of COVID-19 vaccine failure,” they emphasized.
“It’s critically important for these patients to be aware of their continued risk [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] and to seek prompt medical attention if they have COVID-19 symptoms, even after vaccination,” Dr. Agha said in a statement.
The study was published online on April 9 as preprint in medRxiv and has not yet undergone peer review.
Antibody responses
The authors analyzed responses in a group of 67 patients who had a hematologic malignancy, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Approximately 45% of the patients were receiving therapy for their cancer at the time of vaccination; the rest were under observation.
All patients received two doses of an mRNA COVID vaccine and so were considered to be fully vaccinated.
Antibody responses for these fully vaccinated patients were then analyzed. The median duration between receipt of the second dose of the vaccine and the antibody test was 23 days.
“In total ... 46.3% ... had a negative antibody result after vaccination and were therefore considered to be vaccine nonresponders,” the authors reported.
The worst responses occurred in patients with CLL, of whom only 23% produced measurable antibodies to either vaccine, although approximately 70% of these patients were not receiving any form of cancer therapy at the time of vaccination.
Older patients were more likely not to have a response to either vaccine compared with younger patients, the investigators added.
In contrast, gender, immunoglobulin G levels, the number of days between the second dose and the measurement of antibodies, and status of cancer therapy did not differ among patients who had a response to the vaccines and those who did not.
“Our findings underscore the importance of adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent COVID-19 in hematological malignancy patients,” the authors wrote. This is particularly important, given the fact that among patients with hematologic malignancies who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the mortality rate is in excess of 30%.
Moreover, among such patients, viral shedding may be prolonged, often lasting several months. As such, “these patients should be advised to wear masks and observe social distancing regardless of vaccination status,” the investigators advised.
As of March 2021, guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has allowed gatherings of unmasked people who have been vaccinated and of those at low risk for COVID-19 who have not yet been vaccinated. “As we see more national guidance allowing for unmasked gatherings among vaccinated people, clinicians should counsel their immunocompromised patients about the possibility that COVID-19 vaccines may not fully protect them against SARS-CoV-2,” coauthor Ghady Haidar, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, said in a statement.
“Our results show that the odds of the vaccine producing an antibody response in people with hematologic malignancies are the equivalent of a coin flip,” he said.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID vaccines do not work well for patients with hematologic malignancies, new data suggest.
A small study involving 67 such patients shows that nearly half did not produce antibodies and were therefore still at risk of contracting COVID-19, even though they had all received both doses of one of the new mRNA COVID vaccines (Moderna or Pfizer).
“[This] is in stark contrast with the results of phase 1 mRNA vaccine immunogenicity trials, in which robust antibody responses were seen in essentially 100% of participants,” said the authors, led by Mounzer Agha, MD, director of the Mario Lemieux Center for Blood Cancers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center.
“Clinicians caring for patients with hematological malignancies and other immunocompromising conditions should be aware of the possibility of COVID-19 vaccine failure,” they emphasized.
“It’s critically important for these patients to be aware of their continued risk [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] and to seek prompt medical attention if they have COVID-19 symptoms, even after vaccination,” Dr. Agha said in a statement.
The study was published online on April 9 as preprint in medRxiv and has not yet undergone peer review.
Antibody responses
The authors analyzed responses in a group of 67 patients who had a hematologic malignancy, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Approximately 45% of the patients were receiving therapy for their cancer at the time of vaccination; the rest were under observation.
All patients received two doses of an mRNA COVID vaccine and so were considered to be fully vaccinated.
Antibody responses for these fully vaccinated patients were then analyzed. The median duration between receipt of the second dose of the vaccine and the antibody test was 23 days.
“In total ... 46.3% ... had a negative antibody result after vaccination and were therefore considered to be vaccine nonresponders,” the authors reported.
The worst responses occurred in patients with CLL, of whom only 23% produced measurable antibodies to either vaccine, although approximately 70% of these patients were not receiving any form of cancer therapy at the time of vaccination.
Older patients were more likely not to have a response to either vaccine compared with younger patients, the investigators added.
In contrast, gender, immunoglobulin G levels, the number of days between the second dose and the measurement of antibodies, and status of cancer therapy did not differ among patients who had a response to the vaccines and those who did not.
“Our findings underscore the importance of adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent COVID-19 in hematological malignancy patients,” the authors wrote. This is particularly important, given the fact that among patients with hematologic malignancies who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the mortality rate is in excess of 30%.
Moreover, among such patients, viral shedding may be prolonged, often lasting several months. As such, “these patients should be advised to wear masks and observe social distancing regardless of vaccination status,” the investigators advised.
As of March 2021, guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has allowed gatherings of unmasked people who have been vaccinated and of those at low risk for COVID-19 who have not yet been vaccinated. “As we see more national guidance allowing for unmasked gatherings among vaccinated people, clinicians should counsel their immunocompromised patients about the possibility that COVID-19 vaccines may not fully protect them against SARS-CoV-2,” coauthor Ghady Haidar, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, said in a statement.
“Our results show that the odds of the vaccine producing an antibody response in people with hematologic malignancies are the equivalent of a coin flip,” he said.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The cost of pediatric specialization
I suspect that very few of you chose to go into pediatrics as part of a get-rich-quick scheme. But, like me, you may have assumed that by going into medicine you would always have a job buffered from the erratic winds of the economy, an assumption that it turns out did not take into account the risk of a global pandemic.
I also bet that if you chose to subspecialize it was not because you felt you might make more money. I and most of the lay public have always naively assumed that specialists generally make more money because … well, because they spent more time training. You, on the other hand, may have discovered belatedly that becoming a pediatric subspecialist isn’t as lucrative as you thought it might be.
It turns out that, when subjected to some standard money-crunching exercises, the lifetime earning potential of most pediatric subspecialists falls significantly behind that of general pediatricians. In a paper published in the April 2021 issue of Pediatrics, investigators from the departments of neurology and pediatric neurology at Johns Hopkins University have reported that, with the exception of three hospital-based, procedure-oriented specialties (cardiology, critical care, and neonatology) the earning time lost during training is usually not recouped over the course of a subspecialist’s career. This observation may be explained in many cases by the fact that the income generated by most subspecialists is similar to and not greater than that of general pediatricians. Even when the income of a subspecialist is greater, it is generally not enough to allow for catch up for the earning power lost during training. The researchers observed this effect both in academic and nonacademic settings.
It is possible that, as the results of this study become more widely distributed, more pediatricians in training will begin to think a bit more about the bottom line when they are considering fellowship training. I suspect that drift is already underway, and if it continues, we will find more subspecialties experiencing shortages. And the importance of this lack of subspecialists on both a local and national level is not something to ignore.
The authors discuss several possible solutions. One option might be to shorten the subspecialty training period. Obviously, this would raise some concerns about quality. Another might be for the government to begin a program in which student loans were selectively forgiven based on a physician’s decision to pursue a subspecialty that is experiencing a shortage.
Another option might be to subsidize the income of some subspecialists. Although this might have a similar effect as loan forgiveness, as a physician with a longstanding pride in being a generalist I would hate to see subspecialists guaranteed a higher income merely because of the narrower mix of patients they have chosen to see. I have always felt that the challenge faced by a primary care generalist who must be prepared to deal with the breadth of complaints that present themselves at the door is at least as great and in many cases greater than that of a specialist whose patients to a large extent have been presorted.
Another solution that comes to mind is that, instead of shortening fellowship programs, one could restructure basic pediatric training programs to allow physicians who have already chosen to become subspecialists to enter a fellowship program after 2 years of house officer training. Restructuring of this magnitude would not be as simple as lopping off the last year of house officer training. It would require tailoring each physician’s shortened prefellowship learning experience to maximize his or her exposure to clinical situations that will be most relevant to the anticipated subspecialty they have chosen. A plan like this also assumes that a significant number of recent medical school graduates will be ready to make choices during their internship that will channel them into careers that will span decades.
Becoming a generalist was an easy decision for me. Any of the subspecialties I was considering would have meant I would have had to live and work in or near a high-density population. I am and always have been a small town kind of guy.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
I suspect that very few of you chose to go into pediatrics as part of a get-rich-quick scheme. But, like me, you may have assumed that by going into medicine you would always have a job buffered from the erratic winds of the economy, an assumption that it turns out did not take into account the risk of a global pandemic.
I also bet that if you chose to subspecialize it was not because you felt you might make more money. I and most of the lay public have always naively assumed that specialists generally make more money because … well, because they spent more time training. You, on the other hand, may have discovered belatedly that becoming a pediatric subspecialist isn’t as lucrative as you thought it might be.
It turns out that, when subjected to some standard money-crunching exercises, the lifetime earning potential of most pediatric subspecialists falls significantly behind that of general pediatricians. In a paper published in the April 2021 issue of Pediatrics, investigators from the departments of neurology and pediatric neurology at Johns Hopkins University have reported that, with the exception of three hospital-based, procedure-oriented specialties (cardiology, critical care, and neonatology) the earning time lost during training is usually not recouped over the course of a subspecialist’s career. This observation may be explained in many cases by the fact that the income generated by most subspecialists is similar to and not greater than that of general pediatricians. Even when the income of a subspecialist is greater, it is generally not enough to allow for catch up for the earning power lost during training. The researchers observed this effect both in academic and nonacademic settings.
It is possible that, as the results of this study become more widely distributed, more pediatricians in training will begin to think a bit more about the bottom line when they are considering fellowship training. I suspect that drift is already underway, and if it continues, we will find more subspecialties experiencing shortages. And the importance of this lack of subspecialists on both a local and national level is not something to ignore.
The authors discuss several possible solutions. One option might be to shorten the subspecialty training period. Obviously, this would raise some concerns about quality. Another might be for the government to begin a program in which student loans were selectively forgiven based on a physician’s decision to pursue a subspecialty that is experiencing a shortage.
Another option might be to subsidize the income of some subspecialists. Although this might have a similar effect as loan forgiveness, as a physician with a longstanding pride in being a generalist I would hate to see subspecialists guaranteed a higher income merely because of the narrower mix of patients they have chosen to see. I have always felt that the challenge faced by a primary care generalist who must be prepared to deal with the breadth of complaints that present themselves at the door is at least as great and in many cases greater than that of a specialist whose patients to a large extent have been presorted.
Another solution that comes to mind is that, instead of shortening fellowship programs, one could restructure basic pediatric training programs to allow physicians who have already chosen to become subspecialists to enter a fellowship program after 2 years of house officer training. Restructuring of this magnitude would not be as simple as lopping off the last year of house officer training. It would require tailoring each physician’s shortened prefellowship learning experience to maximize his or her exposure to clinical situations that will be most relevant to the anticipated subspecialty they have chosen. A plan like this also assumes that a significant number of recent medical school graduates will be ready to make choices during their internship that will channel them into careers that will span decades.
Becoming a generalist was an easy decision for me. Any of the subspecialties I was considering would have meant I would have had to live and work in or near a high-density population. I am and always have been a small town kind of guy.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
I suspect that very few of you chose to go into pediatrics as part of a get-rich-quick scheme. But, like me, you may have assumed that by going into medicine you would always have a job buffered from the erratic winds of the economy, an assumption that it turns out did not take into account the risk of a global pandemic.
I also bet that if you chose to subspecialize it was not because you felt you might make more money. I and most of the lay public have always naively assumed that specialists generally make more money because … well, because they spent more time training. You, on the other hand, may have discovered belatedly that becoming a pediatric subspecialist isn’t as lucrative as you thought it might be.
It turns out that, when subjected to some standard money-crunching exercises, the lifetime earning potential of most pediatric subspecialists falls significantly behind that of general pediatricians. In a paper published in the April 2021 issue of Pediatrics, investigators from the departments of neurology and pediatric neurology at Johns Hopkins University have reported that, with the exception of three hospital-based, procedure-oriented specialties (cardiology, critical care, and neonatology) the earning time lost during training is usually not recouped over the course of a subspecialist’s career. This observation may be explained in many cases by the fact that the income generated by most subspecialists is similar to and not greater than that of general pediatricians. Even when the income of a subspecialist is greater, it is generally not enough to allow for catch up for the earning power lost during training. The researchers observed this effect both in academic and nonacademic settings.
It is possible that, as the results of this study become more widely distributed, more pediatricians in training will begin to think a bit more about the bottom line when they are considering fellowship training. I suspect that drift is already underway, and if it continues, we will find more subspecialties experiencing shortages. And the importance of this lack of subspecialists on both a local and national level is not something to ignore.
The authors discuss several possible solutions. One option might be to shorten the subspecialty training period. Obviously, this would raise some concerns about quality. Another might be for the government to begin a program in which student loans were selectively forgiven based on a physician’s decision to pursue a subspecialty that is experiencing a shortage.
Another option might be to subsidize the income of some subspecialists. Although this might have a similar effect as loan forgiveness, as a physician with a longstanding pride in being a generalist I would hate to see subspecialists guaranteed a higher income merely because of the narrower mix of patients they have chosen to see. I have always felt that the challenge faced by a primary care generalist who must be prepared to deal with the breadth of complaints that present themselves at the door is at least as great and in many cases greater than that of a specialist whose patients to a large extent have been presorted.
Another solution that comes to mind is that, instead of shortening fellowship programs, one could restructure basic pediatric training programs to allow physicians who have already chosen to become subspecialists to enter a fellowship program after 2 years of house officer training. Restructuring of this magnitude would not be as simple as lopping off the last year of house officer training. It would require tailoring each physician’s shortened prefellowship learning experience to maximize his or her exposure to clinical situations that will be most relevant to the anticipated subspecialty they have chosen. A plan like this also assumes that a significant number of recent medical school graduates will be ready to make choices during their internship that will channel them into careers that will span decades.
Becoming a generalist was an easy decision for me. Any of the subspecialties I was considering would have meant I would have had to live and work in or near a high-density population. I am and always have been a small town kind of guy.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Data about COVID-19-related skin manifestations in children continue to emerge
Two and stratifying children at risk for serious, systemic illness due to the virus.
In a single-center descriptive study carried out over a 9-month period, researchers in Madrid found that of 50 hospitalized children infected with COVID-19, 21 (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly exanthem, followed by conjunctival hyperemia without secretion and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue. In addition, 18 (36%) fulfilled criteria for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C).
“Based on findings in adult patients, the skin manifestations of COVID-19 have been classified under five categories: acral pseudo-chilblain, vesicular eruptions, urticarial lesions, maculopapular eruptions, and livedo or necrosis,” David Andina-Martinez, MD, of Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online on April 2 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“Chilblain lesions in healthy children and adolescents have received much attention; these lesions resolve without complications after a few weeks,” they added. “Besides, other cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children have been the matter of case reports or small case series. Nevertheless, the mucocutaneous manifestations in hospitalized children infected with SARS-CoV-2 and their implications on the clinical course have not yet been extensively described.”
In an effort to describe the mucocutaneous manifestations in children hospitalized for COVID-19, the researchers evaluated 50 children up to 18 years of age who were admitted between March 1 and Nov. 30, 2020, to Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, which was designated as a pediatric reference center during the peak of the pandemic. The main reasons for admission were respiratory illness (40%) and MIS-C (40%).
Of the 50 patients, 44 (88%) had a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and 6 (12%) met clinical suspicion criteria and had a negative RT-PCR with a positive IgG serology. In 34 patients (68%), a close contact with a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 was referred, while the source of the infection remained unknown in the remaining 16 patients (32%).
The researchers reported that 21 patients (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly maculopapular exanthem (86%), conjunctival hyperemia (81%), and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue (43%). In addition, 18 of the 21 patients (86%) fulfilled criteria for MIS-C.
“A tricky thing about MIS-C is that it often manifests 4-5 weeks after a child had COVID-19,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was asked to comment on the study. “MIS-C is associated with characteristic bright red lips and a red tongue that might resemble a strawberry. Such oral findings should prompt rapid evaluation for other signs and symptoms. There can be redness of the eyes or other more nonspecific skin findings (large or small areas of redness on the trunk or limbs, sometimes with surface change), but more importantly, fever, a rapid heartbeat, diarrhea, or breathing issues. The risk with MIS-C is a rapid decline in a child’s health, with admission to an intensive care unit.”
Dr. Andina-Martinez and his colleagues also contrast the skin findings of MIS-C, which are not generally on the hands or feet, with the so-called “COVID toe” or finger phenomenon, which has also been associated with SARS-CoV-2, particularly in children. “Only one of the patients in this series had skin involvement of a finger, and it only appeared after recovery from MIS-C,” Dr. Ko noted. “Distinguishing COVID toes from MIS-C is important, as COVID toes has a very good outcome, while MIS-C can have severe consequences, including protracted heart disease.”
In other findings, patients who presented with mucocutaneous signs tended to be older than those without skin signs and they presented at the emergency department with poor general status and extreme tachycardia. They also had higher C-reactive protein and D-dimer levels and lower lymphocyte counts and faced a more than a 10-fold increased risk of being admitted to the PICU, compared with patients who did not have skin signs (OR, 10.24; P = .003).
In a separate study published online on April 7 in JAMA Dermatology, Zachary E. Holcomb, MD, of the combined dermatology residency program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues presented what is believed to be the first case report of reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) triggered by SARS-CoV-2. RIME is the preferred term for pediatric patients who present with mucositis and rash (often a scant or even absent skin eruption) triggered by various infectious agents.
The patient, a 17-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with 3 days of mouth pain and nonpainful penile erosions. “One week prior, he experienced transient anosmia and ageusia that had since spontaneously resolved,” the researchers wrote. “At that time, he was tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection via nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the results of which were positive.”
At presentation, the patient had no fever, his vital signs were normal, and the physical exam revealed shallow erosions of the vermilion lips and hard palate, circumferential erythematous erosions of the periurethral glans penis, and five small vesicles on the trunk and upper extremities. Serum analysis revealed a normal white blood cell count with mild absolute lymphopenia, slightly elevated creatinine level, normal liver function, slightly elevated C-reactive protein level, and normal ferritin level.
Dr. Holcomb and colleagues made a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2–associated RIME based on microbiological results, which revealed positive repeated SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal PCR and negative nasopharyngeal PCR testing for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, adenovirus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, human metapneumovirus, influenza A/B, parainfluenza 1 to 4, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus. In addition, titers of Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgM levels were negative, but Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgG levels were elevated.
The lesions resolved with 60 mg of oral prednisone taken daily for 4 days. A recurrence of oral mucositis 3 months later responded to 80 mg oral prednisone taken daily for 6 days.
“It’s not surprising that SARS-CoV-2 is yet another trigger for RIME,” said Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of the division of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment about the case report.
“The take-home message is for clinicians to be aware of this association and distinguish these patients from those with MIS-C, because patients with MIS-C require monitoring and urgent systemic treatment. RIME and MIS-C may potentially be distinguished clinically based on the nature of the mucositis (hemorrhagic and erosive in RIME, dry, cracked lips with ‘strawberry tongue’ in MIS-C) but more importantly patients with RIME lack laboratory evidence of severe systemic inflammation,” such as ESR, CRP, or ferritin, she said.
“A final interesting point in this article was the recurrence of mucositis in this patient, which could mean that recurrent mucositis/recurrent RIME might be yet another manifestation of ‘long-COVID’ (now called post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection) in some patients,” Dr. Kirkorian added. She noted that the American Academy of Dermatology–International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 Dermatology Registry and articles like these “provide invaluable ‘hot off the presses’ information for clinicians who are facing the protean manifestations of a novel viral epidemic.”
The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
Two and stratifying children at risk for serious, systemic illness due to the virus.
In a single-center descriptive study carried out over a 9-month period, researchers in Madrid found that of 50 hospitalized children infected with COVID-19, 21 (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly exanthem, followed by conjunctival hyperemia without secretion and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue. In addition, 18 (36%) fulfilled criteria for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C).
“Based on findings in adult patients, the skin manifestations of COVID-19 have been classified under five categories: acral pseudo-chilblain, vesicular eruptions, urticarial lesions, maculopapular eruptions, and livedo or necrosis,” David Andina-Martinez, MD, of Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online on April 2 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“Chilblain lesions in healthy children and adolescents have received much attention; these lesions resolve without complications after a few weeks,” they added. “Besides, other cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children have been the matter of case reports or small case series. Nevertheless, the mucocutaneous manifestations in hospitalized children infected with SARS-CoV-2 and their implications on the clinical course have not yet been extensively described.”
In an effort to describe the mucocutaneous manifestations in children hospitalized for COVID-19, the researchers evaluated 50 children up to 18 years of age who were admitted between March 1 and Nov. 30, 2020, to Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, which was designated as a pediatric reference center during the peak of the pandemic. The main reasons for admission were respiratory illness (40%) and MIS-C (40%).
Of the 50 patients, 44 (88%) had a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and 6 (12%) met clinical suspicion criteria and had a negative RT-PCR with a positive IgG serology. In 34 patients (68%), a close contact with a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 was referred, while the source of the infection remained unknown in the remaining 16 patients (32%).
The researchers reported that 21 patients (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly maculopapular exanthem (86%), conjunctival hyperemia (81%), and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue (43%). In addition, 18 of the 21 patients (86%) fulfilled criteria for MIS-C.
“A tricky thing about MIS-C is that it often manifests 4-5 weeks after a child had COVID-19,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was asked to comment on the study. “MIS-C is associated with characteristic bright red lips and a red tongue that might resemble a strawberry. Such oral findings should prompt rapid evaluation for other signs and symptoms. There can be redness of the eyes or other more nonspecific skin findings (large or small areas of redness on the trunk or limbs, sometimes with surface change), but more importantly, fever, a rapid heartbeat, diarrhea, or breathing issues. The risk with MIS-C is a rapid decline in a child’s health, with admission to an intensive care unit.”
Dr. Andina-Martinez and his colleagues also contrast the skin findings of MIS-C, which are not generally on the hands or feet, with the so-called “COVID toe” or finger phenomenon, which has also been associated with SARS-CoV-2, particularly in children. “Only one of the patients in this series had skin involvement of a finger, and it only appeared after recovery from MIS-C,” Dr. Ko noted. “Distinguishing COVID toes from MIS-C is important, as COVID toes has a very good outcome, while MIS-C can have severe consequences, including protracted heart disease.”
In other findings, patients who presented with mucocutaneous signs tended to be older than those without skin signs and they presented at the emergency department with poor general status and extreme tachycardia. They also had higher C-reactive protein and D-dimer levels and lower lymphocyte counts and faced a more than a 10-fold increased risk of being admitted to the PICU, compared with patients who did not have skin signs (OR, 10.24; P = .003).
In a separate study published online on April 7 in JAMA Dermatology, Zachary E. Holcomb, MD, of the combined dermatology residency program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues presented what is believed to be the first case report of reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) triggered by SARS-CoV-2. RIME is the preferred term for pediatric patients who present with mucositis and rash (often a scant or even absent skin eruption) triggered by various infectious agents.
The patient, a 17-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with 3 days of mouth pain and nonpainful penile erosions. “One week prior, he experienced transient anosmia and ageusia that had since spontaneously resolved,” the researchers wrote. “At that time, he was tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection via nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the results of which were positive.”
At presentation, the patient had no fever, his vital signs were normal, and the physical exam revealed shallow erosions of the vermilion lips and hard palate, circumferential erythematous erosions of the periurethral glans penis, and five small vesicles on the trunk and upper extremities. Serum analysis revealed a normal white blood cell count with mild absolute lymphopenia, slightly elevated creatinine level, normal liver function, slightly elevated C-reactive protein level, and normal ferritin level.
Dr. Holcomb and colleagues made a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2–associated RIME based on microbiological results, which revealed positive repeated SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal PCR and negative nasopharyngeal PCR testing for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, adenovirus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, human metapneumovirus, influenza A/B, parainfluenza 1 to 4, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus. In addition, titers of Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgM levels were negative, but Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgG levels were elevated.
The lesions resolved with 60 mg of oral prednisone taken daily for 4 days. A recurrence of oral mucositis 3 months later responded to 80 mg oral prednisone taken daily for 6 days.
“It’s not surprising that SARS-CoV-2 is yet another trigger for RIME,” said Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of the division of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment about the case report.
“The take-home message is for clinicians to be aware of this association and distinguish these patients from those with MIS-C, because patients with MIS-C require monitoring and urgent systemic treatment. RIME and MIS-C may potentially be distinguished clinically based on the nature of the mucositis (hemorrhagic and erosive in RIME, dry, cracked lips with ‘strawberry tongue’ in MIS-C) but more importantly patients with RIME lack laboratory evidence of severe systemic inflammation,” such as ESR, CRP, or ferritin, she said.
“A final interesting point in this article was the recurrence of mucositis in this patient, which could mean that recurrent mucositis/recurrent RIME might be yet another manifestation of ‘long-COVID’ (now called post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection) in some patients,” Dr. Kirkorian added. She noted that the American Academy of Dermatology–International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 Dermatology Registry and articles like these “provide invaluable ‘hot off the presses’ information for clinicians who are facing the protean manifestations of a novel viral epidemic.”
The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
Two and stratifying children at risk for serious, systemic illness due to the virus.
In a single-center descriptive study carried out over a 9-month period, researchers in Madrid found that of 50 hospitalized children infected with COVID-19, 21 (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly exanthem, followed by conjunctival hyperemia without secretion and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue. In addition, 18 (36%) fulfilled criteria for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C).
“Based on findings in adult patients, the skin manifestations of COVID-19 have been classified under five categories: acral pseudo-chilblain, vesicular eruptions, urticarial lesions, maculopapular eruptions, and livedo or necrosis,” David Andina-Martinez, MD, of Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online on April 2 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“Chilblain lesions in healthy children and adolescents have received much attention; these lesions resolve without complications after a few weeks,” they added. “Besides, other cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children have been the matter of case reports or small case series. Nevertheless, the mucocutaneous manifestations in hospitalized children infected with SARS-CoV-2 and their implications on the clinical course have not yet been extensively described.”
In an effort to describe the mucocutaneous manifestations in children hospitalized for COVID-19, the researchers evaluated 50 children up to 18 years of age who were admitted between March 1 and Nov. 30, 2020, to Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, which was designated as a pediatric reference center during the peak of the pandemic. The main reasons for admission were respiratory illness (40%) and MIS-C (40%).
Of the 50 patients, 44 (88%) had a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and 6 (12%) met clinical suspicion criteria and had a negative RT-PCR with a positive IgG serology. In 34 patients (68%), a close contact with a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 was referred, while the source of the infection remained unknown in the remaining 16 patients (32%).
The researchers reported that 21 patients (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly maculopapular exanthem (86%), conjunctival hyperemia (81%), and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue (43%). In addition, 18 of the 21 patients (86%) fulfilled criteria for MIS-C.
“A tricky thing about MIS-C is that it often manifests 4-5 weeks after a child had COVID-19,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was asked to comment on the study. “MIS-C is associated with characteristic bright red lips and a red tongue that might resemble a strawberry. Such oral findings should prompt rapid evaluation for other signs and symptoms. There can be redness of the eyes or other more nonspecific skin findings (large or small areas of redness on the trunk or limbs, sometimes with surface change), but more importantly, fever, a rapid heartbeat, diarrhea, or breathing issues. The risk with MIS-C is a rapid decline in a child’s health, with admission to an intensive care unit.”
Dr. Andina-Martinez and his colleagues also contrast the skin findings of MIS-C, which are not generally on the hands or feet, with the so-called “COVID toe” or finger phenomenon, which has also been associated with SARS-CoV-2, particularly in children. “Only one of the patients in this series had skin involvement of a finger, and it only appeared after recovery from MIS-C,” Dr. Ko noted. “Distinguishing COVID toes from MIS-C is important, as COVID toes has a very good outcome, while MIS-C can have severe consequences, including protracted heart disease.”
In other findings, patients who presented with mucocutaneous signs tended to be older than those without skin signs and they presented at the emergency department with poor general status and extreme tachycardia. They also had higher C-reactive protein and D-dimer levels and lower lymphocyte counts and faced a more than a 10-fold increased risk of being admitted to the PICU, compared with patients who did not have skin signs (OR, 10.24; P = .003).
In a separate study published online on April 7 in JAMA Dermatology, Zachary E. Holcomb, MD, of the combined dermatology residency program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues presented what is believed to be the first case report of reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) triggered by SARS-CoV-2. RIME is the preferred term for pediatric patients who present with mucositis and rash (often a scant or even absent skin eruption) triggered by various infectious agents.
The patient, a 17-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with 3 days of mouth pain and nonpainful penile erosions. “One week prior, he experienced transient anosmia and ageusia that had since spontaneously resolved,” the researchers wrote. “At that time, he was tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection via nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the results of which were positive.”
At presentation, the patient had no fever, his vital signs were normal, and the physical exam revealed shallow erosions of the vermilion lips and hard palate, circumferential erythematous erosions of the periurethral glans penis, and five small vesicles on the trunk and upper extremities. Serum analysis revealed a normal white blood cell count with mild absolute lymphopenia, slightly elevated creatinine level, normal liver function, slightly elevated C-reactive protein level, and normal ferritin level.
Dr. Holcomb and colleagues made a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2–associated RIME based on microbiological results, which revealed positive repeated SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal PCR and negative nasopharyngeal PCR testing for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, adenovirus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, human metapneumovirus, influenza A/B, parainfluenza 1 to 4, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus. In addition, titers of Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgM levels were negative, but Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgG levels were elevated.
The lesions resolved with 60 mg of oral prednisone taken daily for 4 days. A recurrence of oral mucositis 3 months later responded to 80 mg oral prednisone taken daily for 6 days.
“It’s not surprising that SARS-CoV-2 is yet another trigger for RIME,” said Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of the division of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment about the case report.
“The take-home message is for clinicians to be aware of this association and distinguish these patients from those with MIS-C, because patients with MIS-C require monitoring and urgent systemic treatment. RIME and MIS-C may potentially be distinguished clinically based on the nature of the mucositis (hemorrhagic and erosive in RIME, dry, cracked lips with ‘strawberry tongue’ in MIS-C) but more importantly patients with RIME lack laboratory evidence of severe systemic inflammation,” such as ESR, CRP, or ferritin, she said.
“A final interesting point in this article was the recurrence of mucositis in this patient, which could mean that recurrent mucositis/recurrent RIME might be yet another manifestation of ‘long-COVID’ (now called post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection) in some patients,” Dr. Kirkorian added. She noted that the American Academy of Dermatology–International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 Dermatology Registry and articles like these “provide invaluable ‘hot off the presses’ information for clinicians who are facing the protean manifestations of a novel viral epidemic.”
The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
Personalized cancer vaccine shows early promise across tumor types
The vaccine, PGV-001, was given to 13 patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma who had a high risk of recurrence after surgery or autologous stem cell transplant.
At last follow-up, four patients were still alive without evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy, four were alive and receiving therapy, three had died, and two were lost to follow-up.
Thomas Marron, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai in New York presented these results in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 ( Abstract LB048 ). Data in the abstract differ from the data presented.
“While cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, we know that the majority of patients fail to achieve significant clinical response,” Dr. Marron said during his presentation. “One reason for this may be due to lack of preexisting primed T-cell response needed for PD-1 blockade to have a significant effect. To address this, personalized neoantigen vaccines may help prime an improved immune response against tumor cells.”
With this in mind, Dr. Marron and colleagues developed PGV-001, a vaccine consisting of patient-specific synthetic neoantigen peptides given to patients in the adjuvant setting.
Creating a personalized vaccine
The researchers synthesized PGV-001 for 15 patients with advanced malignancies. The patients first underwent tumor and germline DNA sequencing as well as HLA typing. Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on patients’ tumors as well.
Then, the researchers used a computational pipeline called OpenVax to identify candidate neoantigens. This pipeline, developed at Mount Sinai, identified and prioritized candidate neoantigens using predicted MHC class I binding affinity and neoantigen abundance.
OpenVax identified an average of 71.5 neoantigens per patient (range, 7-193). The goal was to synthesize a maximum of 10 peptides per patient, but two patients did not have an adequate number of neoantigens.
Vaccine administration
The peptides were administered over the course of 27 weeks along with poly-ICLC and a tetanus helper peptide. Before receiving their vaccine doses, patients with solid tumors had undergone curative-intent surgery, and those with multiple myeloma had undergone autologous stem cell transplant.
“Most experimental personalized cancer vaccines are administered in the metastatic setting, but prior research indicates that immunotherapies tend to be more effective in patients who have less cancer spread,” principal investigator Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai, explained in a press release .
“We have, therefore, developed a neoantigen vaccine that is administered after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy, such as surgery in solid tumors and bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma, when patients have minimal, typically microscopic, residual disease.”
Feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity
PGV-001 was synthesized for 15 patients and administered to 13 of them. Six of the 13 patients had head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, three had multiple myeloma, two had non–small cell lung cancer, one had breast cancer, and one had urothelial carcinoma.
Eleven patients received all 10 intended doses, and two patients received at least 8 doses.
“The vaccine was well tolerated, with only half of patients experiencing mild, grade 1 adverse events,” Dr. Marron said.
Transient injection site reactions occurred in four patients, and grade 1 fever was reported in one patient.
Immune monitoring is ongoing, but an initial analysis in one patient showed “robust responses” in CD4 and CD8 T cells by intracellular cytokine staining for interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, and interleukin-2 after in vitro expansion in the presence of vaccine antigens, according to the researchers.
Dr. Marron noted that robust T-cell reactivity was seen at the completion of all 10 doses but was not seen after the 6th dose, and this supports the need for a prolonged dosing schedule.
Survival and subsequent therapy
At a mean follow-up of 880 days, four patients had no evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy. This includes one patient with stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer, one with stage IVA HER-2 positive breast cancer, one with stage II urothelial carcinoma, and one with multiple myeloma.
Four patients were alive and receiving subsequent lines of therapy. Two of these patients had significant responses to anti–PD-1 therapy.
Three patients have died, two of whom had documented recurrence of their malignancy. The last two patients were lost to follow-up without documented recurrence.
“Our results demonstrate that the OpenVax pipeline is a viable approach to generate a safe, personalized cancer vaccine, which could potentially be used to treat a range of tumor types,” Dr. Bhardwaj said.
Trials combining neoantigens identified with the OpenVax platform are ongoing in patients with urothelial carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme, Dr. Marron said.
The current study ( NCT02721043 ) is sponsored by Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Marron and Dr. Bhardwaj reported having no disclosures. Their colleagues disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Sema4, and Related Sciences.
The vaccine, PGV-001, was given to 13 patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma who had a high risk of recurrence after surgery or autologous stem cell transplant.
At last follow-up, four patients were still alive without evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy, four were alive and receiving therapy, three had died, and two were lost to follow-up.
Thomas Marron, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai in New York presented these results in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 ( Abstract LB048 ). Data in the abstract differ from the data presented.
“While cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, we know that the majority of patients fail to achieve significant clinical response,” Dr. Marron said during his presentation. “One reason for this may be due to lack of preexisting primed T-cell response needed for PD-1 blockade to have a significant effect. To address this, personalized neoantigen vaccines may help prime an improved immune response against tumor cells.”
With this in mind, Dr. Marron and colleagues developed PGV-001, a vaccine consisting of patient-specific synthetic neoantigen peptides given to patients in the adjuvant setting.
Creating a personalized vaccine
The researchers synthesized PGV-001 for 15 patients with advanced malignancies. The patients first underwent tumor and germline DNA sequencing as well as HLA typing. Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on patients’ tumors as well.
Then, the researchers used a computational pipeline called OpenVax to identify candidate neoantigens. This pipeline, developed at Mount Sinai, identified and prioritized candidate neoantigens using predicted MHC class I binding affinity and neoantigen abundance.
OpenVax identified an average of 71.5 neoantigens per patient (range, 7-193). The goal was to synthesize a maximum of 10 peptides per patient, but two patients did not have an adequate number of neoantigens.
Vaccine administration
The peptides were administered over the course of 27 weeks along with poly-ICLC and a tetanus helper peptide. Before receiving their vaccine doses, patients with solid tumors had undergone curative-intent surgery, and those with multiple myeloma had undergone autologous stem cell transplant.
“Most experimental personalized cancer vaccines are administered in the metastatic setting, but prior research indicates that immunotherapies tend to be more effective in patients who have less cancer spread,” principal investigator Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai, explained in a press release .
“We have, therefore, developed a neoantigen vaccine that is administered after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy, such as surgery in solid tumors and bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma, when patients have minimal, typically microscopic, residual disease.”
Feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity
PGV-001 was synthesized for 15 patients and administered to 13 of them. Six of the 13 patients had head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, three had multiple myeloma, two had non–small cell lung cancer, one had breast cancer, and one had urothelial carcinoma.
Eleven patients received all 10 intended doses, and two patients received at least 8 doses.
“The vaccine was well tolerated, with only half of patients experiencing mild, grade 1 adverse events,” Dr. Marron said.
Transient injection site reactions occurred in four patients, and grade 1 fever was reported in one patient.
Immune monitoring is ongoing, but an initial analysis in one patient showed “robust responses” in CD4 and CD8 T cells by intracellular cytokine staining for interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, and interleukin-2 after in vitro expansion in the presence of vaccine antigens, according to the researchers.
Dr. Marron noted that robust T-cell reactivity was seen at the completion of all 10 doses but was not seen after the 6th dose, and this supports the need for a prolonged dosing schedule.
Survival and subsequent therapy
At a mean follow-up of 880 days, four patients had no evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy. This includes one patient with stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer, one with stage IVA HER-2 positive breast cancer, one with stage II urothelial carcinoma, and one with multiple myeloma.
Four patients were alive and receiving subsequent lines of therapy. Two of these patients had significant responses to anti–PD-1 therapy.
Three patients have died, two of whom had documented recurrence of their malignancy. The last two patients were lost to follow-up without documented recurrence.
“Our results demonstrate that the OpenVax pipeline is a viable approach to generate a safe, personalized cancer vaccine, which could potentially be used to treat a range of tumor types,” Dr. Bhardwaj said.
Trials combining neoantigens identified with the OpenVax platform are ongoing in patients with urothelial carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme, Dr. Marron said.
The current study ( NCT02721043 ) is sponsored by Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Marron and Dr. Bhardwaj reported having no disclosures. Their colleagues disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Sema4, and Related Sciences.
The vaccine, PGV-001, was given to 13 patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma who had a high risk of recurrence after surgery or autologous stem cell transplant.
At last follow-up, four patients were still alive without evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy, four were alive and receiving therapy, three had died, and two were lost to follow-up.
Thomas Marron, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai in New York presented these results in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 ( Abstract LB048 ). Data in the abstract differ from the data presented.
“While cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, we know that the majority of patients fail to achieve significant clinical response,” Dr. Marron said during his presentation. “One reason for this may be due to lack of preexisting primed T-cell response needed for PD-1 blockade to have a significant effect. To address this, personalized neoantigen vaccines may help prime an improved immune response against tumor cells.”
With this in mind, Dr. Marron and colleagues developed PGV-001, a vaccine consisting of patient-specific synthetic neoantigen peptides given to patients in the adjuvant setting.
Creating a personalized vaccine
The researchers synthesized PGV-001 for 15 patients with advanced malignancies. The patients first underwent tumor and germline DNA sequencing as well as HLA typing. Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on patients’ tumors as well.
Then, the researchers used a computational pipeline called OpenVax to identify candidate neoantigens. This pipeline, developed at Mount Sinai, identified and prioritized candidate neoantigens using predicted MHC class I binding affinity and neoantigen abundance.
OpenVax identified an average of 71.5 neoantigens per patient (range, 7-193). The goal was to synthesize a maximum of 10 peptides per patient, but two patients did not have an adequate number of neoantigens.
Vaccine administration
The peptides were administered over the course of 27 weeks along with poly-ICLC and a tetanus helper peptide. Before receiving their vaccine doses, patients with solid tumors had undergone curative-intent surgery, and those with multiple myeloma had undergone autologous stem cell transplant.
“Most experimental personalized cancer vaccines are administered in the metastatic setting, but prior research indicates that immunotherapies tend to be more effective in patients who have less cancer spread,” principal investigator Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai, explained in a press release .
“We have, therefore, developed a neoantigen vaccine that is administered after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy, such as surgery in solid tumors and bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma, when patients have minimal, typically microscopic, residual disease.”
Feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity
PGV-001 was synthesized for 15 patients and administered to 13 of them. Six of the 13 patients had head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, three had multiple myeloma, two had non–small cell lung cancer, one had breast cancer, and one had urothelial carcinoma.
Eleven patients received all 10 intended doses, and two patients received at least 8 doses.
“The vaccine was well tolerated, with only half of patients experiencing mild, grade 1 adverse events,” Dr. Marron said.
Transient injection site reactions occurred in four patients, and grade 1 fever was reported in one patient.
Immune monitoring is ongoing, but an initial analysis in one patient showed “robust responses” in CD4 and CD8 T cells by intracellular cytokine staining for interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, and interleukin-2 after in vitro expansion in the presence of vaccine antigens, according to the researchers.
Dr. Marron noted that robust T-cell reactivity was seen at the completion of all 10 doses but was not seen after the 6th dose, and this supports the need for a prolonged dosing schedule.
Survival and subsequent therapy
At a mean follow-up of 880 days, four patients had no evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy. This includes one patient with stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer, one with stage IVA HER-2 positive breast cancer, one with stage II urothelial carcinoma, and one with multiple myeloma.
Four patients were alive and receiving subsequent lines of therapy. Two of these patients had significant responses to anti–PD-1 therapy.
Three patients have died, two of whom had documented recurrence of their malignancy. The last two patients were lost to follow-up without documented recurrence.
“Our results demonstrate that the OpenVax pipeline is a viable approach to generate a safe, personalized cancer vaccine, which could potentially be used to treat a range of tumor types,” Dr. Bhardwaj said.
Trials combining neoantigens identified with the OpenVax platform are ongoing in patients with urothelial carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme, Dr. Marron said.
The current study ( NCT02721043 ) is sponsored by Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Marron and Dr. Bhardwaj reported having no disclosures. Their colleagues disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Sema4, and Related Sciences.
FROM AACR 2021