EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Higher odds of depression in youth and adolescents with concussion

A 2019 prospective cohort study used data from the 2017 Nevada Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBSS) to evaluate the relationship between concussion and depression in high school students.¹ Included students were physically active for at least 60 minutes on 5 or more days per week or played on at least 1 sports team (N = 3427; 9th-12th grade students from 98 schools). When compared to the total population of included students and controlled for covariates, those who self-reported a concussion within the past 12 months (N = 664) had a higher adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of depressive symptoms (aOR = 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.9). Depressive symptoms were reported in 38.1% of patients with a history of concussion, compared to 29.2% of patients who did not report a concussion in the past 12 months.

A 2014 retrospective cohort study examined data from the 2007-2008 National Survey of Children’s Health and evaluated the association between previous concussion and current depression diagnosis in youth ages 12 to 17 years without a current concussion (N = 36,060).² Parents were contacted by random-digit dialing, prompted with a description of depression, and asked if their child currently had a clinical diagnosis of depression and whether a concussion had ever been diagnosed. A prior diagnosis of concussion was associated with greater risk for current depression compared to youth with no concussion history (aOR = 3.3; 95% CI, 2-5.5). Current depression was reported in 10.1% of patients with a history of concussion compared to 3.4% of patients with no history of concussion.

Findings vary among college athletes

A 2015 case-control study examined the prevalence of depressive symptoms in college athletes diagnosed with concussion compared to an athletic control group.³ The intervention group (N = 84; 77% male; average age, 18.4 years) received a concussion diagnosis from the team physician or certified athletic trainer. The athletic control group (N = 42; 55% male; average age, 18.9 years) reported no concussions in the past year.

The Beck Depression Inventory–Fast Screen (BDI-FS) was administered to the concussion group at baseline and postconcussion, and to the control group at 2 time points, with an average interval of 6.8 weeks. A score of ≥ 4 on the BDI-FS (scoring range, 0-21; higher score suggestive of more severe depression) indicated athletes at risk for depression. Concussed athletes exhibited a statistically significant increase in depression symptoms compared to control participants (20% vs 5%; x²₁ = 5.2; P = .02).

A 2018 cross-sectional study examined the association between concussion and adverse health outcomes in former college football players who played at least 1 year in college (1999-2001) but had no professional football experience.⁴ The cohort (N = 204; average age, 35) self-reported (15 years after their college career ended) the number of concussions sustained during high school and college sports performance. Reports were then stratified into 3 categories: no concussions, 1 or 2 concussions, and ≥ 3 concussions. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) was used to screen for depression, with scores categorized to no or mild depression (< 10) and moderate-to-­severe depression (≥ 10).

Controlling for body mass index, athletes reporting ≥ 3 concussions had a higher prevalence of depression compared to those reporting no concussions (prevalence ratio [PR] = 4.2; 95% CI, 1.0-16.3) or 1 to 2 concussions (PR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.0). No statistically significant association between concussion and depression was observed with athletes reporting 1 to 2 concussions compared to 0 concussions.

The exact relationship— degree and context— between concussion and depression remains vague.

A 2015 prospective longitudinal cohort study examined postinjury depressive symptoms in 3 groups of Division 1 male and female college student athletes (N = 21; ages 18-22).⁵ Physician-diagnosed ­concussed (N = 7) and injured but nonconcussed (N = 7) athletes completed the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) at baseline and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months postinjury. Sport-matched healthy athletes (N = 7) completed it only at baseline. A CES-D score of ≥ 16 (range, 0-60) indicated a risk for clinical depression. Participants with a history of depression or other injury resulting in ≥ 1 day of time lost within the past 3 months were excluded.

Continue to: While both groups...

While both groups showed a significant increase from baseline CES-D scores, there were no significant differences in depressive symptoms between concussed (mean CES-D score ± standard deviation [SD]: baseline, 6.7 ± 3.9; 1 week, 11 ± 5.3; 1 month, 8.3 ± 5; 3 months, 6.4 ± 5.4) and injured but nonconcussed participants (mean CES-D score ± SD: baseline, 5.7 ± 2.8; 1 week, 9.1 ± 4; 1 month, 8.9 ± 4.6; 3 months, 6.9 ± 2.8) at any of the postinjury time points.

Findings among semipro and pro athletes appear to vary by sport

A 2016 prospective cohort study assessed the impact of concussive events on incidence of depression in active semiprofessional and professional football players who had previously sustained ≥ 1 concussions.⁶ Participants (N = 27) answered an anonymous online survey that included the revised version of the CES-D (CESD-R) to determine level of depression (a score of ≥ 16 defined clinical depression). Players with a CESD-R score ≥ 16 (N = 16) sustained a significantly greater average number of concussions compared to those who scored < 16 (N = 11; 3.8 vs. 1.6, P = .0004). Players who sustained ≥ 3 concussions scored significantly higher on the CESD-R than players with ≤ 2 concussions (average score, 24 vs 15.6; P = .03).

A 2017 case-control study examined the long-term health outcomes of retired Scottish male rugby players (N = 52; mean age, 54 years) with a history of mild concussion compared to males of similar age with no previous history of concussion (N = 29; mean age, 55).⁷ The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used to assess depression on a 21-point scale (normal = 0-7; borderline, 8-10; abnormal, 11-21). There was no significant difference observed in mean HADS scores between the rugby players and controls, respectively (2.8 ± 2.1 vs 2.6 ± 2 .8; P = .941).

A 2013 case-control study of 30 retired NFL players with 29 controls matched for age, estimated IQ, and education examined the relationship between a remote history of concussion and current symptoms of depression.⁸ Concussion history was self-reported by the retired players. Controls with a history of concussion were excluded from the study. The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) was used to measure depression symptoms, with a score of 1 to 9 designating minimal depression and ≥ 10 mild-to-moderate depression. Retired players scored significantly higher on the BDI-II compared to the controls (8.8 vs 2.8; P = .001).

Editor’s takeaway

Concussions include cognitive compromise. An astute clinician’s concern for depression as a sequela makes sense. This evidence contributes to that conjecture. However, the authors of this Clinical Inquiry correctly outline the limitations, inconsistencies, and biases of the evidence. The exact relationship—degree and context—between concussion and depression remains vague.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Higher odds of depression in youth and adolescents with concussion

A 2019 prospective cohort study used data from the 2017 Nevada Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBSS) to evaluate the relationship between concussion and depression in high school students.¹ Included students were physically active for at least 60 minutes on 5 or more days per week or played on at least 1 sports team (N = 3427; 9th-12th grade students from 98 schools). When compared to the total population of included students and controlled for covariates, those who self-reported a concussion within the past 12 months (N = 664) had a higher adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of depressive symptoms (aOR = 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.9). Depressive symptoms were reported in 38.1% of patients with a history of concussion, compared to 29.2% of patients who did not report a concussion in the past 12 months.

A 2014 retrospective cohort study examined data from the 2007-2008 National Survey of Children’s Health and evaluated the association between previous concussion and current depression diagnosis in youth ages 12 to 17 years without a current concussion (N = 36,060).² Parents were contacted by random-digit dialing, prompted with a description of depression, and asked if their child currently had a clinical diagnosis of depression and whether a concussion had ever been diagnosed. A prior diagnosis of concussion was associated with greater risk for current depression compared to youth with no concussion history (aOR = 3.3; 95% CI, 2-5.5). Current depression was reported in 10.1% of patients with a history of concussion compared to 3.4% of patients with no history of concussion.

Findings vary among college athletes

A 2015 case-control study examined the prevalence of depressive symptoms in college athletes diagnosed with concussion compared to an athletic control group.³ The intervention group (N = 84; 77% male; average age, 18.4 years) received a concussion diagnosis from the team physician or certified athletic trainer. The athletic control group (N = 42; 55% male; average age, 18.9 years) reported no concussions in the past year.

The Beck Depression Inventory–Fast Screen (BDI-FS) was administered to the concussion group at baseline and postconcussion, and to the control group at 2 time points, with an average interval of 6.8 weeks. A score of ≥ 4 on the BDI-FS (scoring range, 0-21; higher score suggestive of more severe depression) indicated athletes at risk for depression. Concussed athletes exhibited a statistically significant increase in depression symptoms compared to control participants (20% vs 5%; x²₁ = 5.2; P = .02).

A 2018 cross-sectional study examined the association between concussion and adverse health outcomes in former college football players who played at least 1 year in college (1999-2001) but had no professional football experience.⁴ The cohort (N = 204; average age, 35) self-reported (15 years after their college career ended) the number of concussions sustained during high school and college sports performance. Reports were then stratified into 3 categories: no concussions, 1 or 2 concussions, and ≥ 3 concussions. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) was used to screen for depression, with scores categorized to no or mild depression (< 10) and moderate-to-­severe depression (≥ 10).

Controlling for body mass index, athletes reporting ≥ 3 concussions had a higher prevalence of depression compared to those reporting no concussions (prevalence ratio [PR] = 4.2; 95% CI, 1.0-16.3) or 1 to 2 concussions (PR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.0). No statistically significant association between concussion and depression was observed with athletes reporting 1 to 2 concussions compared to 0 concussions.

The exact relationship— degree and context— between concussion and depression remains vague.

A 2015 prospective longitudinal cohort study examined postinjury depressive symptoms in 3 groups of Division 1 male and female college student athletes (N = 21; ages 18-22).⁵ Physician-diagnosed ­concussed (N = 7) and injured but nonconcussed (N = 7) athletes completed the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) at baseline and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months postinjury. Sport-matched healthy athletes (N = 7) completed it only at baseline. A CES-D score of ≥ 16 (range, 0-60) indicated a risk for clinical depression. Participants with a history of depression or other injury resulting in ≥ 1 day of time lost within the past 3 months were excluded.

Continue to: While both groups...

While both groups showed a significant increase from baseline CES-D scores, there were no significant differences in depressive symptoms between concussed (mean CES-D score ± standard deviation [SD]: baseline, 6.7 ± 3.9; 1 week, 11 ± 5.3; 1 month, 8.3 ± 5; 3 months, 6.4 ± 5.4) and injured but nonconcussed participants (mean CES-D score ± SD: baseline, 5.7 ± 2.8; 1 week, 9.1 ± 4; 1 month, 8.9 ± 4.6; 3 months, 6.9 ± 2.8) at any of the postinjury time points.

Findings among semipro and pro athletes appear to vary by sport

A 2016 prospective cohort study assessed the impact of concussive events on incidence of depression in active semiprofessional and professional football players who had previously sustained ≥ 1 concussions.⁶ Participants (N = 27) answered an anonymous online survey that included the revised version of the CES-D (CESD-R) to determine level of depression (a score of ≥ 16 defined clinical depression). Players with a CESD-R score ≥ 16 (N = 16) sustained a significantly greater average number of concussions compared to those who scored < 16 (N = 11; 3.8 vs. 1.6, P = .0004). Players who sustained ≥ 3 concussions scored significantly higher on the CESD-R than players with ≤ 2 concussions (average score, 24 vs 15.6; P = .03).

A 2017 case-control study examined the long-term health outcomes of retired Scottish male rugby players (N = 52; mean age, 54 years) with a history of mild concussion compared to males of similar age with no previous history of concussion (N = 29; mean age, 55).⁷ The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used to assess depression on a 21-point scale (normal = 0-7; borderline, 8-10; abnormal, 11-21). There was no significant difference observed in mean HADS scores between the rugby players and controls, respectively (2.8 ± 2.1 vs 2.6 ± 2 .8; P = .941).

A 2013 case-control study of 30 retired NFL players with 29 controls matched for age, estimated IQ, and education examined the relationship between a remote history of concussion and current symptoms of depression.⁸ Concussion history was self-reported by the retired players. Controls with a history of concussion were excluded from the study. The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) was used to measure depression symptoms, with a score of 1 to 9 designating minimal depression and ≥ 10 mild-to-moderate depression. Retired players scored significantly higher on the BDI-II compared to the controls (8.8 vs 2.8; P = .001).

Editor’s takeaway

Concussions include cognitive compromise. An astute clinician’s concern for depression as a sequela makes sense. This evidence contributes to that conjecture. However, the authors of this Clinical Inquiry correctly outline the limitations, inconsistencies, and biases of the evidence. The exact relationship—degree and context—between concussion and depression remains vague.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Higher odds of depression in youth and adolescents with concussion

A 2019 prospective cohort study used data from the 2017 Nevada Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBSS) to evaluate the relationship between concussion and depression in high school students.¹ Included students were physically active for at least 60 minutes on 5 or more days per week or played on at least 1 sports team (N = 3427; 9th-12th grade students from 98 schools). When compared to the total population of included students and controlled for covariates, those who self-reported a concussion within the past 12 months (N = 664) had a higher adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of depressive symptoms (aOR = 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.9). Depressive symptoms were reported in 38.1% of patients with a history of concussion, compared to 29.2% of patients who did not report a concussion in the past 12 months.

A 2014 retrospective cohort study examined data from the 2007-2008 National Survey of Children’s Health and evaluated the association between previous concussion and current depression diagnosis in youth ages 12 to 17 years without a current concussion (N = 36,060).² Parents were contacted by random-digit dialing, prompted with a description of depression, and asked if their child currently had a clinical diagnosis of depression and whether a concussion had ever been diagnosed. A prior diagnosis of concussion was associated with greater risk for current depression compared to youth with no concussion history (aOR = 3.3; 95% CI, 2-5.5). Current depression was reported in 10.1% of patients with a history of concussion compared to 3.4% of patients with no history of concussion.

Findings vary among college athletes

A 2015 case-control study examined the prevalence of depressive symptoms in college athletes diagnosed with concussion compared to an athletic control group.³ The intervention group (N = 84; 77% male; average age, 18.4 years) received a concussion diagnosis from the team physician or certified athletic trainer. The athletic control group (N = 42; 55% male; average age, 18.9 years) reported no concussions in the past year.

The Beck Depression Inventory–Fast Screen (BDI-FS) was administered to the concussion group at baseline and postconcussion, and to the control group at 2 time points, with an average interval of 6.8 weeks. A score of ≥ 4 on the BDI-FS (scoring range, 0-21; higher score suggestive of more severe depression) indicated athletes at risk for depression. Concussed athletes exhibited a statistically significant increase in depression symptoms compared to control participants (20% vs 5%; x²₁ = 5.2; P = .02).

A 2018 cross-sectional study examined the association between concussion and adverse health outcomes in former college football players who played at least 1 year in college (1999-2001) but had no professional football experience.⁴ The cohort (N = 204; average age, 35) self-reported (15 years after their college career ended) the number of concussions sustained during high school and college sports performance. Reports were then stratified into 3 categories: no concussions, 1 or 2 concussions, and ≥ 3 concussions. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) was used to screen for depression, with scores categorized to no or mild depression (< 10) and moderate-to-­severe depression (≥ 10).

Controlling for body mass index, athletes reporting ≥ 3 concussions had a higher prevalence of depression compared to those reporting no concussions (prevalence ratio [PR] = 4.2; 95% CI, 1.0-16.3) or 1 to 2 concussions (PR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.0). No statistically significant association between concussion and depression was observed with athletes reporting 1 to 2 concussions compared to 0 concussions.

The exact relationship— degree and context— between concussion and depression remains vague.

A 2015 prospective longitudinal cohort study examined postinjury depressive symptoms in 3 groups of Division 1 male and female college student athletes (N = 21; ages 18-22).⁵ Physician-diagnosed ­concussed (N = 7) and injured but nonconcussed (N = 7) athletes completed the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) at baseline and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months postinjury. Sport-matched healthy athletes (N = 7) completed it only at baseline. A CES-D score of ≥ 16 (range, 0-60) indicated a risk for clinical depression. Participants with a history of depression or other injury resulting in ≥ 1 day of time lost within the past 3 months were excluded.

Continue to: While both groups...

While both groups showed a significant increase from baseline CES-D scores, there were no significant differences in depressive symptoms between concussed (mean CES-D score ± standard deviation [SD]: baseline, 6.7 ± 3.9; 1 week, 11 ± 5.3; 1 month, 8.3 ± 5; 3 months, 6.4 ± 5.4) and injured but nonconcussed participants (mean CES-D score ± SD: baseline, 5.7 ± 2.8; 1 week, 9.1 ± 4; 1 month, 8.9 ± 4.6; 3 months, 6.9 ± 2.8) at any of the postinjury time points.

Findings among semipro and pro athletes appear to vary by sport

A 2016 prospective cohort study assessed the impact of concussive events on incidence of depression in active semiprofessional and professional football players who had previously sustained ≥ 1 concussions.⁶ Participants (N = 27) answered an anonymous online survey that included the revised version of the CES-D (CESD-R) to determine level of depression (a score of ≥ 16 defined clinical depression). Players with a CESD-R score ≥ 16 (N = 16) sustained a significantly greater average number of concussions compared to those who scored < 16 (N = 11; 3.8 vs. 1.6, P = .0004). Players who sustained ≥ 3 concussions scored significantly higher on the CESD-R than players with ≤ 2 concussions (average score, 24 vs 15.6; P = .03).

A 2017 case-control study examined the long-term health outcomes of retired Scottish male rugby players (N = 52; mean age, 54 years) with a history of mild concussion compared to males of similar age with no previous history of concussion (N = 29; mean age, 55).⁷ The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used to assess depression on a 21-point scale (normal = 0-7; borderline, 8-10; abnormal, 11-21). There was no significant difference observed in mean HADS scores between the rugby players and controls, respectively (2.8 ± 2.1 vs 2.6 ± 2 .8; P = .941).

A 2013 case-control study of 30 retired NFL players with 29 controls matched for age, estimated IQ, and education examined the relationship between a remote history of concussion and current symptoms of depression.⁸ Concussion history was self-reported by the retired players. Controls with a history of concussion were excluded from the study. The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) was used to measure depression symptoms, with a score of 1 to 9 designating minimal depression and ≥ 10 mild-to-moderate depression. Retired players scored significantly higher on the BDI-II compared to the controls (8.8 vs 2.8; P = .001).

Editor’s takeaway

Concussions include cognitive compromise. An astute clinician’s concern for depression as a sequela makes sense. This evidence contributes to that conjecture. However, the authors of this Clinical Inquiry correctly outline the limitations, inconsistencies, and biases of the evidence. The exact relationship—degree and context—between concussion and depression remains vague.

A model that crunches data from routine blood tests can accurately identify cancer patients who will develop acute kidney injury (AKI) up to a month before it happens, according to a cohort study.

The algorithm spotted nearly 74% of the patients who went on to develop AKI within 30 days, providing a window for intervention and possibly prevention, according to investigators.

These results were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-11).

“Cancer patients are a high-risk population for AKI due to the nature of their treatment and illness,” said presenter Lauren A. Scanlon, PhD, a data scientist at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Huddersfield, England. “AKI causes a huge disruption in treatment and distress for the patient, so it would be amazing if we could, say, predict the AKI before it occurs and prevent it from even happening.”

U.K. health care providers are already using an algorithm to monitor patients’ creatinine levels, comparing new values against historic ones, Dr. Scanlon explained. When that algorithm detects AKI, it issues an alert that triggers implementation of an AKI care bundle, including measures such as fluid monitoring and medication review, within 24 hours.

Taking this concept further, Dr. Scanlon and colleagues developed a random forest model, a type of machine learning algorithm, that incorporates other markers from blood tests routinely obtained for all patients, with the aim of predicting AKI up to 30 days in advance.

“Using routinely collected blood test results will ensure that the model is applicable to all our patients and can be implemented in an automated manner,” Dr. Scanlon noted.

The investigators developed and trained the model using 597,403 blood test results from 48,865 patients undergoing cancer treatment between January 2017 and May 2020.

The model assigns patients to five categories of risk for AKI in the next 30 days: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

“We wanted the model to output in this way so that it could be used by clinicians alongside their own insight and knowledge on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Scanlon explained.

The investigators then prospectively validated the model and its risk categories in another 9,913 patients who underwent cancer treatment between June and August 2020.

Using a model threshold of medium risk or higher, the model correctly predicted AKI in 330 (73.8%) of the 447 patients in the validation cohort who ultimately developed AKI.

“This is pretty amazing and shows that this model really is working and can correctly detect these AKIs up to 30 days before they occur, giving a huge window to put in place preventive strategies,” Dr. Scanlon said.

Among the 154 patients in whom the model incorrectly predicted AKI, 9 patients had only a single follow-up blood test and 17 patients did not have any, leaving their actual outcomes unclear.

“Given that AKI detection uses blood tests, an AKI in these patients was never confirmed,” Dr. Scanlon noted. “So this could give a potential benefit of the model that we never intended: It could reduce undiagnosed AKI by flagging those who are at risk.”

“Our next steps are to test the model through a technology clinical trial to see if putting intervention strategies in place does prevent these AKIs from taking place,” Dr. Scanlon concluded. “We are also going to move to ongoing monitoring of the model performance.”

Dr. Scanlon disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

A model that crunches data from routine blood tests can accurately identify cancer patients who will develop acute kidney injury (AKI) up to a month before it happens, according to a cohort study.

The algorithm spotted nearly 74% of the patients who went on to develop AKI within 30 days, providing a window for intervention and possibly prevention, according to investigators.

These results were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-11).

“Cancer patients are a high-risk population for AKI due to the nature of their treatment and illness,” said presenter Lauren A. Scanlon, PhD, a data scientist at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Huddersfield, England. “AKI causes a huge disruption in treatment and distress for the patient, so it would be amazing if we could, say, predict the AKI before it occurs and prevent it from even happening.”

U.K. health care providers are already using an algorithm to monitor patients’ creatinine levels, comparing new values against historic ones, Dr. Scanlon explained. When that algorithm detects AKI, it issues an alert that triggers implementation of an AKI care bundle, including measures such as fluid monitoring and medication review, within 24 hours.

Taking this concept further, Dr. Scanlon and colleagues developed a random forest model, a type of machine learning algorithm, that incorporates other markers from blood tests routinely obtained for all patients, with the aim of predicting AKI up to 30 days in advance.

“Using routinely collected blood test results will ensure that the model is applicable to all our patients and can be implemented in an automated manner,” Dr. Scanlon noted.

The investigators developed and trained the model using 597,403 blood test results from 48,865 patients undergoing cancer treatment between January 2017 and May 2020.

The model assigns patients to five categories of risk for AKI in the next 30 days: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

“We wanted the model to output in this way so that it could be used by clinicians alongside their own insight and knowledge on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Scanlon explained.

The investigators then prospectively validated the model and its risk categories in another 9,913 patients who underwent cancer treatment between June and August 2020.

Using a model threshold of medium risk or higher, the model correctly predicted AKI in 330 (73.8%) of the 447 patients in the validation cohort who ultimately developed AKI.

“This is pretty amazing and shows that this model really is working and can correctly detect these AKIs up to 30 days before they occur, giving a huge window to put in place preventive strategies,” Dr. Scanlon said.

Among the 154 patients in whom the model incorrectly predicted AKI, 9 patients had only a single follow-up blood test and 17 patients did not have any, leaving their actual outcomes unclear.

“Given that AKI detection uses blood tests, an AKI in these patients was never confirmed,” Dr. Scanlon noted. “So this could give a potential benefit of the model that we never intended: It could reduce undiagnosed AKI by flagging those who are at risk.”

“Our next steps are to test the model through a technology clinical trial to see if putting intervention strategies in place does prevent these AKIs from taking place,” Dr. Scanlon concluded. “We are also going to move to ongoing monitoring of the model performance.”

Dr. Scanlon disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

A model that crunches data from routine blood tests can accurately identify cancer patients who will develop acute kidney injury (AKI) up to a month before it happens, according to a cohort study.

The algorithm spotted nearly 74% of the patients who went on to develop AKI within 30 days, providing a window for intervention and possibly prevention, according to investigators.

These results were reported at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-11).

“Cancer patients are a high-risk population for AKI due to the nature of their treatment and illness,” said presenter Lauren A. Scanlon, PhD, a data scientist at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Huddersfield, England. “AKI causes a huge disruption in treatment and distress for the patient, so it would be amazing if we could, say, predict the AKI before it occurs and prevent it from even happening.”

U.K. health care providers are already using an algorithm to monitor patients’ creatinine levels, comparing new values against historic ones, Dr. Scanlon explained. When that algorithm detects AKI, it issues an alert that triggers implementation of an AKI care bundle, including measures such as fluid monitoring and medication review, within 24 hours.

Taking this concept further, Dr. Scanlon and colleagues developed a random forest model, a type of machine learning algorithm, that incorporates other markers from blood tests routinely obtained for all patients, with the aim of predicting AKI up to 30 days in advance.

“Using routinely collected blood test results will ensure that the model is applicable to all our patients and can be implemented in an automated manner,” Dr. Scanlon noted.

The investigators developed and trained the model using 597,403 blood test results from 48,865 patients undergoing cancer treatment between January 2017 and May 2020.

The model assigns patients to five categories of risk for AKI in the next 30 days: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

“We wanted the model to output in this way so that it could be used by clinicians alongside their own insight and knowledge on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Scanlon explained.

The investigators then prospectively validated the model and its risk categories in another 9,913 patients who underwent cancer treatment between June and August 2020.

Using a model threshold of medium risk or higher, the model correctly predicted AKI in 330 (73.8%) of the 447 patients in the validation cohort who ultimately developed AKI.

“This is pretty amazing and shows that this model really is working and can correctly detect these AKIs up to 30 days before they occur, giving a huge window to put in place preventive strategies,” Dr. Scanlon said.

Among the 154 patients in whom the model incorrectly predicted AKI, 9 patients had only a single follow-up blood test and 17 patients did not have any, leaving their actual outcomes unclear.

“Given that AKI detection uses blood tests, an AKI in these patients was never confirmed,” Dr. Scanlon noted. “So this could give a potential benefit of the model that we never intended: It could reduce undiagnosed AKI by flagging those who are at risk.”

“Our next steps are to test the model through a technology clinical trial to see if putting intervention strategies in place does prevent these AKIs from taking place,” Dr. Scanlon concluded. “We are also going to move to ongoing monitoring of the model performance.”

Dr. Scanlon disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not receive specific funding.

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

I started reading “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir” by Michael F. Myers, MD, with high expectations and enthusiasm. Dr. Myers is a Canadian psychiatrist who has devoted his career to caring for physicians in his half-time private practice; he turns all other comers away.

This career path began in 1962 during his first year in medical school when Dr. Myers returned to his apartment after Thanksgiving break to be greeted with tragic news: One of the young men he shared the apartment with had died of suicide. The tragedy marked him – along with the silence about what had transpired – and he would later look back to realize it was the beginning of his journey to becoming a psychiatrist, one who cares for other physicians.

The book is filled with patient vignettes, gentle musings that Dr. Myers recounts with warmth, adding what he has learned from them.

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.

I started reading “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir” by Michael F. Myers, MD, with high expectations and enthusiasm. Dr. Myers is a Canadian psychiatrist who has devoted his career to caring for physicians in his half-time private practice; he turns all other comers away.

This career path began in 1962 during his first year in medical school when Dr. Myers returned to his apartment after Thanksgiving break to be greeted with tragic news: One of the young men he shared the apartment with had died of suicide. The tragedy marked him – along with the silence about what had transpired – and he would later look back to realize it was the beginning of his journey to becoming a psychiatrist, one who cares for other physicians.

The book is filled with patient vignettes, gentle musings that Dr. Myers recounts with warmth, adding what he has learned from them.

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.

I started reading “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir” by Michael F. Myers, MD, with high expectations and enthusiasm. Dr. Myers is a Canadian psychiatrist who has devoted his career to caring for physicians in his half-time private practice; he turns all other comers away.

This career path began in 1962 during his first year in medical school when Dr. Myers returned to his apartment after Thanksgiving break to be greeted with tragic news: One of the young men he shared the apartment with had died of suicide. The tragedy marked him – along with the silence about what had transpired – and he would later look back to realize it was the beginning of his journey to becoming a psychiatrist, one who cares for other physicians.

The book is filled with patient vignettes, gentle musings that Dr. Myers recounts with warmth, adding what he has learned from them.

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.

The January 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology had an article that stated that the current U.S. spending on emergency room (ER) and inpatient costs for patients with functional neurological disorders is $1.2 billion and climbing. That doesn’t include, obviously, the costs of treating functional disorders in other specialties.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The January 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology had an article that stated that the current U.S. spending on emergency room (ER) and inpatient costs for patients with functional neurological disorders is $1.2 billion and climbing. That doesn’t include, obviously, the costs of treating functional disorders in other specialties.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The January 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology had an article that stated that the current U.S. spending on emergency room (ER) and inpatient costs for patients with functional neurological disorders is $1.2 billion and climbing. That doesn’t include, obviously, the costs of treating functional disorders in other specialties.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Background: A new update to the Choosing Wisely Campaign was released September 2019.

• Not routinely using broad respiratory viral testing and instead using more targeted approaches to respiratory pathogen tests (e.g., respiratory syncytial virus, influenza A/B, or group A pharyngitis) unless the results will lead to changes to or discontinuations of antimicrobial therapy or isolation.
• Not routinely testing for community gastrointestinal pathogens in patients that develop diarrhea 3 days after hospitalization and to primarily test for Clostridiodes difficile in these patients, unless they are immunocompromised or older adults.
• Not checking procalcitonin unless a specific evidence-based guideline is used for antibiotic stewardship, as it is often used incorrectly without benefit to the patient.
• Not ordering serology for Helicobacter pylori and instead ordering the stool antigen or breath test to test for active infection given higher sensitivity and specificity.
• Not repeating antibody tests for patients with history of hepatitis C and instead ordering a viral load if there is concern for reinfection.

Bottom line: Only order infectious disease tests that will guide changes in clinical management.

Citation: ASCP Effective Test Utilization Steering Committee. Thirty things patients and physicians should question. 2019 Sep 9. Choosingwisely.org.

Dr. Blount is clinical instructor of medicine, hospital medicine, at the Rocky Mountain Veterans Affairs Regional Medical Center, Aurora, Colo.

Background: A new update to the Choosing Wisely Campaign was released September 2019.

• Not routinely using broad respiratory viral testing and instead using more targeted approaches to respiratory pathogen tests (e.g., respiratory syncytial virus, influenza A/B, or group A pharyngitis) unless the results will lead to changes to or discontinuations of antimicrobial therapy or isolation.
• Not routinely testing for community gastrointestinal pathogens in patients that develop diarrhea 3 days after hospitalization and to primarily test for Clostridiodes difficile in these patients, unless they are immunocompromised or older adults.
• Not checking procalcitonin unless a specific evidence-based guideline is used for antibiotic stewardship, as it is often used incorrectly without benefit to the patient.
• Not ordering serology for Helicobacter pylori and instead ordering the stool antigen or breath test to test for active infection given higher sensitivity and specificity.
• Not repeating antibody tests for patients with history of hepatitis C and instead ordering a viral load if there is concern for reinfection.

Bottom line: Only order infectious disease tests that will guide changes in clinical management.

Citation: ASCP Effective Test Utilization Steering Committee. Thirty things patients and physicians should question. 2019 Sep 9. Choosingwisely.org.

Dr. Blount is clinical instructor of medicine, hospital medicine, at the Rocky Mountain Veterans Affairs Regional Medical Center, Aurora, Colo.

Background: A new update to the Choosing Wisely Campaign was released September 2019.

• Not routinely using broad respiratory viral testing and instead using more targeted approaches to respiratory pathogen tests (e.g., respiratory syncytial virus, influenza A/B, or group A pharyngitis) unless the results will lead to changes to or discontinuations of antimicrobial therapy or isolation.
• Not routinely testing for community gastrointestinal pathogens in patients that develop diarrhea 3 days after hospitalization and to primarily test for Clostridiodes difficile in these patients, unless they are immunocompromised or older adults.
• Not checking procalcitonin unless a specific evidence-based guideline is used for antibiotic stewardship, as it is often used incorrectly without benefit to the patient.
• Not ordering serology for Helicobacter pylori and instead ordering the stool antigen or breath test to test for active infection given higher sensitivity and specificity.
• Not repeating antibody tests for patients with history of hepatitis C and instead ordering a viral load if there is concern for reinfection.

Bottom line: Only order infectious disease tests that will guide changes in clinical management.

Citation: ASCP Effective Test Utilization Steering Committee. Thirty things patients and physicians should question. 2019 Sep 9. Choosingwisely.org.

Dr. Blount is clinical instructor of medicine, hospital medicine, at the Rocky Mountain Veterans Affairs Regional Medical Center, Aurora, Colo.

Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 cross the placenta during pregnancy and are detectable in most newborns born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy, according to findings from a study presented Jan. 28 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“I think the most striking finding is that we noticed a high degree of neutralizing response to natural infection even among asymptomatic infection, but of course a higher degree was seen in those with symptomatic infection,” Naima Joseph, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Our data demonstrate maternal capacity to mount an appropriate and robust immune response,” and maternal protective immunity lasted at least 28 days after infection, Dr. Joseph said. “Also, we noted higher neonatal cord blood titers in moms with higher titers, which suggests a relationship, but we need to better understand how transplacental transfer occurs as well as establish neonatal correlates of protection in order to see if and how maternal immunity may also benefit neonates.”

The researchers analyzed the amount of IgG and IgM antibodies in maternal and cord blood samples prospectively collected at delivery from women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any time while pregnant. They used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to assess for antibodies for the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The 32 pairs of mothers and infants in the study were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (72%) and Hispanic (25%), and 84% used Medicaid as their payer. Most of the mothers (72%) had at least one comorbidity, most commonly obesity, hypertension, and asthma or pulmonary disease. Just over half the women (53%) were symptomatic while they were infected, and 88% were ill with COVID-19 during the third trimester. The average time from infection to delivery was 28 days.

All the mothers had IgG antibodies, 94% had IgM antibodies, and 94% had neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Among the cord blood samples, 91% had IgG antibodies, 9% had IgM antibodies, and 25% had neutralizing antibodies.

“It’s reassuring that, so far, the physiological response is exactly what we expected it to be,” Judette Louis, MD, MPH, an associate professor of ob.gyn. and the ob.gyn. department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview. “It’s what we would expect, but it’s always helpful to have more data to support that. Otherwise, you’re extrapolating from what you know from other conditions,” said Dr. Louis, who moderated the oral abstracts session.

Symptomatic infection was associated with significantly higher IgG titers than asymptomatic infection (P = .03), but no correlation was seen for IgM or neutralizing antibodies. In addition, although mothers who delivered more than 28 days after their infection had higher IgG titers (P = .05), no differences existed in IgM or neutralizing response.

Infants’ cord blood titers were significantly lower than their corresponding maternal samples, independently of symptoms or latency from infection to delivery (P < .001), Dr. Joseph reported.

“Transplacental efficiency in other pathogens has been shown to be correlated with neonatal immunity when the ratio of cord to maternal blood is greater than 1,” Dr. Joseph said in her presentation. Their data showed “suboptimal efficiency” at a ratio of 0.81.

The study’s small sample size and lack of a control group were weaknesses, but a major strength was having a population at disproportionately higher risk for infection and severe morbidity than the general population.
 

Implications for maternal COVID-19 vaccination

Although the data are not yet available, Dr. Joseph said they have expanded their protocol to include vaccinated pregnant women.

“The key to developing an effective vaccine [for pregnant people] is in really characterizing adaptive immunity in pregnancy,” Dr. Joseph told SMFM attendees. “I think that these findings inform further vaccine development in demonstrating that maternal immunity is robust.”

The World Health Organization recently recommended withholding COVID-19 vaccines from pregnant people, but the SMFM and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists subsequently issued a joint statement reaffirming that the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the FDA “should not be withheld from pregnant individuals who choose to receive the vaccine.”

“One of the questions people ask is whether in pregnancy you’re going to mount a good response to the vaccine the way you would outside of pregnancy,” Dr. Louis said. “If we can demonstrate that you do, that may provide the information that some mothers need to make their decisions.” Data such as those from Dr. Joseph’s study can also inform recommendations on timing of maternal vaccination.

“For instance, Dr. Joseph demonstrated that, 28 days out from the infection, you had more antibodies, so there may be a scenario where we say this vaccine may be more beneficial in the middle of the pregnancy for the purpose of forming those antibodies,” Dr. Louis said.
 

Consensus emerging from maternal antibodies data

The findings from Dr. Joseph’s study mirror those reported in a study published online Jan. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics. That study, led by Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also examined maternal and neonatal levels of IgG and IgM antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. They also found a positive correlation between cord blood and maternal IgG concentrations (P < .001), but notably, the ratio of cord to maternal blood titers was greater than 1, unlike in Dr. Joseph’s study.

For their study, Dr. Flannery and colleagues obtained maternal and cord blood sera at the time of delivery from 1471 pairs of mothers and infants, independently of COVID status during pregnancy. The average maternal age was 32 years, and just over a quarter of the population (26%) were Black, non-Hispanic women. About half (51%) were White, 12% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian.

About 6% of the women had either IgG or IgM antibodies at delivery, and 87% of infants born to those mothers had measurable IgG in their cord blood. No infants had IgM antibodies. As with the study presented at SMFM, the mothers’ infections included asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe cases, and the degree of severity of cases had no apparent effect on infant antibody concentrations. Most of the women who tested positive for COVID-19 (60%) were asymptomatic.

Among the 11 mothers who had antibodies but whose infants’ cord blood did not, 5 had only IgM antibodies, and 6 had significantly lower IgG concentrations than those seen in the other mothers.

In a commentary about the JAMA Pediatrics study, Flor Munoz, MD, of the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, suggested that the findings are grounds for optimism about a maternal vaccination strategy to protect infants from COVID-19.

“However, the timing of maternal vaccination to protect the infant, as opposed to the mother alone, would necessitate an adequate interval from vaccination to delivery (of at least 4 weeks), while vaccination early in gestation and even late in the third trimester could still be protective for the mother,” Dr. Munoz wrote.

Given the interval between two-dose vaccination regimens and the fact that transplacental transfer begins at about the 17th week of gestation, “maternal vaccination starting in the early second trimester of gestation might be optimal to achieve the highest levels of antibodies in the newborn,” Dr. Munoz wrote. But questions remain, such as how effective the neonatal antibodies would be in protecting against COVID-19 and how long they last after birth.

No external funding was used in Dr. Joseph’s study. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Louis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The JAMA Pediatrics study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. One coauthor received consultancy fees from Sanofi Pasteur, Lumen, Novavax, and Merck unrelated to the study. Dr. Munoz served on the data and safety monitoring boards of Moderna, Pfizer, Virometix, and Meissa Vaccines and has received grants from Novavax Research and Gilead Research.

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

Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 cross the placenta during pregnancy and are detectable in most newborns born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy, according to findings from a study presented Jan. 28 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“I think the most striking finding is that we noticed a high degree of neutralizing response to natural infection even among asymptomatic infection, but of course a higher degree was seen in those with symptomatic infection,” Naima Joseph, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Our data demonstrate maternal capacity to mount an appropriate and robust immune response,” and maternal protective immunity lasted at least 28 days after infection, Dr. Joseph said. “Also, we noted higher neonatal cord blood titers in moms with higher titers, which suggests a relationship, but we need to better understand how transplacental transfer occurs as well as establish neonatal correlates of protection in order to see if and how maternal immunity may also benefit neonates.”

The researchers analyzed the amount of IgG and IgM antibodies in maternal and cord blood samples prospectively collected at delivery from women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any time while pregnant. They used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to assess for antibodies for the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The 32 pairs of mothers and infants in the study were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (72%) and Hispanic (25%), and 84% used Medicaid as their payer. Most of the mothers (72%) had at least one comorbidity, most commonly obesity, hypertension, and asthma or pulmonary disease. Just over half the women (53%) were symptomatic while they were infected, and 88% were ill with COVID-19 during the third trimester. The average time from infection to delivery was 28 days.

All the mothers had IgG antibodies, 94% had IgM antibodies, and 94% had neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Among the cord blood samples, 91% had IgG antibodies, 9% had IgM antibodies, and 25% had neutralizing antibodies.

“It’s reassuring that, so far, the physiological response is exactly what we expected it to be,” Judette Louis, MD, MPH, an associate professor of ob.gyn. and the ob.gyn. department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview. “It’s what we would expect, but it’s always helpful to have more data to support that. Otherwise, you’re extrapolating from what you know from other conditions,” said Dr. Louis, who moderated the oral abstracts session.

Symptomatic infection was associated with significantly higher IgG titers than asymptomatic infection (P = .03), but no correlation was seen for IgM or neutralizing antibodies. In addition, although mothers who delivered more than 28 days after their infection had higher IgG titers (P = .05), no differences existed in IgM or neutralizing response.

Infants’ cord blood titers were significantly lower than their corresponding maternal samples, independently of symptoms or latency from infection to delivery (P < .001), Dr. Joseph reported.

“Transplacental efficiency in other pathogens has been shown to be correlated with neonatal immunity when the ratio of cord to maternal blood is greater than 1,” Dr. Joseph said in her presentation. Their data showed “suboptimal efficiency” at a ratio of 0.81.

The study’s small sample size and lack of a control group were weaknesses, but a major strength was having a population at disproportionately higher risk for infection and severe morbidity than the general population.
 

Implications for maternal COVID-19 vaccination

Although the data are not yet available, Dr. Joseph said they have expanded their protocol to include vaccinated pregnant women.

“The key to developing an effective vaccine [for pregnant people] is in really characterizing adaptive immunity in pregnancy,” Dr. Joseph told SMFM attendees. “I think that these findings inform further vaccine development in demonstrating that maternal immunity is robust.”

The World Health Organization recently recommended withholding COVID-19 vaccines from pregnant people, but the SMFM and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists subsequently issued a joint statement reaffirming that the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the FDA “should not be withheld from pregnant individuals who choose to receive the vaccine.”

“One of the questions people ask is whether in pregnancy you’re going to mount a good response to the vaccine the way you would outside of pregnancy,” Dr. Louis said. “If we can demonstrate that you do, that may provide the information that some mothers need to make their decisions.” Data such as those from Dr. Joseph’s study can also inform recommendations on timing of maternal vaccination.

“For instance, Dr. Joseph demonstrated that, 28 days out from the infection, you had more antibodies, so there may be a scenario where we say this vaccine may be more beneficial in the middle of the pregnancy for the purpose of forming those antibodies,” Dr. Louis said.
 

Consensus emerging from maternal antibodies data

The findings from Dr. Joseph’s study mirror those reported in a study published online Jan. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics. That study, led by Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also examined maternal and neonatal levels of IgG and IgM antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. They also found a positive correlation between cord blood and maternal IgG concentrations (P < .001), but notably, the ratio of cord to maternal blood titers was greater than 1, unlike in Dr. Joseph’s study.

For their study, Dr. Flannery and colleagues obtained maternal and cord blood sera at the time of delivery from 1471 pairs of mothers and infants, independently of COVID status during pregnancy. The average maternal age was 32 years, and just over a quarter of the population (26%) were Black, non-Hispanic women. About half (51%) were White, 12% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian.

About 6% of the women had either IgG or IgM antibodies at delivery, and 87% of infants born to those mothers had measurable IgG in their cord blood. No infants had IgM antibodies. As with the study presented at SMFM, the mothers’ infections included asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe cases, and the degree of severity of cases had no apparent effect on infant antibody concentrations. Most of the women who tested positive for COVID-19 (60%) were asymptomatic.

Among the 11 mothers who had antibodies but whose infants’ cord blood did not, 5 had only IgM antibodies, and 6 had significantly lower IgG concentrations than those seen in the other mothers.

In a commentary about the JAMA Pediatrics study, Flor Munoz, MD, of the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, suggested that the findings are grounds for optimism about a maternal vaccination strategy to protect infants from COVID-19.

“However, the timing of maternal vaccination to protect the infant, as opposed to the mother alone, would necessitate an adequate interval from vaccination to delivery (of at least 4 weeks), while vaccination early in gestation and even late in the third trimester could still be protective for the mother,” Dr. Munoz wrote.

Given the interval between two-dose vaccination regimens and the fact that transplacental transfer begins at about the 17th week of gestation, “maternal vaccination starting in the early second trimester of gestation might be optimal to achieve the highest levels of antibodies in the newborn,” Dr. Munoz wrote. But questions remain, such as how effective the neonatal antibodies would be in protecting against COVID-19 and how long they last after birth.

No external funding was used in Dr. Joseph’s study. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Louis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The JAMA Pediatrics study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. One coauthor received consultancy fees from Sanofi Pasteur, Lumen, Novavax, and Merck unrelated to the study. Dr. Munoz served on the data and safety monitoring boards of Moderna, Pfizer, Virometix, and Meissa Vaccines and has received grants from Novavax Research and Gilead Research.

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

Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 cross the placenta during pregnancy and are detectable in most newborns born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy, according to findings from a study presented Jan. 28 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“I think the most striking finding is that we noticed a high degree of neutralizing response to natural infection even among asymptomatic infection, but of course a higher degree was seen in those with symptomatic infection,” Naima Joseph, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Our data demonstrate maternal capacity to mount an appropriate and robust immune response,” and maternal protective immunity lasted at least 28 days after infection, Dr. Joseph said. “Also, we noted higher neonatal cord blood titers in moms with higher titers, which suggests a relationship, but we need to better understand how transplacental transfer occurs as well as establish neonatal correlates of protection in order to see if and how maternal immunity may also benefit neonates.”

The researchers analyzed the amount of IgG and IgM antibodies in maternal and cord blood samples prospectively collected at delivery from women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any time while pregnant. They used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to assess for antibodies for the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The 32 pairs of mothers and infants in the study were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (72%) and Hispanic (25%), and 84% used Medicaid as their payer. Most of the mothers (72%) had at least one comorbidity, most commonly obesity, hypertension, and asthma or pulmonary disease. Just over half the women (53%) were symptomatic while they were infected, and 88% were ill with COVID-19 during the third trimester. The average time from infection to delivery was 28 days.

All the mothers had IgG antibodies, 94% had IgM antibodies, and 94% had neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Among the cord blood samples, 91% had IgG antibodies, 9% had IgM antibodies, and 25% had neutralizing antibodies.

“It’s reassuring that, so far, the physiological response is exactly what we expected it to be,” Judette Louis, MD, MPH, an associate professor of ob.gyn. and the ob.gyn. department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview. “It’s what we would expect, but it’s always helpful to have more data to support that. Otherwise, you’re extrapolating from what you know from other conditions,” said Dr. Louis, who moderated the oral abstracts session.

Symptomatic infection was associated with significantly higher IgG titers than asymptomatic infection (P = .03), but no correlation was seen for IgM or neutralizing antibodies. In addition, although mothers who delivered more than 28 days after their infection had higher IgG titers (P = .05), no differences existed in IgM or neutralizing response.

Infants’ cord blood titers were significantly lower than their corresponding maternal samples, independently of symptoms or latency from infection to delivery (P < .001), Dr. Joseph reported.

“Transplacental efficiency in other pathogens has been shown to be correlated with neonatal immunity when the ratio of cord to maternal blood is greater than 1,” Dr. Joseph said in her presentation. Their data showed “suboptimal efficiency” at a ratio of 0.81.

The study’s small sample size and lack of a control group were weaknesses, but a major strength was having a population at disproportionately higher risk for infection and severe morbidity than the general population.
 

Implications for maternal COVID-19 vaccination

Although the data are not yet available, Dr. Joseph said they have expanded their protocol to include vaccinated pregnant women.

“The key to developing an effective vaccine [for pregnant people] is in really characterizing adaptive immunity in pregnancy,” Dr. Joseph told SMFM attendees. “I think that these findings inform further vaccine development in demonstrating that maternal immunity is robust.”

The World Health Organization recently recommended withholding COVID-19 vaccines from pregnant people, but the SMFM and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists subsequently issued a joint statement reaffirming that the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the FDA “should not be withheld from pregnant individuals who choose to receive the vaccine.”

“One of the questions people ask is whether in pregnancy you’re going to mount a good response to the vaccine the way you would outside of pregnancy,” Dr. Louis said. “If we can demonstrate that you do, that may provide the information that some mothers need to make their decisions.” Data such as those from Dr. Joseph’s study can also inform recommendations on timing of maternal vaccination.

“For instance, Dr. Joseph demonstrated that, 28 days out from the infection, you had more antibodies, so there may be a scenario where we say this vaccine may be more beneficial in the middle of the pregnancy for the purpose of forming those antibodies,” Dr. Louis said.
 

Consensus emerging from maternal antibodies data

The findings from Dr. Joseph’s study mirror those reported in a study published online Jan. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics. That study, led by Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also examined maternal and neonatal levels of IgG and IgM antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. They also found a positive correlation between cord blood and maternal IgG concentrations (P < .001), but notably, the ratio of cord to maternal blood titers was greater than 1, unlike in Dr. Joseph’s study.

For their study, Dr. Flannery and colleagues obtained maternal and cord blood sera at the time of delivery from 1471 pairs of mothers and infants, independently of COVID status during pregnancy. The average maternal age was 32 years, and just over a quarter of the population (26%) were Black, non-Hispanic women. About half (51%) were White, 12% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian.

About 6% of the women had either IgG or IgM antibodies at delivery, and 87% of infants born to those mothers had measurable IgG in their cord blood. No infants had IgM antibodies. As with the study presented at SMFM, the mothers’ infections included asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe cases, and the degree of severity of cases had no apparent effect on infant antibody concentrations. Most of the women who tested positive for COVID-19 (60%) were asymptomatic.

Among the 11 mothers who had antibodies but whose infants’ cord blood did not, 5 had only IgM antibodies, and 6 had significantly lower IgG concentrations than those seen in the other mothers.

In a commentary about the JAMA Pediatrics study, Flor Munoz, MD, of the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, suggested that the findings are grounds for optimism about a maternal vaccination strategy to protect infants from COVID-19.

“However, the timing of maternal vaccination to protect the infant, as opposed to the mother alone, would necessitate an adequate interval from vaccination to delivery (of at least 4 weeks), while vaccination early in gestation and even late in the third trimester could still be protective for the mother,” Dr. Munoz wrote.

Given the interval between two-dose vaccination regimens and the fact that transplacental transfer begins at about the 17th week of gestation, “maternal vaccination starting in the early second trimester of gestation might be optimal to achieve the highest levels of antibodies in the newborn,” Dr. Munoz wrote. But questions remain, such as how effective the neonatal antibodies would be in protecting against COVID-19 and how long they last after birth.

No external funding was used in Dr. Joseph’s study. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Louis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The JAMA Pediatrics study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. One coauthor received consultancy fees from Sanofi Pasteur, Lumen, Novavax, and Merck unrelated to the study. Dr. Munoz served on the data and safety monitoring boards of Moderna, Pfizer, Virometix, and Meissa Vaccines and has received grants from Novavax Research and Gilead Research.

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

Li et al looked at risk of thromboembolic disease in patients with RA within the first 5 years of diagnosis compared to those without RA. Using a population database in British Columbia, Canada, 39,142 RA patients were matched to 78,078 non-RA patients and those with prior venous thromboembolism (VTE) were excluded. Incidence rates of VTE, pulmonary embolism (PE), and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) were higher among the RA cohort than the non-RA cohort; this observation held true after adjusting for age, sex, glucocorticoid, and contraceptive use. It would be interesting to know if the increased risk holds true after control of inflammation (i.e. in patients with established RA in low vs. high disease activity states). In the absence of information about BMI and tobacco use, more studies are necessary to provide further support for this finding.

As noted above, RA is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), along with risk of death from cardiovascular complications. Because CVD is itself a risk factor for dementia, Sattui et al examined the potential for systemic inflammation and CVD to increase risk of developing dementia in RA patients. Using CMS claims data from 2006 to 2014, they studied 56,000 RA patients age 65 or older and looked at risk of dementia according to CVD status (no CVD or risk factors, CVD risk factors without disease, and CVD). Incidence rates for dementia were higher among RA patients with CVD risk factors than those without, and highest among RA patients with CVD. This effect was age-dependent, with a more significant risk among RA patients age 65-74, perhaps because of a general increase in dementia in older adults. As RA disease activity was not obtainable in this study, the effects of systemic inflammation are difficult to attribute. In addition, there may be some misclassification of data regarding coding of dementia subtypes (i.e. vascular and Alzheimer dementia). However, as there are limited studies in this area, this study provides credible evidence for an increase in dementia in RA patients with CVD, which should be further investigated.

Finally, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has come under increased scrutiny in the past year in terms of its potential use outside of treatment of lupus and RA as well as potential side effects. Cardiac toxicity related to HCQ is thought to be rare; Sorour et al looked at the association between chronic HCQ use in patients with RA and the development of heart failure (HF) using a retrospective study comparing patients who developed HF after RA diagnosis to those who did not develop HF. HCQ use was similar in both groups and a higher cumulative HCQ dose was not associated with increased risk of HF. As it is small and retrospective, larger prospective studies would be helpful, but this remains reassuring as to the safety of HCQ in RA patients.

Li et al looked at risk of thromboembolic disease in patients with RA within the first 5 years of diagnosis compared to those without RA. Using a population database in British Columbia, Canada, 39,142 RA patients were matched to 78,078 non-RA patients and those with prior venous thromboembolism (VTE) were excluded. Incidence rates of VTE, pulmonary embolism (PE), and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) were higher among the RA cohort than the non-RA cohort; this observation held true after adjusting for age, sex, glucocorticoid, and contraceptive use. It would be interesting to know if the increased risk holds true after control of inflammation (i.e. in patients with established RA in low vs. high disease activity states). In the absence of information about BMI and tobacco use, more studies are necessary to provide further support for this finding.

As noted above, RA is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), along with risk of death from cardiovascular complications. Because CVD is itself a risk factor for dementia, Sattui et al examined the potential for systemic inflammation and CVD to increase risk of developing dementia in RA patients. Using CMS claims data from 2006 to 2014, they studied 56,000 RA patients age 65 or older and looked at risk of dementia according to CVD status (no CVD or risk factors, CVD risk factors without disease, and CVD). Incidence rates for dementia were higher among RA patients with CVD risk factors than those without, and highest among RA patients with CVD. This effect was age-dependent, with a more significant risk among RA patients age 65-74, perhaps because of a general increase in dementia in older adults. As RA disease activity was not obtainable in this study, the effects of systemic inflammation are difficult to attribute. In addition, there may be some misclassification of data regarding coding of dementia subtypes (i.e. vascular and Alzheimer dementia). However, as there are limited studies in this area, this study provides credible evidence for an increase in dementia in RA patients with CVD, which should be further investigated.

Finally, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has come under increased scrutiny in the past year in terms of its potential use outside of treatment of lupus and RA as well as potential side effects. Cardiac toxicity related to HCQ is thought to be rare; Sorour et al looked at the association between chronic HCQ use in patients with RA and the development of heart failure (HF) using a retrospective study comparing patients who developed HF after RA diagnosis to those who did not develop HF. HCQ use was similar in both groups and a higher cumulative HCQ dose was not associated with increased risk of HF. As it is small and retrospective, larger prospective studies would be helpful, but this remains reassuring as to the safety of HCQ in RA patients.

Li et al looked at risk of thromboembolic disease in patients with RA within the first 5 years of diagnosis compared to those without RA. Using a population database in British Columbia, Canada, 39,142 RA patients were matched to 78,078 non-RA patients and those with prior venous thromboembolism (VTE) were excluded. Incidence rates of VTE, pulmonary embolism (PE), and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) were higher among the RA cohort than the non-RA cohort; this observation held true after adjusting for age, sex, glucocorticoid, and contraceptive use. It would be interesting to know if the increased risk holds true after control of inflammation (i.e. in patients with established RA in low vs. high disease activity states). In the absence of information about BMI and tobacco use, more studies are necessary to provide further support for this finding.

As noted above, RA is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), along with risk of death from cardiovascular complications. Because CVD is itself a risk factor for dementia, Sattui et al examined the potential for systemic inflammation and CVD to increase risk of developing dementia in RA patients. Using CMS claims data from 2006 to 2014, they studied 56,000 RA patients age 65 or older and looked at risk of dementia according to CVD status (no CVD or risk factors, CVD risk factors without disease, and CVD). Incidence rates for dementia were higher among RA patients with CVD risk factors than those without, and highest among RA patients with CVD. This effect was age-dependent, with a more significant risk among RA patients age 65-74, perhaps because of a general increase in dementia in older adults. As RA disease activity was not obtainable in this study, the effects of systemic inflammation are difficult to attribute. In addition, there may be some misclassification of data regarding coding of dementia subtypes (i.e. vascular and Alzheimer dementia). However, as there are limited studies in this area, this study provides credible evidence for an increase in dementia in RA patients with CVD, which should be further investigated.

Finally, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has come under increased scrutiny in the past year in terms of its potential use outside of treatment of lupus and RA as well as potential side effects. Cardiac toxicity related to HCQ is thought to be rare; Sorour et al looked at the association between chronic HCQ use in patients with RA and the development of heart failure (HF) using a retrospective study comparing patients who developed HF after RA diagnosis to those who did not develop HF. HCQ use was similar in both groups and a higher cumulative HCQ dose was not associated with increased risk of HF. As it is small and retrospective, larger prospective studies would be helpful, but this remains reassuring as to the safety of HCQ in RA patients.

Daily treatment with tofacitinib (Xeljanz) led to more malignancies and adverse cardiovascular events in older rheumatoid arthritis patients compared with treatment with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to the partial results of a safety study announced last week by Pfizer.

The postmarketing study known as ORAL Surveillance began in 2014 to evaluate the safety of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib compared to a TNF inhibitor in RA patients 50 years of age or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Its 4,362 participants were randomized to either daily doses of 5 mg (n = 1,455) or 10 mg (n = 1,456) of tofacitinib or the TNFi (n = 1,451), which was adalimumab for patients in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, and etanercept elsewhere. During analysis, adverse events were pooled for all patients on tofacitinib.

Overall, 135 patients developed major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and 164 developed malignancies – excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The incidence of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNFi group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09). The rate of MACE was also higher in the combined tofacitinib group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.91-1.94). Both rates for tofacitinib did not meet the trial’s noninferiority criteria.

Among the patients on tofacitinib, the most reported MACE was myocardial infarction and the most reported malignancy was lung cancer. Study participants with noted risk factors – including older age and smoking – were more likely to experience adverse events.

In February 2019, patients in the 10-mg tofacitinib group were switched to the 5-mg because of a safety signal indicating increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death.

Tofacitinib was approved for RA in November 2012, though concerns about serious side effects had been noted during clinical trials and a boxed warning was ultimately added to the drug’s label. Tofacitinib is also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Other JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib and upadacitinib have been approved for RA in the interim as well, though the higher dose of baricitinib was rejected in committee because of safety concerns and both their boxes also warn against infections, thrombosis, and cancer.

A postmarketing safety study on baricitinib is expected to be completed in 2025.

The full results of the ORAL Surveillance study – which should address safety regarding pulmonary embolism and mortality, as well as efficacy data – have not yet been released. “Pfizer is working with the [FDA] and other regulatory agencies to review the full results and analyses as they become available,” the press release said.

Daily treatment with tofacitinib (Xeljanz) led to more malignancies and adverse cardiovascular events in older rheumatoid arthritis patients compared with treatment with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to the partial results of a safety study announced last week by Pfizer.

The postmarketing study known as ORAL Surveillance began in 2014 to evaluate the safety of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib compared to a TNF inhibitor in RA patients 50 years of age or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Its 4,362 participants were randomized to either daily doses of 5 mg (n = 1,455) or 10 mg (n = 1,456) of tofacitinib or the TNFi (n = 1,451), which was adalimumab for patients in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, and etanercept elsewhere. During analysis, adverse events were pooled for all patients on tofacitinib.

Overall, 135 patients developed major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and 164 developed malignancies – excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The incidence of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNFi group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09). The rate of MACE was also higher in the combined tofacitinib group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.91-1.94). Both rates for tofacitinib did not meet the trial’s noninferiority criteria.

Among the patients on tofacitinib, the most reported MACE was myocardial infarction and the most reported malignancy was lung cancer. Study participants with noted risk factors – including older age and smoking – were more likely to experience adverse events.

In February 2019, patients in the 10-mg tofacitinib group were switched to the 5-mg because of a safety signal indicating increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death.

Tofacitinib was approved for RA in November 2012, though concerns about serious side effects had been noted during clinical trials and a boxed warning was ultimately added to the drug’s label. Tofacitinib is also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Other JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib and upadacitinib have been approved for RA in the interim as well, though the higher dose of baricitinib was rejected in committee because of safety concerns and both their boxes also warn against infections, thrombosis, and cancer.

A postmarketing safety study on baricitinib is expected to be completed in 2025.

The full results of the ORAL Surveillance study – which should address safety regarding pulmonary embolism and mortality, as well as efficacy data – have not yet been released. “Pfizer is working with the [FDA] and other regulatory agencies to review the full results and analyses as they become available,” the press release said.

Daily treatment with tofacitinib (Xeljanz) led to more malignancies and adverse cardiovascular events in older rheumatoid arthritis patients compared with treatment with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to the partial results of a safety study announced last week by Pfizer.

The postmarketing study known as ORAL Surveillance began in 2014 to evaluate the safety of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib compared to a TNF inhibitor in RA patients 50 years of age or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Its 4,362 participants were randomized to either daily doses of 5 mg (n = 1,455) or 10 mg (n = 1,456) of tofacitinib or the TNFi (n = 1,451), which was adalimumab for patients in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, and etanercept elsewhere. During analysis, adverse events were pooled for all patients on tofacitinib.

Overall, 135 patients developed major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and 164 developed malignancies – excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The incidence of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNFi group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09). The rate of MACE was also higher in the combined tofacitinib group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.91-1.94). Both rates for tofacitinib did not meet the trial’s noninferiority criteria.

Among the patients on tofacitinib, the most reported MACE was myocardial infarction and the most reported malignancy was lung cancer. Study participants with noted risk factors – including older age and smoking – were more likely to experience adverse events.

In February 2019, patients in the 10-mg tofacitinib group were switched to the 5-mg because of a safety signal indicating increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death.

Tofacitinib was approved for RA in November 2012, though concerns about serious side effects had been noted during clinical trials and a boxed warning was ultimately added to the drug’s label. Tofacitinib is also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Other JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib and upadacitinib have been approved for RA in the interim as well, though the higher dose of baricitinib was rejected in committee because of safety concerns and both their boxes also warn against infections, thrombosis, and cancer.

A postmarketing safety study on baricitinib is expected to be completed in 2025.

The full results of the ORAL Surveillance study – which should address safety regarding pulmonary embolism and mortality, as well as efficacy data – have not yet been released. “Pfizer is working with the [FDA] and other regulatory agencies to review the full results and analyses as they become available,” the press release said.

New data on COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a “wake-up call” about the need to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among people and thus deprive it of opportunities to evolve its defenses, the top federal expert on infectious diseases said.

“The virus will continue to mutate and will mutate for its own selective advantage,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Friday news conference organized by the White House.

The continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2 “gives the virus the chance to adapt to the forces, in this case the immune response, that’s trying to get rid of it,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s where you get mutations.”

Federal health officials are working to boost the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even as signals emerge about the extent that the virus is already evolving.

Data released this week about the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage development provides further evidence that they may not protect as well against emerging variants, Dr. Fauci said.

“Mutations that lead to different lineage do have clinical consequences,” he said, while also emphasizing that the emerging vaccines appear to confer broad protection. Dr. Fauci earlier in the day addressed the “messaging challenge” for clinicians and researchers in discussing the results of the J&J vaccine trial, which appear to fall short of those reported for the two vaccines already approved and in use in the United States. He noted the benefits of possibly soon having more authorized vaccines to combat COVID-19. But continued community spread of the infection will foster conditions that can undermine the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“Even though the long-range effect in the sense of severe disease is still handled reasonably well by the vaccines, this is a wake-up call to all of us,” Dr. Fauci said.

Pharmaceutical scientists and executives and government health officials will need to work together to continue to develop vaccines that can outwit the emerging variants, he said.

On Jan. 29, J&J reported that its highly anticipated single-dose vaccine had shown its worst results in South Africa where many cases of COVID-19 were caused by infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage. The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2, J&J said.

Novavax on Jan. 28 reported an efficacy rate for its COVID-19 vaccine of 49.4% from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa, compared with an 89.3% rate from a U.K. study. There already have been attempts to estimate how well the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines can handle new variants of the virus. They both have been granted emergency-use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

‘Genomic surveillance’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday reported the first U.S.-documented cases of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in South Carolina. On Jan. 26, the first confirmed U.S. case of a highly transmissible Brazilian coronavirus variant was detected in Minnesota, state health officials said.

The CDC’s stepped-up “genomic surveillance” will help keep clinicians and researchers aware of how SARS-CoV-2 is changing, Dr. Fauci said.

Speaking at the same White House news conference, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said the two South Carolina cases of the B.1.351 variant were reported in different parts of the state and not believed to be epidemiologically linked. The people involved “did not have any travel history,” she added.

The SARS-CoV-2 mutations were expected to emerge at some point, as with any virus, but their appearance underscores the need for people to remain vigilant about precautions that can stop its spread, Dr. Walensky said.

She and Dr. Fauci both stressed the need for continued use of masks and social distancing and urged people to get COVID-19 vaccines as they become available. Continued community spread of the virus allows this global health threat to keep replicating, and thus increases its chances to thwart medical interventions, Dr. Fauci said.

“The virus has a playing field, as it were, to mutate,” Dr. Fauci said. “If you stop that and stop the replication, the viruses cannot mutate if they don’t replicate.”

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

New data on COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a “wake-up call” about the need to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among people and thus deprive it of opportunities to evolve its defenses, the top federal expert on infectious diseases said.

“The virus will continue to mutate and will mutate for its own selective advantage,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Friday news conference organized by the White House.

The continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2 “gives the virus the chance to adapt to the forces, in this case the immune response, that’s trying to get rid of it,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s where you get mutations.”

Federal health officials are working to boost the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even as signals emerge about the extent that the virus is already evolving.

Data released this week about the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage development provides further evidence that they may not protect as well against emerging variants, Dr. Fauci said.

“Mutations that lead to different lineage do have clinical consequences,” he said, while also emphasizing that the emerging vaccines appear to confer broad protection. Dr. Fauci earlier in the day addressed the “messaging challenge” for clinicians and researchers in discussing the results of the J&J vaccine trial, which appear to fall short of those reported for the two vaccines already approved and in use in the United States. He noted the benefits of possibly soon having more authorized vaccines to combat COVID-19. But continued community spread of the infection will foster conditions that can undermine the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“Even though the long-range effect in the sense of severe disease is still handled reasonably well by the vaccines, this is a wake-up call to all of us,” Dr. Fauci said.

Pharmaceutical scientists and executives and government health officials will need to work together to continue to develop vaccines that can outwit the emerging variants, he said.

On Jan. 29, J&J reported that its highly anticipated single-dose vaccine had shown its worst results in South Africa where many cases of COVID-19 were caused by infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage. The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2, J&J said.

Novavax on Jan. 28 reported an efficacy rate for its COVID-19 vaccine of 49.4% from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa, compared with an 89.3% rate from a U.K. study. There already have been attempts to estimate how well the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines can handle new variants of the virus. They both have been granted emergency-use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

‘Genomic surveillance’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday reported the first U.S.-documented cases of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in South Carolina. On Jan. 26, the first confirmed U.S. case of a highly transmissible Brazilian coronavirus variant was detected in Minnesota, state health officials said.

The CDC’s stepped-up “genomic surveillance” will help keep clinicians and researchers aware of how SARS-CoV-2 is changing, Dr. Fauci said.

Speaking at the same White House news conference, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said the two South Carolina cases of the B.1.351 variant were reported in different parts of the state and not believed to be epidemiologically linked. The people involved “did not have any travel history,” she added.

The SARS-CoV-2 mutations were expected to emerge at some point, as with any virus, but their appearance underscores the need for people to remain vigilant about precautions that can stop its spread, Dr. Walensky said.

She and Dr. Fauci both stressed the need for continued use of masks and social distancing and urged people to get COVID-19 vaccines as they become available. Continued community spread of the virus allows this global health threat to keep replicating, and thus increases its chances to thwart medical interventions, Dr. Fauci said.

“The virus has a playing field, as it were, to mutate,” Dr. Fauci said. “If you stop that and stop the replication, the viruses cannot mutate if they don’t replicate.”

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

New data on COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a “wake-up call” about the need to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among people and thus deprive it of opportunities to evolve its defenses, the top federal expert on infectious diseases said.

“The virus will continue to mutate and will mutate for its own selective advantage,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Friday news conference organized by the White House.

The continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2 “gives the virus the chance to adapt to the forces, in this case the immune response, that’s trying to get rid of it,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s where you get mutations.”

Federal health officials are working to boost the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even as signals emerge about the extent that the virus is already evolving.

Data released this week about the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage development provides further evidence that they may not protect as well against emerging variants, Dr. Fauci said.

“Mutations that lead to different lineage do have clinical consequences,” he said, while also emphasizing that the emerging vaccines appear to confer broad protection. Dr. Fauci earlier in the day addressed the “messaging challenge” for clinicians and researchers in discussing the results of the J&J vaccine trial, which appear to fall short of those reported for the two vaccines already approved and in use in the United States. He noted the benefits of possibly soon having more authorized vaccines to combat COVID-19. But continued community spread of the infection will foster conditions that can undermine the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“Even though the long-range effect in the sense of severe disease is still handled reasonably well by the vaccines, this is a wake-up call to all of us,” Dr. Fauci said.

Pharmaceutical scientists and executives and government health officials will need to work together to continue to develop vaccines that can outwit the emerging variants, he said.

On Jan. 29, J&J reported that its highly anticipated single-dose vaccine had shown its worst results in South Africa where many cases of COVID-19 were caused by infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage. The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2, J&J said.

Novavax on Jan. 28 reported an efficacy rate for its COVID-19 vaccine of 49.4% from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa, compared with an 89.3% rate from a U.K. study. There already have been attempts to estimate how well the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines can handle new variants of the virus. They both have been granted emergency-use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

‘Genomic surveillance’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday reported the first U.S.-documented cases of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in South Carolina. On Jan. 26, the first confirmed U.S. case of a highly transmissible Brazilian coronavirus variant was detected in Minnesota, state health officials said.

The CDC’s stepped-up “genomic surveillance” will help keep clinicians and researchers aware of how SARS-CoV-2 is changing, Dr. Fauci said.

Speaking at the same White House news conference, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said the two South Carolina cases of the B.1.351 variant were reported in different parts of the state and not believed to be epidemiologically linked. The people involved “did not have any travel history,” she added.

The SARS-CoV-2 mutations were expected to emerge at some point, as with any virus, but their appearance underscores the need for people to remain vigilant about precautions that can stop its spread, Dr. Walensky said.

She and Dr. Fauci both stressed the need for continued use of masks and social distancing and urged people to get COVID-19 vaccines as they become available. Continued community spread of the virus allows this global health threat to keep replicating, and thus increases its chances to thwart medical interventions, Dr. Fauci said.

“The virus has a playing field, as it were, to mutate,” Dr. Fauci said. “If you stop that and stop the replication, the viruses cannot mutate if they don’t replicate.”

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