Pediatrics

The Food and Drug Administration has approved selumetinib (Koselugo) for the treatment of pediatric patients aged 2 years and older with type 1 neurofibromatosis (NF1) with symptomatic, inoperable plexiform neurofibromas.

FDA approval was based on results from the phase 2 SPRINT Stratum 1 trial, in which 50 patients with NF1 received selumetinib as twice-daily oral monotherapy. Of this group, 33 (66%) patients had a partial response of at least a 20% reduction in tumor volume. There were no complete responses, according to a press release.

The most common adverse events were vomiting, rash, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, dry skin, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, pyrexia, rash acneiform, stomatitis, headache, paronychia, and pruritus. Dose interruptions, dose reductions, and permanent drug discontinuation occurred in 80%, 24%, and 12% of patients, respectively.

Serious adverse reactions included cardiomyopathy, ocular toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, increased creatinine phosphokinase, and increased vitamin E levels and risk of bleeding, according to the press release.

“Previously, there were no medicines approved for this disease. This approval has the potential to change how symptomatic, inoperable NF1 plexiform neurofibromas are treated and provides new hope to these patients,” Roy Baynes, MD, PhD, senior vice president, head of global clinical development, and chief medical officer of Merck Research Laboratories, said in the press release.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved selumetinib (Koselugo) for the treatment of pediatric patients aged 2 years and older with type 1 neurofibromatosis (NF1) with symptomatic, inoperable plexiform neurofibromas.

FDA approval was based on results from the phase 2 SPRINT Stratum 1 trial, in which 50 patients with NF1 received selumetinib as twice-daily oral monotherapy. Of this group, 33 (66%) patients had a partial response of at least a 20% reduction in tumor volume. There were no complete responses, according to a press release.

The most common adverse events were vomiting, rash, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, dry skin, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, pyrexia, rash acneiform, stomatitis, headache, paronychia, and pruritus. Dose interruptions, dose reductions, and permanent drug discontinuation occurred in 80%, 24%, and 12% of patients, respectively.

Serious adverse reactions included cardiomyopathy, ocular toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, increased creatinine phosphokinase, and increased vitamin E levels and risk of bleeding, according to the press release.

“Previously, there were no medicines approved for this disease. This approval has the potential to change how symptomatic, inoperable NF1 plexiform neurofibromas are treated and provides new hope to these patients,” Roy Baynes, MD, PhD, senior vice president, head of global clinical development, and chief medical officer of Merck Research Laboratories, said in the press release.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved selumetinib (Koselugo) for the treatment of pediatric patients aged 2 years and older with type 1 neurofibromatosis (NF1) with symptomatic, inoperable plexiform neurofibromas.

FDA approval was based on results from the phase 2 SPRINT Stratum 1 trial, in which 50 patients with NF1 received selumetinib as twice-daily oral monotherapy. Of this group, 33 (66%) patients had a partial response of at least a 20% reduction in tumor volume. There were no complete responses, according to a press release.

The most common adverse events were vomiting, rash, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, dry skin, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, pyrexia, rash acneiform, stomatitis, headache, paronychia, and pruritus. Dose interruptions, dose reductions, and permanent drug discontinuation occurred in 80%, 24%, and 12% of patients, respectively.

Serious adverse reactions included cardiomyopathy, ocular toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, increased creatinine phosphokinase, and increased vitamin E levels and risk of bleeding, according to the press release.

“Previously, there were no medicines approved for this disease. This approval has the potential to change how symptomatic, inoperable NF1 plexiform neurofibromas are treated and provides new hope to these patients,” Roy Baynes, MD, PhD, senior vice president, head of global clinical development, and chief medical officer of Merck Research Laboratories, said in the press release.

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A systematic review of 13 RCTs (5077 patients) compared the effects of a prophylactic antipyretic (acetaminophen or ibuprofen, doses and schedules not described) with placebo in healthy children 6 years or younger undergoing routine childhood immunizations.¹ Trials examined various schedules and combinations of vaccines. Researchers defined febrile reactions as a temperature of 38°C or higher and categorized pain as: none, mild (reaction to touch over vaccine site), moderate (protesting to limb movement), or severe (resisting limb movement).

Acetaminophen works better than ibuprofen for both fever and pain

Acetaminophen prophylaxis resulted in fewer febrile reactions in the first 24 to 48 hours after vaccine administration than placebo following both primary (odds ratio [OR] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.48) and booster vaccinations (OR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.93). Acetaminophen also reduced pain of all grades (primary vaccination: OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.7; booster vaccination: OR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84).

In contrast, ibuprofen prophylaxis had no effect on early febrile reactions for either primary or booster vaccinations. It reduced pain of all grades after primary vaccination (OR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88) but not after boosters (OR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.59-1.81).

Reduced antibody response doesn’t affect seroprotective levels

Acetaminophen also generally reduced the antibody response compared with placebo (assessed using the geometric mean concentration [GMC], a statistical technique for comparing values that change logarithmically).¹ GMC results are difficult to interpret clinically, however, and they differed by vaccine, antigen, and primary or booster vaccination status.

Nevertheless, patients mounted seroprotective antibody levels with or without acetaminophen prophylaxis, and the nasopharyngeal carriage rates of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae didn’t change. Researchers didn’t publish the antibody responses to ibuprofen, nor did they track actual infection rates.

How do antipyretics work with newer combination vaccines?

A subsequent trial evaluated the immune response in 908 children receiving newer combination vaccines (DTaP/HBV/IPV/Hib and PCV13) who were randomized to 5 groups: acetaminophen 15 mg/kg at vaccination and 6 to 8 hours later; acetaminophen 15 mg/kg starting 6 to 8 hours after vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; ibuprofen 10 mg/kg/dose at vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; ibuprofen 10 mg/kg starting 6 to 8 hours after vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; and placebo.²

Patients received age-appropriate vaccination and their assigned antipyretic (or placebo) at 2, 3, 4 and 12 months of age. Researchers measured the immune response at 5 and 13 months of age.

Continue to: Overall, 5% to 10% of the prophylaxis group...

Overall, 5% to 10% of the prophylaxis group had fever on Day 1 or 2 after vaccination, compared with 10% to 20% of the placebo group (no P value given). Antipyretic use produced lower antibody GMC responses for antipertussis and antitetanus vaccines at 5 months but not at 13 months. Patients achieved the prespecified effective antibody levels at both 5 and 13 months, regardless of intervention.

Antipyretics don’t affect immune ­response with inactivated flu vaccine

A 2017 RCT investigated the effect of either prophylactic acetaminophen (15 mg/kg every 4 to 6 hours for 24 hours) or ibuprofen (10 mg/kg every 4 to 6 hours for 24 hours) on immune response in children receiving inactivated influenza vaccine.³ Researchers randomized 142 children into 3 treatment groups (acetaminophen, 59 children; ibuprofen, 24 children; placebo, 59 children). They defined seroconversion as a hemagglutinin inhibition assay titer of 1:40 postvaccination (if baseline titer was less than 1:10) or a 4-fold rise (if the baseline titer was ≥ 1:10).

Prophylactic acetaminophen reduces the odds of febrile reactions in the first 48 hours after vaccination by 40% to 65% and pain of all grades by 36% to 43%.

All interventions resulted in similar seroconversion rates for all A or B influenza strains investigated. Vaccine protection-level responses ranged from 9% for B/Phuket to 100% for A/Switzerland. The trial didn’t report febrile reactions or infection rates.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In 2017, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued guidelines generally discouraging the use of antipyretics at the time of vaccination, but allowing their use later for local discomfort or fever that might arise after vaccination. The guidelines also noted that antipyretics at the time of vaccination didn’t reduce the risk of febrile seizures.⁴

Editor’s takeaway

Although ACIP doesn’t encourage giving antipyretics with vaccines, moderate-quality evidence suggests that prophylactic acetaminophen reduces fever and pain after immunizations by a reasonable amount without an apparent clinical downside.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A systematic review of 13 RCTs (5077 patients) compared the effects of a prophylactic antipyretic (acetaminophen or ibuprofen, doses and schedules not described) with placebo in healthy children 6 years or younger undergoing routine childhood immunizations.¹ Trials examined various schedules and combinations of vaccines. Researchers defined febrile reactions as a temperature of 38°C or higher and categorized pain as: none, mild (reaction to touch over vaccine site), moderate (protesting to limb movement), or severe (resisting limb movement).

Acetaminophen works better than ibuprofen for both fever and pain

Acetaminophen prophylaxis resulted in fewer febrile reactions in the first 24 to 48 hours after vaccine administration than placebo following both primary (odds ratio [OR] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.48) and booster vaccinations (OR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.93). Acetaminophen also reduced pain of all grades (primary vaccination: OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.7; booster vaccination: OR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84).

In contrast, ibuprofen prophylaxis had no effect on early febrile reactions for either primary or booster vaccinations. It reduced pain of all grades after primary vaccination (OR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88) but not after boosters (OR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.59-1.81).

Reduced antibody response doesn’t affect seroprotective levels

Acetaminophen also generally reduced the antibody response compared with placebo (assessed using the geometric mean concentration [GMC], a statistical technique for comparing values that change logarithmically).¹ GMC results are difficult to interpret clinically, however, and they differed by vaccine, antigen, and primary or booster vaccination status.

Nevertheless, patients mounted seroprotective antibody levels with or without acetaminophen prophylaxis, and the nasopharyngeal carriage rates of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae didn’t change. Researchers didn’t publish the antibody responses to ibuprofen, nor did they track actual infection rates.

How do antipyretics work with newer combination vaccines?

A subsequent trial evaluated the immune response in 908 children receiving newer combination vaccines (DTaP/HBV/IPV/Hib and PCV13) who were randomized to 5 groups: acetaminophen 15 mg/kg at vaccination and 6 to 8 hours later; acetaminophen 15 mg/kg starting 6 to 8 hours after vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; ibuprofen 10 mg/kg/dose at vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; ibuprofen 10 mg/kg starting 6 to 8 hours after vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; and placebo.²

Patients received age-appropriate vaccination and their assigned antipyretic (or placebo) at 2, 3, 4 and 12 months of age. Researchers measured the immune response at 5 and 13 months of age.

Continue to: Overall, 5% to 10% of the prophylaxis group...

Overall, 5% to 10% of the prophylaxis group had fever on Day 1 or 2 after vaccination, compared with 10% to 20% of the placebo group (no P value given). Antipyretic use produced lower antibody GMC responses for antipertussis and antitetanus vaccines at 5 months but not at 13 months. Patients achieved the prespecified effective antibody levels at both 5 and 13 months, regardless of intervention.

Antipyretics don’t affect immune ­response with inactivated flu vaccine

A 2017 RCT investigated the effect of either prophylactic acetaminophen (15 mg/kg every 4 to 6 hours for 24 hours) or ibuprofen (10 mg/kg every 4 to 6 hours for 24 hours) on immune response in children receiving inactivated influenza vaccine.³ Researchers randomized 142 children into 3 treatment groups (acetaminophen, 59 children; ibuprofen, 24 children; placebo, 59 children). They defined seroconversion as a hemagglutinin inhibition assay titer of 1:40 postvaccination (if baseline titer was less than 1:10) or a 4-fold rise (if the baseline titer was ≥ 1:10).

Prophylactic acetaminophen reduces the odds of febrile reactions in the first 48 hours after vaccination by 40% to 65% and pain of all grades by 36% to 43%.

All interventions resulted in similar seroconversion rates for all A or B influenza strains investigated. Vaccine protection-level responses ranged from 9% for B/Phuket to 100% for A/Switzerland. The trial didn’t report febrile reactions or infection rates.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In 2017, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued guidelines generally discouraging the use of antipyretics at the time of vaccination, but allowing their use later for local discomfort or fever that might arise after vaccination. The guidelines also noted that antipyretics at the time of vaccination didn’t reduce the risk of febrile seizures.⁴

Editor’s takeaway

Although ACIP doesn’t encourage giving antipyretics with vaccines, moderate-quality evidence suggests that prophylactic acetaminophen reduces fever and pain after immunizations by a reasonable amount without an apparent clinical downside.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A systematic review of 13 RCTs (5077 patients) compared the effects of a prophylactic antipyretic (acetaminophen or ibuprofen, doses and schedules not described) with placebo in healthy children 6 years or younger undergoing routine childhood immunizations.¹ Trials examined various schedules and combinations of vaccines. Researchers defined febrile reactions as a temperature of 38°C or higher and categorized pain as: none, mild (reaction to touch over vaccine site), moderate (protesting to limb movement), or severe (resisting limb movement).

Acetaminophen works better than ibuprofen for both fever and pain

Acetaminophen prophylaxis resulted in fewer febrile reactions in the first 24 to 48 hours after vaccine administration than placebo following both primary (odds ratio [OR] = 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.48) and booster vaccinations (OR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.93). Acetaminophen also reduced pain of all grades (primary vaccination: OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.7; booster vaccination: OR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84).

In contrast, ibuprofen prophylaxis had no effect on early febrile reactions for either primary or booster vaccinations. It reduced pain of all grades after primary vaccination (OR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88) but not after boosters (OR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.59-1.81).

Reduced antibody response doesn’t affect seroprotective levels

Acetaminophen also generally reduced the antibody response compared with placebo (assessed using the geometric mean concentration [GMC], a statistical technique for comparing values that change logarithmically).¹ GMC results are difficult to interpret clinically, however, and they differed by vaccine, antigen, and primary or booster vaccination status.

Nevertheless, patients mounted seroprotective antibody levels with or without acetaminophen prophylaxis, and the nasopharyngeal carriage rates of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae didn’t change. Researchers didn’t publish the antibody responses to ibuprofen, nor did they track actual infection rates.

How do antipyretics work with newer combination vaccines?

A subsequent trial evaluated the immune response in 908 children receiving newer combination vaccines (DTaP/HBV/IPV/Hib and PCV13) who were randomized to 5 groups: acetaminophen 15 mg/kg at vaccination and 6 to 8 hours later; acetaminophen 15 mg/kg starting 6 to 8 hours after vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; ibuprofen 10 mg/kg/dose at vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; ibuprofen 10 mg/kg starting 6 to 8 hours after vaccination with a second dose 6 to 8 hours later; and placebo.²

Patients received age-appropriate vaccination and their assigned antipyretic (or placebo) at 2, 3, 4 and 12 months of age. Researchers measured the immune response at 5 and 13 months of age.

Continue to: Overall, 5% to 10% of the prophylaxis group...

Overall, 5% to 10% of the prophylaxis group had fever on Day 1 or 2 after vaccination, compared with 10% to 20% of the placebo group (no P value given). Antipyretic use produced lower antibody GMC responses for antipertussis and antitetanus vaccines at 5 months but not at 13 months. Patients achieved the prespecified effective antibody levels at both 5 and 13 months, regardless of intervention.

Antipyretics don’t affect immune ­response with inactivated flu vaccine

A 2017 RCT investigated the effect of either prophylactic acetaminophen (15 mg/kg every 4 to 6 hours for 24 hours) or ibuprofen (10 mg/kg every 4 to 6 hours for 24 hours) on immune response in children receiving inactivated influenza vaccine.³ Researchers randomized 142 children into 3 treatment groups (acetaminophen, 59 children; ibuprofen, 24 children; placebo, 59 children). They defined seroconversion as a hemagglutinin inhibition assay titer of 1:40 postvaccination (if baseline titer was less than 1:10) or a 4-fold rise (if the baseline titer was ≥ 1:10).

Prophylactic acetaminophen reduces the odds of febrile reactions in the first 48 hours after vaccination by 40% to 65% and pain of all grades by 36% to 43%.

All interventions resulted in similar seroconversion rates for all A or B influenza strains investigated. Vaccine protection-level responses ranged from 9% for B/Phuket to 100% for A/Switzerland. The trial didn’t report febrile reactions or infection rates.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In 2017, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued guidelines generally discouraging the use of antipyretics at the time of vaccination, but allowing their use later for local discomfort or fever that might arise after vaccination. The guidelines also noted that antipyretics at the time of vaccination didn’t reduce the risk of febrile seizures.⁴

Editor’s takeaway

Although ACIP doesn’t encourage giving antipyretics with vaccines, moderate-quality evidence suggests that prophylactic acetaminophen reduces fever and pain after immunizations by a reasonable amount without an apparent clinical downside.

Negative cardiovascular health indicators were found to be higher in children with hemophilia A, compared with healthy children, according to a small research study.

Thinkstock

Biochemical, imaging, and metabolic analyses were performed to compare 17 boys with severe hemophilia A to 23 healthy boys designated as controls.

The myocardial performance index (MPI) was evaluated using tissue Doppler echocardiography. In addition, peripheral and central blood pressure and arterial stiffness were assessed, as were carotid intima–media thicknesses (CIMTs), serum glucose, insulin, insulin resistance, and lipoprotein levels.

Increased MPI is considered an indicator of global deterioration in myocardial functions.

There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age and biochemical parameters, according to the researchers. There were also no significant differences found between the groups in terms of CIMT, peripheral blood pressure, and central systolic blood pressure.

However, the HDL cholesterol levels in the hemophilia group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < .05). Five of the hemophilia patients had insulin resistance (29.4%), whereas four had low HDL cholesterol levels (23.5%).

The researchers found that the MPI values in the hemophilia group were higher than those in the control group (0.41 vs. 0.34; P = .004). In addition, left ventricle ejection time (ET), which is a predictor of mortality in heart failure and ischemic heart disease, was shorter in the hemophilia group than it was in the control group (266.6 vs. 284.4; P = .014).

As arterial stiffness increases, ejection time decreases owing to the deteriorating myocardial systolic functions, and it has also been reported in the literature that arterial stiffness affects left ventricular systolic functions, according to the authors.

“Arterial stiffness and high [central diastolic blood pressure] developing in patients with severe hemophilia A since their childhood are important risk factors for coronary artery diseases. Predisposition to dyslipidemia and [insulin resistance] noted in the hemophilia group also negatively contributes to this process. Adolescent patients with hemophilia should be monitored for hypertension, obesity, dyslipidemia, and [insulin resistance],” the authors concluded.

The study received no external funding. The authors did not report disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Özdemir ZC et al. Thrombosis Res. 2020;189:102-7.

Negative cardiovascular health indicators were found to be higher in children with hemophilia A, compared with healthy children, according to a small research study.

Thinkstock

Biochemical, imaging, and metabolic analyses were performed to compare 17 boys with severe hemophilia A to 23 healthy boys designated as controls.

The myocardial performance index (MPI) was evaluated using tissue Doppler echocardiography. In addition, peripheral and central blood pressure and arterial stiffness were assessed, as were carotid intima–media thicknesses (CIMTs), serum glucose, insulin, insulin resistance, and lipoprotein levels.

Increased MPI is considered an indicator of global deterioration in myocardial functions.

There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age and biochemical parameters, according to the researchers. There were also no significant differences found between the groups in terms of CIMT, peripheral blood pressure, and central systolic blood pressure.

However, the HDL cholesterol levels in the hemophilia group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < .05). Five of the hemophilia patients had insulin resistance (29.4%), whereas four had low HDL cholesterol levels (23.5%).

The researchers found that the MPI values in the hemophilia group were higher than those in the control group (0.41 vs. 0.34; P = .004). In addition, left ventricle ejection time (ET), which is a predictor of mortality in heart failure and ischemic heart disease, was shorter in the hemophilia group than it was in the control group (266.6 vs. 284.4; P = .014).

As arterial stiffness increases, ejection time decreases owing to the deteriorating myocardial systolic functions, and it has also been reported in the literature that arterial stiffness affects left ventricular systolic functions, according to the authors.

“Arterial stiffness and high [central diastolic blood pressure] developing in patients with severe hemophilia A since their childhood are important risk factors for coronary artery diseases. Predisposition to dyslipidemia and [insulin resistance] noted in the hemophilia group also negatively contributes to this process. Adolescent patients with hemophilia should be monitored for hypertension, obesity, dyslipidemia, and [insulin resistance],” the authors concluded.

The study received no external funding. The authors did not report disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Özdemir ZC et al. Thrombosis Res. 2020;189:102-7.

Negative cardiovascular health indicators were found to be higher in children with hemophilia A, compared with healthy children, according to a small research study.

Thinkstock

Biochemical, imaging, and metabolic analyses were performed to compare 17 boys with severe hemophilia A to 23 healthy boys designated as controls.

The myocardial performance index (MPI) was evaluated using tissue Doppler echocardiography. In addition, peripheral and central blood pressure and arterial stiffness were assessed, as were carotid intima–media thicknesses (CIMTs), serum glucose, insulin, insulin resistance, and lipoprotein levels.

Increased MPI is considered an indicator of global deterioration in myocardial functions.

There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age and biochemical parameters, according to the researchers. There were also no significant differences found between the groups in terms of CIMT, peripheral blood pressure, and central systolic blood pressure.

However, the HDL cholesterol levels in the hemophilia group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < .05). Five of the hemophilia patients had insulin resistance (29.4%), whereas four had low HDL cholesterol levels (23.5%).

The researchers found that the MPI values in the hemophilia group were higher than those in the control group (0.41 vs. 0.34; P = .004). In addition, left ventricle ejection time (ET), which is a predictor of mortality in heart failure and ischemic heart disease, was shorter in the hemophilia group than it was in the control group (266.6 vs. 284.4; P = .014).

As arterial stiffness increases, ejection time decreases owing to the deteriorating myocardial systolic functions, and it has also been reported in the literature that arterial stiffness affects left ventricular systolic functions, according to the authors.

“Arterial stiffness and high [central diastolic blood pressure] developing in patients with severe hemophilia A since their childhood are important risk factors for coronary artery diseases. Predisposition to dyslipidemia and [insulin resistance] noted in the hemophilia group also negatively contributes to this process. Adolescent patients with hemophilia should be monitored for hypertension, obesity, dyslipidemia, and [insulin resistance],” the authors concluded.

The study received no external funding. The authors did not report disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Özdemir ZC et al. Thrombosis Res. 2020;189:102-7.

Given the possibility that children with hematologic malignancies may have increased susceptibility to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), clinicians from China and the United States have proposed a plan for preventing and managing outbreaks in hospitals’ pediatric hematology and oncology departments.

The plan is focused primarily on infection prevention and control strategies, Yulei He, MD, of Chengdu (China) Women’s and Children’s Central Hospital and colleagues explained in an article published in The Lancet Haematology.

The authors noted that close contact with COVID-19 patients is thought to be the main route of transmission, and a retrospective study indicated that 41.3% of initial COVID-19 cases were caused by hospital-related transmission.

“Children with hematological malignancies might have increased susceptibility to infection with SARS-CoV-2 because of immunodeficiency; therefore, procedures are needed to avoid hospital-related transmission and infection for these patients,” the authors wrote.
 

Preventing the spread of infection

Dr. He and colleagues advised that medical staff be kept up-to-date with the latest information about COVID-19 and perform assessments regularly to identify cases in their departments.

The authors also recommended establishing a COVID-19 expert committee – consisting of infectious disease physicians, hematologists, oncologists, radiologists, pharmacists, and hospital infection control staff – to make medical decisions in multidisciplinary consultation meetings. In addition, the authors recommended regional management strategies be adopted to minimize cross infection within the hospital. Specifically, the authors proposed creating the following four zones:

1. A surveillance and screening zone for patients potentially infected with SARS-CoV-2

2. A suspected-case quarantine zone where patients thought to have COVID-19 are isolated in single rooms

3. A confirmed-case quarantine zone where patients are treated for COVID-19

4. A hematology/oncology ward for treating non–COVID-19 patients with malignancies.

Dr. He and colleagues also stressed the importance of providing personal protective equipment for all zones, along with instructions for proper use and disposal. The authors recommended developing and following specific protocols for outpatient visits in the hematology/oncology ward, and providing COVID-19 prevention and control information to families and health care workers.
 

Managing cancer treatment

For patients with acute leukemias who have induction chemotherapy planned, Dr. He and colleagues argued that scheduled chemotherapy should not be interrupted unless COVID-19 is suspected or diagnosed. The authors said treatment should not be delayed more than 7 days during induction, consolidation, or the intermediate phase of chemotherapy because the virus has an incubation period of 2-7 days. This will allow a short period of observation to screen for potential infection.

The authors recommended that patients with lymphoma and solid tumors first undergo COVID-19 screening and then receive treatment in hematology/oncology wards “according to their chemotherapy schedule, and without delay, until they are in complete remission.”

“If the patient is in complete remission, we recommend a treatment delay of no more than 7 days to allow a short period of observation to screen for COVID-19,” the authors added.

Maintenance chemotherapy should not be delayed for more than 14 days, Dr. He and colleagues wrote. “This increase in the maximum delay before chemotherapy strikes a balance between the potential risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and tumor recurrence, since pediatric patients in this phase of treatment have a reduced risk of tumor recurrence,” the authors added.
 

Caring for patients with COVID-19

For inpatients diagnosed with COVID-19, Dr. He and colleagues recommended the following:

• Prioritize COVID-19 treatment for children with primary disease remission.
• For children not in remission, prioritize treatment for critical patients.
• Isolated patients should be treated for COVID-19, and their chemotherapy should be temporarily suspended or reduced in intensity..

Dr. He and colleagues noted that, by following these recommendations for infection prevention, they had no cases of COVID-19 among children in their hematology/oncology departments. However, the authors said the recommendations “could fail to some extent” based on “differences in medical resources, health care settings, and the policy of the specific government.”

The authors said their recommendations should be updated continuously as new information and clinical evidence emerges.

Dr. He and colleagues reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: He Y et al. Lancet Haematol. doi: 10/1016/s2352-3026(20)30104-6.

Given the possibility that children with hematologic malignancies may have increased susceptibility to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), clinicians from China and the United States have proposed a plan for preventing and managing outbreaks in hospitals’ pediatric hematology and oncology departments.

The plan is focused primarily on infection prevention and control strategies, Yulei He, MD, of Chengdu (China) Women’s and Children’s Central Hospital and colleagues explained in an article published in The Lancet Haematology.

The authors noted that close contact with COVID-19 patients is thought to be the main route of transmission, and a retrospective study indicated that 41.3% of initial COVID-19 cases were caused by hospital-related transmission.

“Children with hematological malignancies might have increased susceptibility to infection with SARS-CoV-2 because of immunodeficiency; therefore, procedures are needed to avoid hospital-related transmission and infection for these patients,” the authors wrote.
 

Preventing the spread of infection

Dr. He and colleagues advised that medical staff be kept up-to-date with the latest information about COVID-19 and perform assessments regularly to identify cases in their departments.

The authors also recommended establishing a COVID-19 expert committee – consisting of infectious disease physicians, hematologists, oncologists, radiologists, pharmacists, and hospital infection control staff – to make medical decisions in multidisciplinary consultation meetings. In addition, the authors recommended regional management strategies be adopted to minimize cross infection within the hospital. Specifically, the authors proposed creating the following four zones:

1. A surveillance and screening zone for patients potentially infected with SARS-CoV-2

2. A suspected-case quarantine zone where patients thought to have COVID-19 are isolated in single rooms

3. A confirmed-case quarantine zone where patients are treated for COVID-19

4. A hematology/oncology ward for treating non–COVID-19 patients with malignancies.

Dr. He and colleagues also stressed the importance of providing personal protective equipment for all zones, along with instructions for proper use and disposal. The authors recommended developing and following specific protocols for outpatient visits in the hematology/oncology ward, and providing COVID-19 prevention and control information to families and health care workers.
 

Managing cancer treatment

For patients with acute leukemias who have induction chemotherapy planned, Dr. He and colleagues argued that scheduled chemotherapy should not be interrupted unless COVID-19 is suspected or diagnosed. The authors said treatment should not be delayed more than 7 days during induction, consolidation, or the intermediate phase of chemotherapy because the virus has an incubation period of 2-7 days. This will allow a short period of observation to screen for potential infection.

The authors recommended that patients with lymphoma and solid tumors first undergo COVID-19 screening and then receive treatment in hematology/oncology wards “according to their chemotherapy schedule, and without delay, until they are in complete remission.”

“If the patient is in complete remission, we recommend a treatment delay of no more than 7 days to allow a short period of observation to screen for COVID-19,” the authors added.

Maintenance chemotherapy should not be delayed for more than 14 days, Dr. He and colleagues wrote. “This increase in the maximum delay before chemotherapy strikes a balance between the potential risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and tumor recurrence, since pediatric patients in this phase of treatment have a reduced risk of tumor recurrence,” the authors added.
 

Caring for patients with COVID-19

For inpatients diagnosed with COVID-19, Dr. He and colleagues recommended the following:

• Prioritize COVID-19 treatment for children with primary disease remission.
• For children not in remission, prioritize treatment for critical patients.
• Isolated patients should be treated for COVID-19, and their chemotherapy should be temporarily suspended or reduced in intensity..

Dr. He and colleagues noted that, by following these recommendations for infection prevention, they had no cases of COVID-19 among children in their hematology/oncology departments. However, the authors said the recommendations “could fail to some extent” based on “differences in medical resources, health care settings, and the policy of the specific government.”

The authors said their recommendations should be updated continuously as new information and clinical evidence emerges.

Dr. He and colleagues reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: He Y et al. Lancet Haematol. doi: 10/1016/s2352-3026(20)30104-6.

Given the possibility that children with hematologic malignancies may have increased susceptibility to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), clinicians from China and the United States have proposed a plan for preventing and managing outbreaks in hospitals’ pediatric hematology and oncology departments.

The plan is focused primarily on infection prevention and control strategies, Yulei He, MD, of Chengdu (China) Women’s and Children’s Central Hospital and colleagues explained in an article published in The Lancet Haematology.

The authors noted that close contact with COVID-19 patients is thought to be the main route of transmission, and a retrospective study indicated that 41.3% of initial COVID-19 cases were caused by hospital-related transmission.

“Children with hematological malignancies might have increased susceptibility to infection with SARS-CoV-2 because of immunodeficiency; therefore, procedures are needed to avoid hospital-related transmission and infection for these patients,” the authors wrote.
 

Preventing the spread of infection

Dr. He and colleagues advised that medical staff be kept up-to-date with the latest information about COVID-19 and perform assessments regularly to identify cases in their departments.

The authors also recommended establishing a COVID-19 expert committee – consisting of infectious disease physicians, hematologists, oncologists, radiologists, pharmacists, and hospital infection control staff – to make medical decisions in multidisciplinary consultation meetings. In addition, the authors recommended regional management strategies be adopted to minimize cross infection within the hospital. Specifically, the authors proposed creating the following four zones:

1. A surveillance and screening zone for patients potentially infected with SARS-CoV-2

2. A suspected-case quarantine zone where patients thought to have COVID-19 are isolated in single rooms

3. A confirmed-case quarantine zone where patients are treated for COVID-19

4. A hematology/oncology ward for treating non–COVID-19 patients with malignancies.

Dr. He and colleagues also stressed the importance of providing personal protective equipment for all zones, along with instructions for proper use and disposal. The authors recommended developing and following specific protocols for outpatient visits in the hematology/oncology ward, and providing COVID-19 prevention and control information to families and health care workers.
 

Managing cancer treatment

For patients with acute leukemias who have induction chemotherapy planned, Dr. He and colleagues argued that scheduled chemotherapy should not be interrupted unless COVID-19 is suspected or diagnosed. The authors said treatment should not be delayed more than 7 days during induction, consolidation, or the intermediate phase of chemotherapy because the virus has an incubation period of 2-7 days. This will allow a short period of observation to screen for potential infection.

The authors recommended that patients with lymphoma and solid tumors first undergo COVID-19 screening and then receive treatment in hematology/oncology wards “according to their chemotherapy schedule, and without delay, until they are in complete remission.”

“If the patient is in complete remission, we recommend a treatment delay of no more than 7 days to allow a short period of observation to screen for COVID-19,” the authors added.

Maintenance chemotherapy should not be delayed for more than 14 days, Dr. He and colleagues wrote. “This increase in the maximum delay before chemotherapy strikes a balance between the potential risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and tumor recurrence, since pediatric patients in this phase of treatment have a reduced risk of tumor recurrence,” the authors added.
 

Caring for patients with COVID-19

For inpatients diagnosed with COVID-19, Dr. He and colleagues recommended the following:

• Prioritize COVID-19 treatment for children with primary disease remission.
• For children not in remission, prioritize treatment for critical patients.
• Isolated patients should be treated for COVID-19, and their chemotherapy should be temporarily suspended or reduced in intensity..

Dr. He and colleagues noted that, by following these recommendations for infection prevention, they had no cases of COVID-19 among children in their hematology/oncology departments. However, the authors said the recommendations “could fail to some extent” based on “differences in medical resources, health care settings, and the policy of the specific government.”

The authors said their recommendations should be updated continuously as new information and clinical evidence emerges.

Dr. He and colleagues reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: He Y et al. Lancet Haematol. doi: 10/1016/s2352-3026(20)30104-6.

The monoclonal antibody dupilumab significantly improved symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD) in grade school-aged children, according to new clinical trial results.

In a cohort of children with severe AD, 33% achieved clear or nearly clear skin after 16 weeks of treatment with every 4-week dosing of the injectable medication, while 30% also achieved that mark when receiving a weight-based dose every 2 weeks. Both groups had results that were significantly better than those receiving placebo, with 11% of these children had clear or nearly clear skin by 16 weeks of dupilumab (Dupixent) therapy (P less than .0001 for both therapy arms versus placebo).

“Dupilumab with a topical corticosteroid showed clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in the atopic dermatitis signs and symptoms in children aged 6 to less than 12 years of age with severe atopic dermatitis,” said Amy Paller, MD, the Walter J. Hamlin professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, presenting the results at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. Portions of the conference, which has been rescheduled to December 2020, in Chicago, were presented virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The phase 3 trial of subcutaneously injected dupilumab for atopic dermatitis, dubbed LIBERTY AD PEDS, included children aged 6-11 years with severe AD. The study’s primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear skin) on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scale by study week 16.

For the purposes of reporting results to the European Medicines Agency, the investigators added a coprimary endpoint of patients reaching 75% clearing on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) by week 16.

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 367 children with IGA scores of 4, denoting severe AD. The EASI score had to be at least 21 and patients had to endorse peak pruritus of at least 4 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale; body surface involvement had to be at least 15%. Patients went through a washout period of any systemic therapies before beginning the trial, which randomized patients 1:1:1 to receive placebo, dupilumab 300 mg every 4 weeks, or dupilumab every 2 weeks with weight-dependent dosing. All participants were also permitted topical corticosteroids.

Patients were an average of aged 8 years, about half were female, and about two-thirds were white. Most participants had developed AD within their first year of life. Patients were about evenly divided between weighing over and under 30 kg, which was the cutoff for 100 mcg versus 200 mcg dupilumab for the every-2-week dosing group.

Over 90% of patients had other atopic comorbidities, and the mean EASI score was about 38 with average weekly peak pruritus averaging 7.8 on the numeric rating scale.

“When we’re talking about how severe this population is, it’s interesting to note that about 30 to 35% were all that had been previously treated with either systemic steroids or some systemic nonsteroidal immunosuppressants,” Dr. Paller pointed out. “I think that reflects the fact that so many of these very severely affected children are not put on a systemic therapy, but are still staying on topical therapies to try to control their disease.”

Looking at the proportion of patients reaching EASI-75, both dosing strategies for dupilumab out-performed placebo, with 70% of the every 4-week group and 67% of the every 2-week group reaching EASI-75 at 16 weeks, compared with 27% of those on placebo (P less than .0001 for both active arms). “These differences were seen very early on; by 2 weeks already, we can see that we’re starting to see a difference in both of these arms,” noted Dr. Paller, adding that the difference was statistically significant by 4 weeks into the study.

The overall group of dupilumab participants saw their EASI scores drop by about 80%, while those taking placebo saw a 49% drop in EASI scores.

For the group of participants weighing less than 30 kg, the every 4-week strategy resulted in better clearing as measured by both IGA and EASI-75. This effect wasn’t seen for heavier patients. Trough dupilumab concentrations at 16 weeks were higher for lighter patients with every 4-week dosing and for heavier patients with the biweekly strategy, noted Dr. Paller.

In terms of itch, 60% to 68% of participants receiving dupilumab had a drop of at least 3 points in peak pruritus on the numeric rating scale, compared with 21% of those receiving placebo (P less than .001), while about half of the dupilumab groups and 12% of the placebo group saw pruritus improvements of 4 points or more (P less than .001). Pruritus improved early in the active arms of the study, becoming statistically significant at the 2 to 4 week range.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were numerically higher in patients in the placebo group, including infections and adjudicated skin infections. Conjunctivitis occurred more frequently in the dupilumab group, as did injection-site reactions.

“Overall, dupilumab was well tolerated, and data were consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile observed in adults and adolescents,” Dr. Paller said.

Dupilumab has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat moderate to severe AD in those aged 12 years and older whose disease can’t be adequately controlled with topical prescription medications, or when those treatments are not advisable.

The fully human monoclonal antibody blocks a shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, which contribute to inflammation in AD, as well as asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and eosinophilic esophagitis.

Dr. Paller reported receiving support from multiple pharmaceutical companies including Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which sponsored the study.

[email protected]

The monoclonal antibody dupilumab significantly improved symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD) in grade school-aged children, according to new clinical trial results.

In a cohort of children with severe AD, 33% achieved clear or nearly clear skin after 16 weeks of treatment with every 4-week dosing of the injectable medication, while 30% also achieved that mark when receiving a weight-based dose every 2 weeks. Both groups had results that were significantly better than those receiving placebo, with 11% of these children had clear or nearly clear skin by 16 weeks of dupilumab (Dupixent) therapy (P less than .0001 for both therapy arms versus placebo).

“Dupilumab with a topical corticosteroid showed clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in the atopic dermatitis signs and symptoms in children aged 6 to less than 12 years of age with severe atopic dermatitis,” said Amy Paller, MD, the Walter J. Hamlin professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, presenting the results at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. Portions of the conference, which has been rescheduled to December 2020, in Chicago, were presented virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The phase 3 trial of subcutaneously injected dupilumab for atopic dermatitis, dubbed LIBERTY AD PEDS, included children aged 6-11 years with severe AD. The study’s primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear skin) on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scale by study week 16.

For the purposes of reporting results to the European Medicines Agency, the investigators added a coprimary endpoint of patients reaching 75% clearing on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) by week 16.

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 367 children with IGA scores of 4, denoting severe AD. The EASI score had to be at least 21 and patients had to endorse peak pruritus of at least 4 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale; body surface involvement had to be at least 15%. Patients went through a washout period of any systemic therapies before beginning the trial, which randomized patients 1:1:1 to receive placebo, dupilumab 300 mg every 4 weeks, or dupilumab every 2 weeks with weight-dependent dosing. All participants were also permitted topical corticosteroids.

Patients were an average of aged 8 years, about half were female, and about two-thirds were white. Most participants had developed AD within their first year of life. Patients were about evenly divided between weighing over and under 30 kg, which was the cutoff for 100 mcg versus 200 mcg dupilumab for the every-2-week dosing group.

Over 90% of patients had other atopic comorbidities, and the mean EASI score was about 38 with average weekly peak pruritus averaging 7.8 on the numeric rating scale.

“When we’re talking about how severe this population is, it’s interesting to note that about 30 to 35% were all that had been previously treated with either systemic steroids or some systemic nonsteroidal immunosuppressants,” Dr. Paller pointed out. “I think that reflects the fact that so many of these very severely affected children are not put on a systemic therapy, but are still staying on topical therapies to try to control their disease.”

Looking at the proportion of patients reaching EASI-75, both dosing strategies for dupilumab out-performed placebo, with 70% of the every 4-week group and 67% of the every 2-week group reaching EASI-75 at 16 weeks, compared with 27% of those on placebo (P less than .0001 for both active arms). “These differences were seen very early on; by 2 weeks already, we can see that we’re starting to see a difference in both of these arms,” noted Dr. Paller, adding that the difference was statistically significant by 4 weeks into the study.

The overall group of dupilumab participants saw their EASI scores drop by about 80%, while those taking placebo saw a 49% drop in EASI scores.

For the group of participants weighing less than 30 kg, the every 4-week strategy resulted in better clearing as measured by both IGA and EASI-75. This effect wasn’t seen for heavier patients. Trough dupilumab concentrations at 16 weeks were higher for lighter patients with every 4-week dosing and for heavier patients with the biweekly strategy, noted Dr. Paller.

In terms of itch, 60% to 68% of participants receiving dupilumab had a drop of at least 3 points in peak pruritus on the numeric rating scale, compared with 21% of those receiving placebo (P less than .001), while about half of the dupilumab groups and 12% of the placebo group saw pruritus improvements of 4 points or more (P less than .001). Pruritus improved early in the active arms of the study, becoming statistically significant at the 2 to 4 week range.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were numerically higher in patients in the placebo group, including infections and adjudicated skin infections. Conjunctivitis occurred more frequently in the dupilumab group, as did injection-site reactions.

“Overall, dupilumab was well tolerated, and data were consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile observed in adults and adolescents,” Dr. Paller said.

Dupilumab has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat moderate to severe AD in those aged 12 years and older whose disease can’t be adequately controlled with topical prescription medications, or when those treatments are not advisable.

The fully human monoclonal antibody blocks a shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, which contribute to inflammation in AD, as well as asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and eosinophilic esophagitis.

Dr. Paller reported receiving support from multiple pharmaceutical companies including Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which sponsored the study.

[email protected]

The monoclonal antibody dupilumab significantly improved symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD) in grade school-aged children, according to new clinical trial results.

In a cohort of children with severe AD, 33% achieved clear or nearly clear skin after 16 weeks of treatment with every 4-week dosing of the injectable medication, while 30% also achieved that mark when receiving a weight-based dose every 2 weeks. Both groups had results that were significantly better than those receiving placebo, with 11% of these children had clear or nearly clear skin by 16 weeks of dupilumab (Dupixent) therapy (P less than .0001 for both therapy arms versus placebo).

“Dupilumab with a topical corticosteroid showed clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in the atopic dermatitis signs and symptoms in children aged 6 to less than 12 years of age with severe atopic dermatitis,” said Amy Paller, MD, the Walter J. Hamlin professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, presenting the results at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. Portions of the conference, which has been rescheduled to December 2020, in Chicago, were presented virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The phase 3 trial of subcutaneously injected dupilumab for atopic dermatitis, dubbed LIBERTY AD PEDS, included children aged 6-11 years with severe AD. The study’s primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear skin) on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scale by study week 16.

For the purposes of reporting results to the European Medicines Agency, the investigators added a coprimary endpoint of patients reaching 75% clearing on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) by week 16.

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 367 children with IGA scores of 4, denoting severe AD. The EASI score had to be at least 21 and patients had to endorse peak pruritus of at least 4 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale; body surface involvement had to be at least 15%. Patients went through a washout period of any systemic therapies before beginning the trial, which randomized patients 1:1:1 to receive placebo, dupilumab 300 mg every 4 weeks, or dupilumab every 2 weeks with weight-dependent dosing. All participants were also permitted topical corticosteroids.

Patients were an average of aged 8 years, about half were female, and about two-thirds were white. Most participants had developed AD within their first year of life. Patients were about evenly divided between weighing over and under 30 kg, which was the cutoff for 100 mcg versus 200 mcg dupilumab for the every-2-week dosing group.

Over 90% of patients had other atopic comorbidities, and the mean EASI score was about 38 with average weekly peak pruritus averaging 7.8 on the numeric rating scale.

“When we’re talking about how severe this population is, it’s interesting to note that about 30 to 35% were all that had been previously treated with either systemic steroids or some systemic nonsteroidal immunosuppressants,” Dr. Paller pointed out. “I think that reflects the fact that so many of these very severely affected children are not put on a systemic therapy, but are still staying on topical therapies to try to control their disease.”

Looking at the proportion of patients reaching EASI-75, both dosing strategies for dupilumab out-performed placebo, with 70% of the every 4-week group and 67% of the every 2-week group reaching EASI-75 at 16 weeks, compared with 27% of those on placebo (P less than .0001 for both active arms). “These differences were seen very early on; by 2 weeks already, we can see that we’re starting to see a difference in both of these arms,” noted Dr. Paller, adding that the difference was statistically significant by 4 weeks into the study.

The overall group of dupilumab participants saw their EASI scores drop by about 80%, while those taking placebo saw a 49% drop in EASI scores.

For the group of participants weighing less than 30 kg, the every 4-week strategy resulted in better clearing as measured by both IGA and EASI-75. This effect wasn’t seen for heavier patients. Trough dupilumab concentrations at 16 weeks were higher for lighter patients with every 4-week dosing and for heavier patients with the biweekly strategy, noted Dr. Paller.

In terms of itch, 60% to 68% of participants receiving dupilumab had a drop of at least 3 points in peak pruritus on the numeric rating scale, compared with 21% of those receiving placebo (P less than .001), while about half of the dupilumab groups and 12% of the placebo group saw pruritus improvements of 4 points or more (P less than .001). Pruritus improved early in the active arms of the study, becoming statistically significant at the 2 to 4 week range.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were numerically higher in patients in the placebo group, including infections and adjudicated skin infections. Conjunctivitis occurred more frequently in the dupilumab group, as did injection-site reactions.

“Overall, dupilumab was well tolerated, and data were consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile observed in adults and adolescents,” Dr. Paller said.

Dupilumab has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat moderate to severe AD in those aged 12 years and older whose disease can’t be adequately controlled with topical prescription medications, or when those treatments are not advisable.

The fully human monoclonal antibody blocks a shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, which contribute to inflammation in AD, as well as asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and eosinophilic esophagitis.

Dr. Paller reported receiving support from multiple pharmaceutical companies including Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which sponsored the study.

[email protected]

For the first time since detailed measurement began in 2000, there was no significant difference in autism prevalence between black and white 8-year-olds in 2016, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

MDedge News

The latest analysis from the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network puts the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) at 18.3 per 1,000 children aged 8 years among black children and 18.5 per 1,000 in white children, Matthew J. Maenner, PhD, and associates said in MMWR Surveillance Summaries. Overall prevalence was 18.5 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 54 children, aged 8 years.

“This diminishing disparity in ASD prevalence might signify progress toward earlier and more equitable identification of ASD,” they wrote, while also noting that “black children with ASD were more likely than white children to have an intellectual disability” and were less likely to undergo evaluation by age 36 months.

Among non-Hispanic white children, 45.3% had received a comprehensive evaluation for ASD before the age of 36 months, compared with 39.8% of non-Hispanic black children and 42.9% of Hispanic children, said Dr. Maenner of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.

The overall rate of early evaluation was 44% for the cohort of 3,981 children who were born in 2008 and included in the 2016 analysis of the 11 ADDM Network sites, they reported.

There was, however, considerable variation in the timing of that initial evaluation for ASD among the sites, which largely consisted of one to seven counties in most states, except for Arkansas (all 75 counties), Tennessee (11 counties), and Wisconsin (10 counties), Dr. Maenner and associates noted.

The two ADDM Network sites at the extremes of that variation were North Carolina and Arkansas. In North Carolina, almost twice as many children (62.3%) had an evaluation by 36 months than in Arkansas (32.6%), although Arkansas closed the gap a bit by evaluating 21.8% of children aged 37-48 months, compared with 11.3% in North Carolina, the investigators said.

“ASD continues to be a public health concern; the latest data from the ADDM Network underscore the ongoing need for timely and accessible developmental assessments, educational supports, and services for persons with ASD and their families,” they concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Maenner MJ et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Mar 27;69(SS-4):1-12.

For the first time since detailed measurement began in 2000, there was no significant difference in autism prevalence between black and white 8-year-olds in 2016, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

MDedge News

The latest analysis from the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network puts the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) at 18.3 per 1,000 children aged 8 years among black children and 18.5 per 1,000 in white children, Matthew J. Maenner, PhD, and associates said in MMWR Surveillance Summaries. Overall prevalence was 18.5 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 54 children, aged 8 years.

“This diminishing disparity in ASD prevalence might signify progress toward earlier and more equitable identification of ASD,” they wrote, while also noting that “black children with ASD were more likely than white children to have an intellectual disability” and were less likely to undergo evaluation by age 36 months.

Among non-Hispanic white children, 45.3% had received a comprehensive evaluation for ASD before the age of 36 months, compared with 39.8% of non-Hispanic black children and 42.9% of Hispanic children, said Dr. Maenner of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.

The overall rate of early evaluation was 44% for the cohort of 3,981 children who were born in 2008 and included in the 2016 analysis of the 11 ADDM Network sites, they reported.

There was, however, considerable variation in the timing of that initial evaluation for ASD among the sites, which largely consisted of one to seven counties in most states, except for Arkansas (all 75 counties), Tennessee (11 counties), and Wisconsin (10 counties), Dr. Maenner and associates noted.

The two ADDM Network sites at the extremes of that variation were North Carolina and Arkansas. In North Carolina, almost twice as many children (62.3%) had an evaluation by 36 months than in Arkansas (32.6%), although Arkansas closed the gap a bit by evaluating 21.8% of children aged 37-48 months, compared with 11.3% in North Carolina, the investigators said.

“ASD continues to be a public health concern; the latest data from the ADDM Network underscore the ongoing need for timely and accessible developmental assessments, educational supports, and services for persons with ASD and their families,” they concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Maenner MJ et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Mar 27;69(SS-4):1-12.

For the first time since detailed measurement began in 2000, there was no significant difference in autism prevalence between black and white 8-year-olds in 2016, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

MDedge News

The latest analysis from the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network puts the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) at 18.3 per 1,000 children aged 8 years among black children and 18.5 per 1,000 in white children, Matthew J. Maenner, PhD, and associates said in MMWR Surveillance Summaries. Overall prevalence was 18.5 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 54 children, aged 8 years.

“This diminishing disparity in ASD prevalence might signify progress toward earlier and more equitable identification of ASD,” they wrote, while also noting that “black children with ASD were more likely than white children to have an intellectual disability” and were less likely to undergo evaluation by age 36 months.

Among non-Hispanic white children, 45.3% had received a comprehensive evaluation for ASD before the age of 36 months, compared with 39.8% of non-Hispanic black children and 42.9% of Hispanic children, said Dr. Maenner of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.

The overall rate of early evaluation was 44% for the cohort of 3,981 children who were born in 2008 and included in the 2016 analysis of the 11 ADDM Network sites, they reported.

There was, however, considerable variation in the timing of that initial evaluation for ASD among the sites, which largely consisted of one to seven counties in most states, except for Arkansas (all 75 counties), Tennessee (11 counties), and Wisconsin (10 counties), Dr. Maenner and associates noted.

The two ADDM Network sites at the extremes of that variation were North Carolina and Arkansas. In North Carolina, almost twice as many children (62.3%) had an evaluation by 36 months than in Arkansas (32.6%), although Arkansas closed the gap a bit by evaluating 21.8% of children aged 37-48 months, compared with 11.3% in North Carolina, the investigators said.

“ASD continues to be a public health concern; the latest data from the ADDM Network underscore the ongoing need for timely and accessible developmental assessments, educational supports, and services for persons with ASD and their families,” they concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Maenner MJ et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Mar 27;69(SS-4):1-12.

More than three-quarters of cancer clinical research programs have experienced operational changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) during a recent webinar.

The webinar included insights into how some cancer research programs have adapted to the pandemic, a review of guidance for conducting cancer trials during this time, and a discussion of how the cancer research landscape may be affected by COVID-19 going forward.

The webinar was led by Randall A. Oyer, MD, president of the ACCC and medical director of the oncology program at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health in Pennsylvania.

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer research

Dr. Oyer observed that planning and implementation for COVID-19–related illness at U.S. health care institutions has had a predictable effect of limiting patient access and staff availability for nonessential services.

Coronavirus-related exposure and/or illness has relegated cancer research to a lower-level priority. As a result, ACCC institutions have made adjustments in their cancer research programs, including moving clinical research coordinators off-campus and deploying them in clinical areas.

New clinical trials have not been opened. In some cases, new accruals have been halted, particularly for registry, prevention, and symptom control trials.

Standards that have changed and those that have not

Guidance documents for conducting clinical trials during the pandemic have been developed by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program and Central Institutional Review Board, and the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Extramural Research. Industry sponsors and parent institutions of research programs have also disseminated guidance.

Among other topics, guidance documents have addressed:

• How COVID-19-related protocol deviations will be judged at monitoring visits and audits
• Missed office visits and endpoint evaluations
• Providing investigational oral medications to patients via mail and potential issues of medication unavailability
• Processes for patients to have interim visits with providers at external institutions, including providers who may not be personally engaged in or credentialed for the research trial
• Potential delays in submitting protocol amendments for institutional review board (IRB) review
• Recommendations for patients confirmed or suspected of having a coronavirus infection.

Dr. Oyer emphasized that patient safety must remain the highest priority for patient management, on or off study. He advised continuing investigational therapy when potential benefit from treatment is anticipated and identifying alternative methods to face-to-face visits for monitoring and access to treatment.

Dr. Oyer urged programs to:

• Maintain good clinical practice standards
• Consult with sponsors and IRBs when questions arise but implement changes that affect patient safety prior to IRB review if necessary
• Document all deviations and COVID-19 related adaptations in a log or spreadsheet in anticipation of future questions from sponsors, monitors, and other entities.

New questions and considerations

In the short-term, Dr. Oyer predicts fewer available trials and a decreased rate of accrual to existing studies. This may result in delays in trial completion and the possibility of redesign for some trials.

He predicts the emergence of COVID-19-focused research questions, including those assessing the course of coronavirus infection in various malignant settings and the impact of cancer-directed treatments and supportive care interventions (e.g., treatment for graft-versus-host disease) on response to COVID-19.

To facilitate developing a clinically and research-relevant database, Dr. Oyer stressed the importance of documentation in the research record, reporting infections as serious adverse events. Documentation should specify whether the infection was confirmed or suspected coronavirus or related to another organism.

In general, when coronavirus infection is strongly suspected, Dr. Oyer said investigational treatments should be interrupted, but study-specific criteria will be forthcoming on that issue.
 

Looking to the future

For patients with advanced cancers, clinical trials provide an important option for hope and clinical benefit. Disrupting the conduct of clinical trials could endanger the lives of participants and delay the emergence of promising treatments and diagnostic tests.

When the coronavirus pandemic recedes, advancing knowledge and treatments for cancer will demand renewed commitment across the oncology care community.

Going forward, Dr. Oyer advised that clinical research staff protect their own health and the safety of trial participants. He encouraged programs to work with sponsors and IRBs to solve logistical problems and clarify individual issues.

He was optimistic that resumption of more normal conduct of studies will enable the successful completion of ongoing trials, enhanced by the creative solutions that were devised during the crisis and by additional prospective, clinically annotated, carefully recorded data from academic and community research sites.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

More than three-quarters of cancer clinical research programs have experienced operational changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) during a recent webinar.

The webinar included insights into how some cancer research programs have adapted to the pandemic, a review of guidance for conducting cancer trials during this time, and a discussion of how the cancer research landscape may be affected by COVID-19 going forward.

The webinar was led by Randall A. Oyer, MD, president of the ACCC and medical director of the oncology program at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health in Pennsylvania.

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer research

Dr. Oyer observed that planning and implementation for COVID-19–related illness at U.S. health care institutions has had a predictable effect of limiting patient access and staff availability for nonessential services.

Coronavirus-related exposure and/or illness has relegated cancer research to a lower-level priority. As a result, ACCC institutions have made adjustments in their cancer research programs, including moving clinical research coordinators off-campus and deploying them in clinical areas.

New clinical trials have not been opened. In some cases, new accruals have been halted, particularly for registry, prevention, and symptom control trials.

Standards that have changed and those that have not

Guidance documents for conducting clinical trials during the pandemic have been developed by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program and Central Institutional Review Board, and the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Extramural Research. Industry sponsors and parent institutions of research programs have also disseminated guidance.

Among other topics, guidance documents have addressed:

• How COVID-19-related protocol deviations will be judged at monitoring visits and audits
• Missed office visits and endpoint evaluations
• Providing investigational oral medications to patients via mail and potential issues of medication unavailability
• Processes for patients to have interim visits with providers at external institutions, including providers who may not be personally engaged in or credentialed for the research trial
• Potential delays in submitting protocol amendments for institutional review board (IRB) review
• Recommendations for patients confirmed or suspected of having a coronavirus infection.

Dr. Oyer emphasized that patient safety must remain the highest priority for patient management, on or off study. He advised continuing investigational therapy when potential benefit from treatment is anticipated and identifying alternative methods to face-to-face visits for monitoring and access to treatment.

Dr. Oyer urged programs to:

• Maintain good clinical practice standards
• Consult with sponsors and IRBs when questions arise but implement changes that affect patient safety prior to IRB review if necessary
• Document all deviations and COVID-19 related adaptations in a log or spreadsheet in anticipation of future questions from sponsors, monitors, and other entities.

New questions and considerations

In the short-term, Dr. Oyer predicts fewer available trials and a decreased rate of accrual to existing studies. This may result in delays in trial completion and the possibility of redesign for some trials.

He predicts the emergence of COVID-19-focused research questions, including those assessing the course of coronavirus infection in various malignant settings and the impact of cancer-directed treatments and supportive care interventions (e.g., treatment for graft-versus-host disease) on response to COVID-19.

To facilitate developing a clinically and research-relevant database, Dr. Oyer stressed the importance of documentation in the research record, reporting infections as serious adverse events. Documentation should specify whether the infection was confirmed or suspected coronavirus or related to another organism.

In general, when coronavirus infection is strongly suspected, Dr. Oyer said investigational treatments should be interrupted, but study-specific criteria will be forthcoming on that issue.
 

Looking to the future

For patients with advanced cancers, clinical trials provide an important option for hope and clinical benefit. Disrupting the conduct of clinical trials could endanger the lives of participants and delay the emergence of promising treatments and diagnostic tests.

When the coronavirus pandemic recedes, advancing knowledge and treatments for cancer will demand renewed commitment across the oncology care community.

Going forward, Dr. Oyer advised that clinical research staff protect their own health and the safety of trial participants. He encouraged programs to work with sponsors and IRBs to solve logistical problems and clarify individual issues.

He was optimistic that resumption of more normal conduct of studies will enable the successful completion of ongoing trials, enhanced by the creative solutions that were devised during the crisis and by additional prospective, clinically annotated, carefully recorded data from academic and community research sites.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

More than three-quarters of cancer clinical research programs have experienced operational changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted by the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) during a recent webinar.

The webinar included insights into how some cancer research programs have adapted to the pandemic, a review of guidance for conducting cancer trials during this time, and a discussion of how the cancer research landscape may be affected by COVID-19 going forward.

The webinar was led by Randall A. Oyer, MD, president of the ACCC and medical director of the oncology program at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health in Pennsylvania.

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer research

Dr. Oyer observed that planning and implementation for COVID-19–related illness at U.S. health care institutions has had a predictable effect of limiting patient access and staff availability for nonessential services.

Coronavirus-related exposure and/or illness has relegated cancer research to a lower-level priority. As a result, ACCC institutions have made adjustments in their cancer research programs, including moving clinical research coordinators off-campus and deploying them in clinical areas.

New clinical trials have not been opened. In some cases, new accruals have been halted, particularly for registry, prevention, and symptom control trials.

Standards that have changed and those that have not

Guidance documents for conducting clinical trials during the pandemic have been developed by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program and Central Institutional Review Board, and the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Extramural Research. Industry sponsors and parent institutions of research programs have also disseminated guidance.

Among other topics, guidance documents have addressed:

• How COVID-19-related protocol deviations will be judged at monitoring visits and audits
• Missed office visits and endpoint evaluations
• Providing investigational oral medications to patients via mail and potential issues of medication unavailability
• Processes for patients to have interim visits with providers at external institutions, including providers who may not be personally engaged in or credentialed for the research trial
• Potential delays in submitting protocol amendments for institutional review board (IRB) review
• Recommendations for patients confirmed or suspected of having a coronavirus infection.

Dr. Oyer emphasized that patient safety must remain the highest priority for patient management, on or off study. He advised continuing investigational therapy when potential benefit from treatment is anticipated and identifying alternative methods to face-to-face visits for monitoring and access to treatment.

Dr. Oyer urged programs to:

• Maintain good clinical practice standards
• Consult with sponsors and IRBs when questions arise but implement changes that affect patient safety prior to IRB review if necessary
• Document all deviations and COVID-19 related adaptations in a log or spreadsheet in anticipation of future questions from sponsors, monitors, and other entities.

New questions and considerations

In the short-term, Dr. Oyer predicts fewer available trials and a decreased rate of accrual to existing studies. This may result in delays in trial completion and the possibility of redesign for some trials.

He predicts the emergence of COVID-19-focused research questions, including those assessing the course of coronavirus infection in various malignant settings and the impact of cancer-directed treatments and supportive care interventions (e.g., treatment for graft-versus-host disease) on response to COVID-19.

To facilitate developing a clinically and research-relevant database, Dr. Oyer stressed the importance of documentation in the research record, reporting infections as serious adverse events. Documentation should specify whether the infection was confirmed or suspected coronavirus or related to another organism.

In general, when coronavirus infection is strongly suspected, Dr. Oyer said investigational treatments should be interrupted, but study-specific criteria will be forthcoming on that issue.
 

Looking to the future

For patients with advanced cancers, clinical trials provide an important option for hope and clinical benefit. Disrupting the conduct of clinical trials could endanger the lives of participants and delay the emergence of promising treatments and diagnostic tests.

When the coronavirus pandemic recedes, advancing knowledge and treatments for cancer will demand renewed commitment across the oncology care community.

Going forward, Dr. Oyer advised that clinical research staff protect their own health and the safety of trial participants. He encouraged programs to work with sponsors and IRBs to solve logistical problems and clarify individual issues.

He was optimistic that resumption of more normal conduct of studies will enable the successful completion of ongoing trials, enhanced by the creative solutions that were devised during the crisis and by additional prospective, clinically annotated, carefully recorded data from academic and community research sites.


Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affects us in many ways. Pediatric patients, interestingly, are largely unaffected clinically by this disease. Less than 1% of documented infections occur in children under 10 years old, according to a review of over 72,000 cases from China.¹ In that review, most children were asymptomatic or had mild illness, only three required intensive care, and only one death had been reported as of March 10, 2020. This is in stark contrast to the shocking morbidity and mortality statistics we are becoming all too familiar with on the adult side.

From a social standpoint, however, our pediatric patients’ lives have been turned upside down. Their schedules and routines upended, their education and friendships interrupted, and many are likely experiencing real anxiety and fear.² For countless children, school is a major source of social, emotional, and nutritional support that has been cut off. Some will lose parents, grandparents, or other loved ones to this disease. Parents will lose jobs and will be unable to afford necessities. Pediatric patients will experience delays of procedures or treatments because of the pandemic. Some have projected that rates of child abuse will increase as has been reported during natural disasters.³

Pediatricians around the country are coming together to tackle these issues in creative ways, including the rapid expansion of virtual/telehealth programs. The school systems are developing strategies to deliver online content, and even food, to their students’ homes. Hopefully these tactics will mitigate some of the potential effects on the mental and physical well-being of these patients.

How about my kids? Will they be all right? I am lucky that my husband and I will have jobs throughout this ordeal. Unfortunately, given my role as a hospitalist and my husband’s as a pulmonary/critical care physician, these same jobs that will keep our kids nourished and supported pose the greatest threat to them. As health care workers, we are worried about protecting our families, which may include vulnerable members. The Spanish health ministry announced that medical professionals account for approximately one in eight documented COVID-19 infections in Spain.⁴ With inadequate supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) in our own nation, we are concerned that our statistics could be similar.

There are multiple strategies to protect ourselves and our families during this difficult time. First, appropriate PPE is essential and integrity with the process must be maintained always. Hospital leaders can protect us by tirelessly working to acquire PPE. In Grand Rapids, Mich., our health system has partnered with multiple local manufacturing companies, including Steelcase, who are producing PPE for our workforce.⁵ Leaders can diligently update their system’s PPE recommendations to be in line with the latest CDC recommendations and disseminate the information regularly. Hospitalists should frequently check with their Infection Prevention department to make sure they understand if there have been any changes to the recommendations. Innovative solutions for sterilization of PPE, stethoscopes, badges and other equipment, such as with the use of UV boxes or hydrogen peroxide vapor,⁶ should be explored to minimize contamination. Hospitalists should bring a set of clothes and shoes to change into upon arrival to work and to change out of prior to leaving the hospital.

We must also keep our heads strong. Currently the anxiety amongst physicians is palpable but there is solidarity. Hospital leaders must ensure that hospitalists have easy access to free mental health resources, such as virtual counseling. Wellness teams must rise to the occasion with innovative tactics to support us. For example, Spectrum Health’s wellness team is sponsoring a blog where physicians can discuss COVID-19–related challenges openly. Hospitalist leaders should ensure that there is a structure for debriefing after critical incidents, which are sure to increase in frequency. Email lists and discussion boards sponsored by professional society also provide a collaborative venue for some of these discussions. We must take advantage of these resources and communicate with each other.

For me, in the end it comes back to the kids. My kids and most pediatric patients are not likely to be hospitalized from COVID-19, but they are also not immune to the toll that fighting this pandemic will take on our families. We took an oath to protect our patients, but what do we owe to our own children? At a minimum we can optimize how we protect ourselves every day, both physically and mentally. As we come together as a strong community to fight this pandemic, in addition to saving lives, we are working to ensure that, in the end, the kids will be all right.
 

Dr. Hadley is chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Spectrum Health/Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., and clinical assistant professor at Michigan State University, East Lansing.

References

1. Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: Summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648.

2. Hagan JF Jr; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health; Task Force on Terrorism. Psychosocial implications of disaster or terrorism on children: A guide for the pediatrician. Pediatrics. 2005;116(3):787-795.

3. Gearhart S et al. The impact of natural disasters on domestic violence: An analysis of reports of simple assault in Florida (1997-2007). Violence Gend. 2018 Jun. doi: 10.1089/vio.2017.0077.

4. Minder R, Peltier E. Virus knocks thousands of health workers out of action in Europe. The New York Times. March 24, 2020.

5. McVicar B. West Michigan businesses hustle to produce medical supplies amid coronavirus pandemic. MLive. March 25, 2020.

6. Kenney PA et al. Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor sterilization of N95 respirators for reuse. medRxiv preprint. 2020 Mar. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.24.20041087.
 

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affects us in many ways. Pediatric patients, interestingly, are largely unaffected clinically by this disease. Less than 1% of documented infections occur in children under 10 years old, according to a review of over 72,000 cases from China.¹ In that review, most children were asymptomatic or had mild illness, only three required intensive care, and only one death had been reported as of March 10, 2020. This is in stark contrast to the shocking morbidity and mortality statistics we are becoming all too familiar with on the adult side.

From a social standpoint, however, our pediatric patients’ lives have been turned upside down. Their schedules and routines upended, their education and friendships interrupted, and many are likely experiencing real anxiety and fear.² For countless children, school is a major source of social, emotional, and nutritional support that has been cut off. Some will lose parents, grandparents, or other loved ones to this disease. Parents will lose jobs and will be unable to afford necessities. Pediatric patients will experience delays of procedures or treatments because of the pandemic. Some have projected that rates of child abuse will increase as has been reported during natural disasters.³

Pediatricians around the country are coming together to tackle these issues in creative ways, including the rapid expansion of virtual/telehealth programs. The school systems are developing strategies to deliver online content, and even food, to their students’ homes. Hopefully these tactics will mitigate some of the potential effects on the mental and physical well-being of these patients.

How about my kids? Will they be all right? I am lucky that my husband and I will have jobs throughout this ordeal. Unfortunately, given my role as a hospitalist and my husband’s as a pulmonary/critical care physician, these same jobs that will keep our kids nourished and supported pose the greatest threat to them. As health care workers, we are worried about protecting our families, which may include vulnerable members. The Spanish health ministry announced that medical professionals account for approximately one in eight documented COVID-19 infections in Spain.⁴ With inadequate supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) in our own nation, we are concerned that our statistics could be similar.

There are multiple strategies to protect ourselves and our families during this difficult time. First, appropriate PPE is essential and integrity with the process must be maintained always. Hospital leaders can protect us by tirelessly working to acquire PPE. In Grand Rapids, Mich., our health system has partnered with multiple local manufacturing companies, including Steelcase, who are producing PPE for our workforce.⁵ Leaders can diligently update their system’s PPE recommendations to be in line with the latest CDC recommendations and disseminate the information regularly. Hospitalists should frequently check with their Infection Prevention department to make sure they understand if there have been any changes to the recommendations. Innovative solutions for sterilization of PPE, stethoscopes, badges and other equipment, such as with the use of UV boxes or hydrogen peroxide vapor,⁶ should be explored to minimize contamination. Hospitalists should bring a set of clothes and shoes to change into upon arrival to work and to change out of prior to leaving the hospital.

We must also keep our heads strong. Currently the anxiety amongst physicians is palpable but there is solidarity. Hospital leaders must ensure that hospitalists have easy access to free mental health resources, such as virtual counseling. Wellness teams must rise to the occasion with innovative tactics to support us. For example, Spectrum Health’s wellness team is sponsoring a blog where physicians can discuss COVID-19–related challenges openly. Hospitalist leaders should ensure that there is a structure for debriefing after critical incidents, which are sure to increase in frequency. Email lists and discussion boards sponsored by professional society also provide a collaborative venue for some of these discussions. We must take advantage of these resources and communicate with each other.

For me, in the end it comes back to the kids. My kids and most pediatric patients are not likely to be hospitalized from COVID-19, but they are also not immune to the toll that fighting this pandemic will take on our families. We took an oath to protect our patients, but what do we owe to our own children? At a minimum we can optimize how we protect ourselves every day, both physically and mentally. As we come together as a strong community to fight this pandemic, in addition to saving lives, we are working to ensure that, in the end, the kids will be all right.
 

Dr. Hadley is chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Spectrum Health/Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., and clinical assistant professor at Michigan State University, East Lansing.

References

1. Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: Summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648.

2. Hagan JF Jr; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health; Task Force on Terrorism. Psychosocial implications of disaster or terrorism on children: A guide for the pediatrician. Pediatrics. 2005;116(3):787-795.

3. Gearhart S et al. The impact of natural disasters on domestic violence: An analysis of reports of simple assault in Florida (1997-2007). Violence Gend. 2018 Jun. doi: 10.1089/vio.2017.0077.

4. Minder R, Peltier E. Virus knocks thousands of health workers out of action in Europe. The New York Times. March 24, 2020.

5. McVicar B. West Michigan businesses hustle to produce medical supplies amid coronavirus pandemic. MLive. March 25, 2020.

6. Kenney PA et al. Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor sterilization of N95 respirators for reuse. medRxiv preprint. 2020 Mar. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.24.20041087.
 

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affects us in many ways. Pediatric patients, interestingly, are largely unaffected clinically by this disease. Less than 1% of documented infections occur in children under 10 years old, according to a review of over 72,000 cases from China.¹ In that review, most children were asymptomatic or had mild illness, only three required intensive care, and only one death had been reported as of March 10, 2020. This is in stark contrast to the shocking morbidity and mortality statistics we are becoming all too familiar with on the adult side.

From a social standpoint, however, our pediatric patients’ lives have been turned upside down. Their schedules and routines upended, their education and friendships interrupted, and many are likely experiencing real anxiety and fear.² For countless children, school is a major source of social, emotional, and nutritional support that has been cut off. Some will lose parents, grandparents, or other loved ones to this disease. Parents will lose jobs and will be unable to afford necessities. Pediatric patients will experience delays of procedures or treatments because of the pandemic. Some have projected that rates of child abuse will increase as has been reported during natural disasters.³

Pediatricians around the country are coming together to tackle these issues in creative ways, including the rapid expansion of virtual/telehealth programs. The school systems are developing strategies to deliver online content, and even food, to their students’ homes. Hopefully these tactics will mitigate some of the potential effects on the mental and physical well-being of these patients.

How about my kids? Will they be all right? I am lucky that my husband and I will have jobs throughout this ordeal. Unfortunately, given my role as a hospitalist and my husband’s as a pulmonary/critical care physician, these same jobs that will keep our kids nourished and supported pose the greatest threat to them. As health care workers, we are worried about protecting our families, which may include vulnerable members. The Spanish health ministry announced that medical professionals account for approximately one in eight documented COVID-19 infections in Spain.⁴ With inadequate supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) in our own nation, we are concerned that our statistics could be similar.

There are multiple strategies to protect ourselves and our families during this difficult time. First, appropriate PPE is essential and integrity with the process must be maintained always. Hospital leaders can protect us by tirelessly working to acquire PPE. In Grand Rapids, Mich., our health system has partnered with multiple local manufacturing companies, including Steelcase, who are producing PPE for our workforce.⁵ Leaders can diligently update their system’s PPE recommendations to be in line with the latest CDC recommendations and disseminate the information regularly. Hospitalists should frequently check with their Infection Prevention department to make sure they understand if there have been any changes to the recommendations. Innovative solutions for sterilization of PPE, stethoscopes, badges and other equipment, such as with the use of UV boxes or hydrogen peroxide vapor,⁶ should be explored to minimize contamination. Hospitalists should bring a set of clothes and shoes to change into upon arrival to work and to change out of prior to leaving the hospital.

We must also keep our heads strong. Currently the anxiety amongst physicians is palpable but there is solidarity. Hospital leaders must ensure that hospitalists have easy access to free mental health resources, such as virtual counseling. Wellness teams must rise to the occasion with innovative tactics to support us. For example, Spectrum Health’s wellness team is sponsoring a blog where physicians can discuss COVID-19–related challenges openly. Hospitalist leaders should ensure that there is a structure for debriefing after critical incidents, which are sure to increase in frequency. Email lists and discussion boards sponsored by professional society also provide a collaborative venue for some of these discussions. We must take advantage of these resources and communicate with each other.

For me, in the end it comes back to the kids. My kids and most pediatric patients are not likely to be hospitalized from COVID-19, but they are also not immune to the toll that fighting this pandemic will take on our families. We took an oath to protect our patients, but what do we owe to our own children? At a minimum we can optimize how we protect ourselves every day, both physically and mentally. As we come together as a strong community to fight this pandemic, in addition to saving lives, we are working to ensure that, in the end, the kids will be all right.
 

Dr. Hadley is chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Spectrum Health/Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., and clinical assistant professor at Michigan State University, East Lansing.

References

1. Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: Summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2648.

2. Hagan JF Jr; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health; Task Force on Terrorism. Psychosocial implications of disaster or terrorism on children: A guide for the pediatrician. Pediatrics. 2005;116(3):787-795.

3. Gearhart S et al. The impact of natural disasters on domestic violence: An analysis of reports of simple assault in Florida (1997-2007). Violence Gend. 2018 Jun. doi: 10.1089/vio.2017.0077.

4. Minder R, Peltier E. Virus knocks thousands of health workers out of action in Europe. The New York Times. March 24, 2020.

5. McVicar B. West Michigan businesses hustle to produce medical supplies amid coronavirus pandemic. MLive. March 25, 2020.

6. Kenney PA et al. Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor sterilization of N95 respirators for reuse. medRxiv preprint. 2020 Mar. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.24.20041087.
 

The characteristic COVID-19 symptoms of cough, fever, and shortness of breath are less common in children than adults, according to the Centers for Disease and Prevention Control.

Among pediatric patients younger than 18 years in the United States, 73% had at least one of the trio of symptoms, compared with 93% of adults aged 18-64, noted Lucy A. McNamara, PhD, and the CDC’s COVID-19 response team, based on a preliminary analysis of the 149,082 cases reported as of April 2.

By a small margin, fever – present in 58% of pediatric patients – was the most common sign or symptom of COVID-19, compared with cough at 54% and shortness of breath in 13%. In adults, cough (81%) was seen most often, followed by fever (71%) and shortness of breath (43%), the investigators reported in the MMWR.

In both children and adults, headache and myalgia were more common than shortness of breath, as was sore throat in children, the team added.

“These findings are largely consistent with a report on pediatric COVID-19 patients aged <16 years in China, which found that only 41.5% of pediatric patients had fever [and] 48.5% had cough,” they wrote.

The CDC analysis of pediatric patients was limited by its small sample size, with data on signs and symptoms available for only 11% (291) of the 2,572 children known to have COVID-19 as of April 2. The adult population included 10,944 individuals, who represented 9.6% of the 113,985 U.S. patients aged 18-65, the response team said.

“As the number of COVID-19 cases continues to increase in many parts of the United States, it will be important to adapt COVID-19 surveillance strategies to maintain collection of critical case information without overburdening jurisdiction health departments,” they said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: McNamara LA et al. MMWR 2020 Apr 6;69(early release):1-5.

The characteristic COVID-19 symptoms of cough, fever, and shortness of breath are less common in children than adults, according to the Centers for Disease and Prevention Control.

Among pediatric patients younger than 18 years in the United States, 73% had at least one of the trio of symptoms, compared with 93% of adults aged 18-64, noted Lucy A. McNamara, PhD, and the CDC’s COVID-19 response team, based on a preliminary analysis of the 149,082 cases reported as of April 2.

By a small margin, fever – present in 58% of pediatric patients – was the most common sign or symptom of COVID-19, compared with cough at 54% and shortness of breath in 13%. In adults, cough (81%) was seen most often, followed by fever (71%) and shortness of breath (43%), the investigators reported in the MMWR.

In both children and adults, headache and myalgia were more common than shortness of breath, as was sore throat in children, the team added.

“These findings are largely consistent with a report on pediatric COVID-19 patients aged <16 years in China, which found that only 41.5% of pediatric patients had fever [and] 48.5% had cough,” they wrote.

The CDC analysis of pediatric patients was limited by its small sample size, with data on signs and symptoms available for only 11% (291) of the 2,572 children known to have COVID-19 as of April 2. The adult population included 10,944 individuals, who represented 9.6% of the 113,985 U.S. patients aged 18-65, the response team said.

“As the number of COVID-19 cases continues to increase in many parts of the United States, it will be important to adapt COVID-19 surveillance strategies to maintain collection of critical case information without overburdening jurisdiction health departments,” they said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: McNamara LA et al. MMWR 2020 Apr 6;69(early release):1-5.

The characteristic COVID-19 symptoms of cough, fever, and shortness of breath are less common in children than adults, according to the Centers for Disease and Prevention Control.

Among pediatric patients younger than 18 years in the United States, 73% had at least one of the trio of symptoms, compared with 93% of adults aged 18-64, noted Lucy A. McNamara, PhD, and the CDC’s COVID-19 response team, based on a preliminary analysis of the 149,082 cases reported as of April 2.

By a small margin, fever – present in 58% of pediatric patients – was the most common sign or symptom of COVID-19, compared with cough at 54% and shortness of breath in 13%. In adults, cough (81%) was seen most often, followed by fever (71%) and shortness of breath (43%), the investigators reported in the MMWR.

In both children and adults, headache and myalgia were more common than shortness of breath, as was sore throat in children, the team added.

“These findings are largely consistent with a report on pediatric COVID-19 patients aged <16 years in China, which found that only 41.5% of pediatric patients had fever [and] 48.5% had cough,” they wrote.

The CDC analysis of pediatric patients was limited by its small sample size, with data on signs and symptoms available for only 11% (291) of the 2,572 children known to have COVID-19 as of April 2. The adult population included 10,944 individuals, who represented 9.6% of the 113,985 U.S. patients aged 18-65, the response team said.

“As the number of COVID-19 cases continues to increase in many parts of the United States, it will be important to adapt COVID-19 surveillance strategies to maintain collection of critical case information without overburdening jurisdiction health departments,” they said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: McNamara LA et al. MMWR 2020 Apr 6;69(early release):1-5.