MDedge Neurology

A routine scan used to evaluate some acute stroke patients can also detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in the upper lungs, a new study shows.

“As part of the stroke evaluation workup process, we were able to diagnose COVID-19 at the same time at no extra cost or additional workload,” lead author Charles Esenwa, MD, commented to Medscape Medical News. “This is an objective way to screen for COVID-19 in the acute stroke setting,” he added.

Esenwa is an assistant professor and a stroke neurologist at the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.

He explained that, during the COVID-19 surge earlier this year, assessment of patients with severe acute stroke using computed tomography angiogram (CTA) scans – used to evaluate suitability for endovascular stroke therapy – also showed findings in the upper lung consistent with viral infection in some patients.

“We then assumed that these patients had COVID-19 and took extra precautions to keep them isolated and to protect staff involved in their care. It also allowed us to triage these patients more quickly than waiting for the COVID-19 swab test and arrange the most appropriate care for them,” Esenwa said.

The researchers have now gone back and analyzed their data on acute stroke patients who underwent CTA at their institution during the COVID-19 surge. They found that the changes identified in the lungs were highly specific for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study was published online on Oct. 29 in Stroke.

“Stroke patients are normally screened for COVID-19 on hospitalization, but the swab test result can take several hours or longer to come back, and it is very useful for us to know if a patient could be infected,” Esenwa noted.

“When we do a CTA, we look at the blood vessels supplying the brain, but the scan also covers the top of the lung, as it starts at the aortic arch. We don’t normally look closely at that area, but we started to notice signs of active lung infection which could have been COVID-19,” he said. “For this paper, we went back to assess how accurate this approach actually was vs. the COVID-19 PCR test.”

The researchers report on 57 patients who presented to three Montefiore Health System hospitals in the Bronx, in New York City, with acute ischemic stroke and who underwent CTA of the head and neck in March and April 2020, the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak there. The patients also underwent PCR testing for COVID-19.

Results showed that 30 patients had a positive COVID-19 test result and that 27 had a negative result. Lung findings highly or very highly suspicious for COVID-19 pneumonia were identified during the CTA scan in 20 (67%) of the COVID-19–positive patients and in two (7%) of the COVID-19–negative patients.

These findings, when used in isolation, yielded a sensitivity of 0.67 and a specificity of 0.93. They had a positive predictive value of 0.19, a negative predictive value of 0.99, and accuracy of 0.92 for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

When apical lung assessment was combined with self-reported clinical symptoms of cough or dyspnea, sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 for patients presenting to the hospital for acute ischemic stroke increased to 0.83.

“We wondered whether looking at the whole lung would have found better results, but other studies which have done this actually found similar numbers to ours, so we think actually just looking at the top of the lungs, which can be seen in a stroke CTA, may be sufficient,” Esenwa said.

He emphasized the importance of establishing whether an acute stroke patient has COVID-19. “If we had a high suspicion of COVID-19 infection, we would take more precautions during any procedures, such as thrombectomy, and make sure to keep the patient isolated afterwards. It doesn’t necessarily affect the treatment given for stroke, but it affects the safety of the patients and everyone caring for them,” he commented.

Esenwa explained that intubation – which is sometime necessary during thrombectomy – can expose everyone in the room to aerosolized droplets. “So we would take much higher safety precautions if we thought the patient was COVID-19 positive,” he said.

“Early COVID-19 diagnosis also means patients can be given supportive treatment more quickly, admitted to ICU if appropriate, and we can all keep a close eye on pulmonary issues. So having that information is important in many ways,” he added.

Esenwa advises that any medical center that evaluates acute stroke patients for thrombectomy and is experiencing a COVID-19 surge can use this technique as a screening method for COVID-19.

He pointed out that the Montefiore Health System had a very high rate of COVID-19. That part of New York City was one of the worst hit areas of the world, and the CTA approach for identifying COVID-19 has been validated only in areas with such a high local incidence of COVID. If used in an area of lower prevalence, the accuracy would likely be less.

“We don’t know if this approach would work as well at times of low COVID-19 infection, where any lung findings would be more likely to be caused by other conditions, such as pneumonia due to other causes or congestive heart failure. So there would be more false positives,” Esenwa said.

“But when COVID-19 prevalence is high, the lung findings are much more likely to be a sign of COVID-19 infection. As COVID-19 numbers are now rising for a second time, it is likely to become a useful strategy again.”

The study was approved by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center Institutional Review Board and had no external funding. Esenwa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A routine scan used to evaluate some acute stroke patients can also detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in the upper lungs, a new study shows.

“As part of the stroke evaluation workup process, we were able to diagnose COVID-19 at the same time at no extra cost or additional workload,” lead author Charles Esenwa, MD, commented to Medscape Medical News. “This is an objective way to screen for COVID-19 in the acute stroke setting,” he added.

Esenwa is an assistant professor and a stroke neurologist at the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.

He explained that, during the COVID-19 surge earlier this year, assessment of patients with severe acute stroke using computed tomography angiogram (CTA) scans – used to evaluate suitability for endovascular stroke therapy – also showed findings in the upper lung consistent with viral infection in some patients.

“We then assumed that these patients had COVID-19 and took extra precautions to keep them isolated and to protect staff involved in their care. It also allowed us to triage these patients more quickly than waiting for the COVID-19 swab test and arrange the most appropriate care for them,” Esenwa said.

The researchers have now gone back and analyzed their data on acute stroke patients who underwent CTA at their institution during the COVID-19 surge. They found that the changes identified in the lungs were highly specific for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study was published online on Oct. 29 in Stroke.

“Stroke patients are normally screened for COVID-19 on hospitalization, but the swab test result can take several hours or longer to come back, and it is very useful for us to know if a patient could be infected,” Esenwa noted.

“When we do a CTA, we look at the blood vessels supplying the brain, but the scan also covers the top of the lung, as it starts at the aortic arch. We don’t normally look closely at that area, but we started to notice signs of active lung infection which could have been COVID-19,” he said. “For this paper, we went back to assess how accurate this approach actually was vs. the COVID-19 PCR test.”

The researchers report on 57 patients who presented to three Montefiore Health System hospitals in the Bronx, in New York City, with acute ischemic stroke and who underwent CTA of the head and neck in March and April 2020, the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak there. The patients also underwent PCR testing for COVID-19.

Results showed that 30 patients had a positive COVID-19 test result and that 27 had a negative result. Lung findings highly or very highly suspicious for COVID-19 pneumonia were identified during the CTA scan in 20 (67%) of the COVID-19–positive patients and in two (7%) of the COVID-19–negative patients.

These findings, when used in isolation, yielded a sensitivity of 0.67 and a specificity of 0.93. They had a positive predictive value of 0.19, a negative predictive value of 0.99, and accuracy of 0.92 for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

When apical lung assessment was combined with self-reported clinical symptoms of cough or dyspnea, sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 for patients presenting to the hospital for acute ischemic stroke increased to 0.83.

“We wondered whether looking at the whole lung would have found better results, but other studies which have done this actually found similar numbers to ours, so we think actually just looking at the top of the lungs, which can be seen in a stroke CTA, may be sufficient,” Esenwa said.

He emphasized the importance of establishing whether an acute stroke patient has COVID-19. “If we had a high suspicion of COVID-19 infection, we would take more precautions during any procedures, such as thrombectomy, and make sure to keep the patient isolated afterwards. It doesn’t necessarily affect the treatment given for stroke, but it affects the safety of the patients and everyone caring for them,” he commented.

Esenwa explained that intubation – which is sometime necessary during thrombectomy – can expose everyone in the room to aerosolized droplets. “So we would take much higher safety precautions if we thought the patient was COVID-19 positive,” he said.

“Early COVID-19 diagnosis also means patients can be given supportive treatment more quickly, admitted to ICU if appropriate, and we can all keep a close eye on pulmonary issues. So having that information is important in many ways,” he added.

Esenwa advises that any medical center that evaluates acute stroke patients for thrombectomy and is experiencing a COVID-19 surge can use this technique as a screening method for COVID-19.

He pointed out that the Montefiore Health System had a very high rate of COVID-19. That part of New York City was one of the worst hit areas of the world, and the CTA approach for identifying COVID-19 has been validated only in areas with such a high local incidence of COVID. If used in an area of lower prevalence, the accuracy would likely be less.

“We don’t know if this approach would work as well at times of low COVID-19 infection, where any lung findings would be more likely to be caused by other conditions, such as pneumonia due to other causes or congestive heart failure. So there would be more false positives,” Esenwa said.

“But when COVID-19 prevalence is high, the lung findings are much more likely to be a sign of COVID-19 infection. As COVID-19 numbers are now rising for a second time, it is likely to become a useful strategy again.”

The study was approved by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center Institutional Review Board and had no external funding. Esenwa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A routine scan used to evaluate some acute stroke patients can also detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in the upper lungs, a new study shows.

“As part of the stroke evaluation workup process, we were able to diagnose COVID-19 at the same time at no extra cost or additional workload,” lead author Charles Esenwa, MD, commented to Medscape Medical News. “This is an objective way to screen for COVID-19 in the acute stroke setting,” he added.

Esenwa is an assistant professor and a stroke neurologist at the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.

He explained that, during the COVID-19 surge earlier this year, assessment of patients with severe acute stroke using computed tomography angiogram (CTA) scans – used to evaluate suitability for endovascular stroke therapy – also showed findings in the upper lung consistent with viral infection in some patients.

“We then assumed that these patients had COVID-19 and took extra precautions to keep them isolated and to protect staff involved in their care. It also allowed us to triage these patients more quickly than waiting for the COVID-19 swab test and arrange the most appropriate care for them,” Esenwa said.

The researchers have now gone back and analyzed their data on acute stroke patients who underwent CTA at their institution during the COVID-19 surge. They found that the changes identified in the lungs were highly specific for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study was published online on Oct. 29 in Stroke.

“Stroke patients are normally screened for COVID-19 on hospitalization, but the swab test result can take several hours or longer to come back, and it is very useful for us to know if a patient could be infected,” Esenwa noted.

“When we do a CTA, we look at the blood vessels supplying the brain, but the scan also covers the top of the lung, as it starts at the aortic arch. We don’t normally look closely at that area, but we started to notice signs of active lung infection which could have been COVID-19,” he said. “For this paper, we went back to assess how accurate this approach actually was vs. the COVID-19 PCR test.”

The researchers report on 57 patients who presented to three Montefiore Health System hospitals in the Bronx, in New York City, with acute ischemic stroke and who underwent CTA of the head and neck in March and April 2020, the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak there. The patients also underwent PCR testing for COVID-19.

Results showed that 30 patients had a positive COVID-19 test result and that 27 had a negative result. Lung findings highly or very highly suspicious for COVID-19 pneumonia were identified during the CTA scan in 20 (67%) of the COVID-19–positive patients and in two (7%) of the COVID-19–negative patients.

These findings, when used in isolation, yielded a sensitivity of 0.67 and a specificity of 0.93. They had a positive predictive value of 0.19, a negative predictive value of 0.99, and accuracy of 0.92 for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

When apical lung assessment was combined with self-reported clinical symptoms of cough or dyspnea, sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 for patients presenting to the hospital for acute ischemic stroke increased to 0.83.

“We wondered whether looking at the whole lung would have found better results, but other studies which have done this actually found similar numbers to ours, so we think actually just looking at the top of the lungs, which can be seen in a stroke CTA, may be sufficient,” Esenwa said.

He emphasized the importance of establishing whether an acute stroke patient has COVID-19. “If we had a high suspicion of COVID-19 infection, we would take more precautions during any procedures, such as thrombectomy, and make sure to keep the patient isolated afterwards. It doesn’t necessarily affect the treatment given for stroke, but it affects the safety of the patients and everyone caring for them,” he commented.

Esenwa explained that intubation – which is sometime necessary during thrombectomy – can expose everyone in the room to aerosolized droplets. “So we would take much higher safety precautions if we thought the patient was COVID-19 positive,” he said.

“Early COVID-19 diagnosis also means patients can be given supportive treatment more quickly, admitted to ICU if appropriate, and we can all keep a close eye on pulmonary issues. So having that information is important in many ways,” he added.

Esenwa advises that any medical center that evaluates acute stroke patients for thrombectomy and is experiencing a COVID-19 surge can use this technique as a screening method for COVID-19.

He pointed out that the Montefiore Health System had a very high rate of COVID-19. That part of New York City was one of the worst hit areas of the world, and the CTA approach for identifying COVID-19 has been validated only in areas with such a high local incidence of COVID. If used in an area of lower prevalence, the accuracy would likely be less.

“We don’t know if this approach would work as well at times of low COVID-19 infection, where any lung findings would be more likely to be caused by other conditions, such as pneumonia due to other causes or congestive heart failure. So there would be more false positives,” Esenwa said.

“But when COVID-19 prevalence is high, the lung findings are much more likely to be a sign of COVID-19 infection. As COVID-19 numbers are now rising for a second time, it is likely to become a useful strategy again.”

The study was approved by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center Institutional Review Board and had no external funding. Esenwa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A cumulative 511,000 lives could be lost from COVID-19 in the United States by the end of February 2021, a new prediction study reveals.

However, if universal mask wearing is adopted — defined as 95% of Americans complying with the protective measure — along with social distancing mandates as warranted, nearly 130,000 of those lives could be saved.

And if even 85% of Americans comply, an additional 95,800 lives would be spared before March of next year, researchers at the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) report.

The study was published online October 23 in Nature Medicine.

“The study is sound and makes the case for mandatory mask policies,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a professor of bioethics at NYU Langone Health in New York City, who frequently provides commentary for Medscape.

Without mandatory mask requirements, he added, “we will see a pandemic slaughter and an overwhelmed healthcare system and workforce.”

The IHME team evaluated COVID-19 data for cases and related deaths between February 1 and September 21. Based on this data, they predicted the likely future of SARS-CoV-2 infections on a state level from September 22, 2020, to February 2021.

An Optimistic Projection

Lead author Robert C. Reiner Jr and colleagues looked at five scenarios. For example, they calculated likely deaths associated with COVID-19 if adoption of mask and social distancing recommendations were nearly universal. They note that Singapore achieved a 95% compliance rate with masks and used this as their “best-case scenario” model.

An estimated 129,574 (range, 85,284–170,867) additional lives could be saved if 95% of Americans wore masks in public, their research reveals. This optimistic scenario includes a “plausible reference” in which any US state reaching 8 COVID-19 deaths per 1 million residents would enact 6 weeks of social distancing mandates (SDMs).

Achieving this level of mask compliance in the United States “could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states,” the researchers note.

In contrast, the proportion of Americans wearing masks in public as of September 22 was 49%, according to IHME data.
 

Universal mask use unlikely

“I’m not a modeling expert, but it is an interesting, and as far as I can judge, well-conducted study which looks, state by state, at what might happen in various scenarios around masking policies going forward — and in particular the effect that mandated masking might have,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, told Medscape Medical News.  

“However, the scenario is a thought experiment. Near-universal mask use is not going to happen in the USA, nor indeed in any individual state, right now, given how emotive the issue has become,” added Greenhalgh, professor in the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at Oxford University, UK. She was not affiliated with the study.

“Hence, whilst I am broadly supportive of the science,” she said, “I’m not confident that this paper will be able to change policy.”
 

Other ‘What if?’ scenarios

The authors also predicted the mortality implications associated with lower adherence to masks, the presence or absence of SDMs, and what could happen if mandates continue to ease at their current rate.

For example, they considered a scenario with less-than-universal mask use in public, 85%, along with SDMs being reinstated based on the mortality rate threshold. In this instance, they found an additional 95,814 (range, 60,731–133,077) lives could be spared by February 28.

Another calculation looked at outcomes if 95% of Americans wore masks going forward without states instituting SDMs at any point. In this case, the researchers predict that 490,437 Americans would die from COVID-19 by February 2021.

A fourth analysis revealed what would happen without greater mask use if the mortality threshold triggered 6 weeks of SDMs as warranted. Under this ‘plausible reference’ calculation, a total 511,373 Americans would die from COVID-19 by the end of February.

A fifth scenario predicted potential mortality if states continue easing SDMs at the current pace. “This is an alternative scenario to the more probable situation where states are expected to respond to an impending health crisis by reinstating some SDMs,” the authors note. The predicted number of American deaths appears more dire in this calculation. The investigators predict cumulative total deaths could reach 1,053,206 (range, 759,693–1,452,397) by the end of February 2021.

The death toll would likely vary among states in this scenario. California, Florida, and Pennsylvania would like account for approximately one third of all deaths.

All the modeling scenarios considered other factors including pneumonia seasonality, mobility, testing rates, and mask use per capita.
 

“I have seen the IHME study and I agree with the broad conclusions,” Richard Stutt, PhD, of the Epidemiology and Modelling Group at the University of Cambridge, UK, told Medscape Medical News.

“Case numbers are climbing in the US, and without further intervention, there will be a significant number of deaths over the coming months,” he said.

Masks are low cost and widely available, Stutt said. “I am hopeful that even if masks are not widely adopted, we will not see as many deaths as predicted here, as these outbreaks can be significantly reduced by increased social distancing or lockdowns.”

“However this comes at a far higher economic cost than the use of masks, and still requires action,” added Stutt, who authored a study in June that modeled facemasks in combination with “lock-down” measures for managing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Modeling study results depend on the assumptions researchers make, and the IHME team rightly tested a number of different assumptions, Greenhalgh said.

“The key conclusion,” she added, “is here: ‘The implementation of SDMs as soon as individual states reach a threshold of 8 daily deaths per million could dramatically ameliorate the effects of the disease; achieving near-universal mask use could delay, or in many states, possibly prevent, this threshold from being reached and has the potential to save the most lives while minimizing damage to the economy.’ “

“This is a useful piece of information and I think is borne out by their data,” added Greenhalgh, lead author of an April study on face masks for the public during the pandemic.

You can visit the IHME website for the most current mortality projections.

Caplan, Greenhalgh, and Stutt have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A cumulative 511,000 lives could be lost from COVID-19 in the United States by the end of February 2021, a new prediction study reveals.

However, if universal mask wearing is adopted — defined as 95% of Americans complying with the protective measure — along with social distancing mandates as warranted, nearly 130,000 of those lives could be saved.

And if even 85% of Americans comply, an additional 95,800 lives would be spared before March of next year, researchers at the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) report.

The study was published online October 23 in Nature Medicine.

“The study is sound and makes the case for mandatory mask policies,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a professor of bioethics at NYU Langone Health in New York City, who frequently provides commentary for Medscape.

Without mandatory mask requirements, he added, “we will see a pandemic slaughter and an overwhelmed healthcare system and workforce.”

The IHME team evaluated COVID-19 data for cases and related deaths between February 1 and September 21. Based on this data, they predicted the likely future of SARS-CoV-2 infections on a state level from September 22, 2020, to February 2021.

An Optimistic Projection

Lead author Robert C. Reiner Jr and colleagues looked at five scenarios. For example, they calculated likely deaths associated with COVID-19 if adoption of mask and social distancing recommendations were nearly universal. They note that Singapore achieved a 95% compliance rate with masks and used this as their “best-case scenario” model.

An estimated 129,574 (range, 85,284–170,867) additional lives could be saved if 95% of Americans wore masks in public, their research reveals. This optimistic scenario includes a “plausible reference” in which any US state reaching 8 COVID-19 deaths per 1 million residents would enact 6 weeks of social distancing mandates (SDMs).

Achieving this level of mask compliance in the United States “could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states,” the researchers note.

In contrast, the proportion of Americans wearing masks in public as of September 22 was 49%, according to IHME data.
 

Universal mask use unlikely

“I’m not a modeling expert, but it is an interesting, and as far as I can judge, well-conducted study which looks, state by state, at what might happen in various scenarios around masking policies going forward — and in particular the effect that mandated masking might have,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, told Medscape Medical News.  

“However, the scenario is a thought experiment. Near-universal mask use is not going to happen in the USA, nor indeed in any individual state, right now, given how emotive the issue has become,” added Greenhalgh, professor in the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at Oxford University, UK. She was not affiliated with the study.

“Hence, whilst I am broadly supportive of the science,” she said, “I’m not confident that this paper will be able to change policy.”
 

Other ‘What if?’ scenarios

The authors also predicted the mortality implications associated with lower adherence to masks, the presence or absence of SDMs, and what could happen if mandates continue to ease at their current rate.

For example, they considered a scenario with less-than-universal mask use in public, 85%, along with SDMs being reinstated based on the mortality rate threshold. In this instance, they found an additional 95,814 (range, 60,731–133,077) lives could be spared by February 28.

Another calculation looked at outcomes if 95% of Americans wore masks going forward without states instituting SDMs at any point. In this case, the researchers predict that 490,437 Americans would die from COVID-19 by February 2021.

A fourth analysis revealed what would happen without greater mask use if the mortality threshold triggered 6 weeks of SDMs as warranted. Under this ‘plausible reference’ calculation, a total 511,373 Americans would die from COVID-19 by the end of February.

A fifth scenario predicted potential mortality if states continue easing SDMs at the current pace. “This is an alternative scenario to the more probable situation where states are expected to respond to an impending health crisis by reinstating some SDMs,” the authors note. The predicted number of American deaths appears more dire in this calculation. The investigators predict cumulative total deaths could reach 1,053,206 (range, 759,693–1,452,397) by the end of February 2021.

The death toll would likely vary among states in this scenario. California, Florida, and Pennsylvania would like account for approximately one third of all deaths.

All the modeling scenarios considered other factors including pneumonia seasonality, mobility, testing rates, and mask use per capita.
 

“I have seen the IHME study and I agree with the broad conclusions,” Richard Stutt, PhD, of the Epidemiology and Modelling Group at the University of Cambridge, UK, told Medscape Medical News.

“Case numbers are climbing in the US, and without further intervention, there will be a significant number of deaths over the coming months,” he said.

Masks are low cost and widely available, Stutt said. “I am hopeful that even if masks are not widely adopted, we will not see as many deaths as predicted here, as these outbreaks can be significantly reduced by increased social distancing or lockdowns.”

“However this comes at a far higher economic cost than the use of masks, and still requires action,” added Stutt, who authored a study in June that modeled facemasks in combination with “lock-down” measures for managing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Modeling study results depend on the assumptions researchers make, and the IHME team rightly tested a number of different assumptions, Greenhalgh said.

“The key conclusion,” she added, “is here: ‘The implementation of SDMs as soon as individual states reach a threshold of 8 daily deaths per million could dramatically ameliorate the effects of the disease; achieving near-universal mask use could delay, or in many states, possibly prevent, this threshold from being reached and has the potential to save the most lives while minimizing damage to the economy.’ “

“This is a useful piece of information and I think is borne out by their data,” added Greenhalgh, lead author of an April study on face masks for the public during the pandemic.

You can visit the IHME website for the most current mortality projections.

Caplan, Greenhalgh, and Stutt have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A cumulative 511,000 lives could be lost from COVID-19 in the United States by the end of February 2021, a new prediction study reveals.

However, if universal mask wearing is adopted — defined as 95% of Americans complying with the protective measure — along with social distancing mandates as warranted, nearly 130,000 of those lives could be saved.

And if even 85% of Americans comply, an additional 95,800 lives would be spared before March of next year, researchers at the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) report.

The study was published online October 23 in Nature Medicine.

“The study is sound and makes the case for mandatory mask policies,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a professor of bioethics at NYU Langone Health in New York City, who frequently provides commentary for Medscape.

Without mandatory mask requirements, he added, “we will see a pandemic slaughter and an overwhelmed healthcare system and workforce.”

The IHME team evaluated COVID-19 data for cases and related deaths between February 1 and September 21. Based on this data, they predicted the likely future of SARS-CoV-2 infections on a state level from September 22, 2020, to February 2021.

An Optimistic Projection

Lead author Robert C. Reiner Jr and colleagues looked at five scenarios. For example, they calculated likely deaths associated with COVID-19 if adoption of mask and social distancing recommendations were nearly universal. They note that Singapore achieved a 95% compliance rate with masks and used this as their “best-case scenario” model.

An estimated 129,574 (range, 85,284–170,867) additional lives could be saved if 95% of Americans wore masks in public, their research reveals. This optimistic scenario includes a “plausible reference” in which any US state reaching 8 COVID-19 deaths per 1 million residents would enact 6 weeks of social distancing mandates (SDMs).

Achieving this level of mask compliance in the United States “could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states,” the researchers note.

In contrast, the proportion of Americans wearing masks in public as of September 22 was 49%, according to IHME data.
 

Universal mask use unlikely

“I’m not a modeling expert, but it is an interesting, and as far as I can judge, well-conducted study which looks, state by state, at what might happen in various scenarios around masking policies going forward — and in particular the effect that mandated masking might have,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, told Medscape Medical News.  

“However, the scenario is a thought experiment. Near-universal mask use is not going to happen in the USA, nor indeed in any individual state, right now, given how emotive the issue has become,” added Greenhalgh, professor in the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at Oxford University, UK. She was not affiliated with the study.

“Hence, whilst I am broadly supportive of the science,” she said, “I’m not confident that this paper will be able to change policy.”
 

Other ‘What if?’ scenarios

The authors also predicted the mortality implications associated with lower adherence to masks, the presence or absence of SDMs, and what could happen if mandates continue to ease at their current rate.

For example, they considered a scenario with less-than-universal mask use in public, 85%, along with SDMs being reinstated based on the mortality rate threshold. In this instance, they found an additional 95,814 (range, 60,731–133,077) lives could be spared by February 28.

Another calculation looked at outcomes if 95% of Americans wore masks going forward without states instituting SDMs at any point. In this case, the researchers predict that 490,437 Americans would die from COVID-19 by February 2021.

A fourth analysis revealed what would happen without greater mask use if the mortality threshold triggered 6 weeks of SDMs as warranted. Under this ‘plausible reference’ calculation, a total 511,373 Americans would die from COVID-19 by the end of February.

A fifth scenario predicted potential mortality if states continue easing SDMs at the current pace. “This is an alternative scenario to the more probable situation where states are expected to respond to an impending health crisis by reinstating some SDMs,” the authors note. The predicted number of American deaths appears more dire in this calculation. The investigators predict cumulative total deaths could reach 1,053,206 (range, 759,693–1,452,397) by the end of February 2021.

The death toll would likely vary among states in this scenario. California, Florida, and Pennsylvania would like account for approximately one third of all deaths.

All the modeling scenarios considered other factors including pneumonia seasonality, mobility, testing rates, and mask use per capita.
 

“I have seen the IHME study and I agree with the broad conclusions,” Richard Stutt, PhD, of the Epidemiology and Modelling Group at the University of Cambridge, UK, told Medscape Medical News.

“Case numbers are climbing in the US, and without further intervention, there will be a significant number of deaths over the coming months,” he said.

Masks are low cost and widely available, Stutt said. “I am hopeful that even if masks are not widely adopted, we will not see as many deaths as predicted here, as these outbreaks can be significantly reduced by increased social distancing or lockdowns.”

“However this comes at a far higher economic cost than the use of masks, and still requires action,” added Stutt, who authored a study in June that modeled facemasks in combination with “lock-down” measures for managing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Modeling study results depend on the assumptions researchers make, and the IHME team rightly tested a number of different assumptions, Greenhalgh said.

“The key conclusion,” she added, “is here: ‘The implementation of SDMs as soon as individual states reach a threshold of 8 daily deaths per million could dramatically ameliorate the effects of the disease; achieving near-universal mask use could delay, or in many states, possibly prevent, this threshold from being reached and has the potential to save the most lives while minimizing damage to the economy.’ “

“This is a useful piece of information and I think is borne out by their data,” added Greenhalgh, lead author of an April study on face masks for the public during the pandemic.

You can visit the IHME website for the most current mortality projections.

Caplan, Greenhalgh, and Stutt have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Half of Chinese American parents and their children report having experienced an in-person episode of racial discrimination related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to results from a survey study.

In the United States, where public officials continue to refer to SARS-CoV-2 as the “China virus” and have often sought to draw attention to its origins in Wuhan, China, “the associations between discrimination triggered by the racialization of this acute public health crisis and mental health are unknown,” Charissa S.L. Cheah, PhD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and colleagues wrote.

For their research published Oct. 29 in Pediatrics, Dr. Cheah and colleagues recruited a cohort of 543 Chinese American parents of school-age children, and 230 of their children aged 10-18 years, to complete online surveys between mid-March and late May 2020. Parents in the cohort were largely foreign born, with all identifying as ethnically Chinese, while their children were mostly U.S. born.
 

Evidence of discrimination against Chinese Americans

Half of parents and their children (51% of parents and 50% of youth) reported experiencing at least one in-person incident of direct discrimination (assessed using questions derived from a validated scale of racial aggression) related to the pandemic. Dr. Cheah and colleagues also reported a high incidence of direct discrimination online (32% of parents and 46% of youth). Additionally, the researchers measured reports of vicarious or indirect discrimination – such as hearing jokes or disparaging remarks about one’s ethnic group – which they used a different adapted scale to capture. More than three-quarters of the cohort reported such experiences.

The experiences of discrimination likely bore on the mental health of both parents and youth. Using a series of instruments designed to measure overall psychological well-being as well as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and certain emotional and behavioral outcomes, Dr. Cheah and colleagues reported significant negative associations between direct online or in-person discrimination and psychological health. For parents and children alike, anxiety and depressive symptoms were positively associated with all varieties of discrimination experiences measured in the study.

About a fifth of the youth in the study were deemed, based on the symptom scales used in the study, to have an elevated risk of clinically significant mental health problems, higher than the 10%-15% that would be expected for these age groups in the United States.

“This study revealed that a high percentage of Chinese American parents and their children personally experienced or witnessed anti-Chinese or anti–Asian American racial discrimination both online and in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the investigators wrote. “Most respondents reported directly experiencing or witnessing racial discrimination against other Chinese or Asian American individuals due to COVID-19 at least once.”

Dr. Cheah and colleagues noted that their cross-sectional study did not lend itself to causal interpretations and was vulnerable to certain types of reporting bias. Nonetheless, they argued, as the pandemic continues, “pediatricians should be sensitive to the potential mental health needs of Chinese American youth and their parents related to various forms of racism, in addition to other stressors, as the foundations of perceptions of racial-ethnic discrimination and their consequences may be set during this period.”
 

COVID-19 didn’t only bring infection

In an accompanying editorial, Tina L. Cheng, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and her daughter Alison M. Conca-Cheng, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., remarked that the study’s findings were consistent with recent research that found “4 in 10 Americans reported that it has become more common since COVID-19 for people to express racist views about Asian Americans,” and also described an increase in complaints of discriminatory experiences by Asian Americans.

In this context, a link to poor mental health “should be no surprise,” Dr. Cheng and Ms. Conca-Cheng argued, and urged pediatricians to consult the American Academy of Pediatrics’ 2019 policy statement on racism and on child and adolescent health. “It calls for us to optimize clinical practice, improve workforce development and professional education, strengthen research, and deploy systems through community engagement, advocacy, and public policy.”

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington, called the study’s main points “clear and disturbing.”

“While it is difficult to find much in the way here of a silver lining, these alarming reports have helped people working in health care and mental health to understand racism as another form of trauma and abuse which, like other types, can have real negative effects on health,” Dr. Rettew said in an interview. “The more we as mental health professions ask about racism and offer resources for people who have experienced it, just as we would people who have endured other types of trauma, the more we can help people heal. That said, it would be better just to stop this from happening in the first place.”

Dr. Cheah and colleagues’ study was supported by a National Science Foundation grant. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cheng and Ms. Conca-Cheng disclosed no financial conflicts of interest related to their editorial. Dr. Rettew said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Cheah CSL et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(5):e2020021816.

Half of Chinese American parents and their children report having experienced an in-person episode of racial discrimination related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to results from a survey study.

In the United States, where public officials continue to refer to SARS-CoV-2 as the “China virus” and have often sought to draw attention to its origins in Wuhan, China, “the associations between discrimination triggered by the racialization of this acute public health crisis and mental health are unknown,” Charissa S.L. Cheah, PhD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and colleagues wrote.

For their research published Oct. 29 in Pediatrics, Dr. Cheah and colleagues recruited a cohort of 543 Chinese American parents of school-age children, and 230 of their children aged 10-18 years, to complete online surveys between mid-March and late May 2020. Parents in the cohort were largely foreign born, with all identifying as ethnically Chinese, while their children were mostly U.S. born.
 

Evidence of discrimination against Chinese Americans

Half of parents and their children (51% of parents and 50% of youth) reported experiencing at least one in-person incident of direct discrimination (assessed using questions derived from a validated scale of racial aggression) related to the pandemic. Dr. Cheah and colleagues also reported a high incidence of direct discrimination online (32% of parents and 46% of youth). Additionally, the researchers measured reports of vicarious or indirect discrimination – such as hearing jokes or disparaging remarks about one’s ethnic group – which they used a different adapted scale to capture. More than three-quarters of the cohort reported such experiences.

The experiences of discrimination likely bore on the mental health of both parents and youth. Using a series of instruments designed to measure overall psychological well-being as well as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and certain emotional and behavioral outcomes, Dr. Cheah and colleagues reported significant negative associations between direct online or in-person discrimination and psychological health. For parents and children alike, anxiety and depressive symptoms were positively associated with all varieties of discrimination experiences measured in the study.

About a fifth of the youth in the study were deemed, based on the symptom scales used in the study, to have an elevated risk of clinically significant mental health problems, higher than the 10%-15% that would be expected for these age groups in the United States.

“This study revealed that a high percentage of Chinese American parents and their children personally experienced or witnessed anti-Chinese or anti–Asian American racial discrimination both online and in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the investigators wrote. “Most respondents reported directly experiencing or witnessing racial discrimination against other Chinese or Asian American individuals due to COVID-19 at least once.”

Dr. Cheah and colleagues noted that their cross-sectional study did not lend itself to causal interpretations and was vulnerable to certain types of reporting bias. Nonetheless, they argued, as the pandemic continues, “pediatricians should be sensitive to the potential mental health needs of Chinese American youth and their parents related to various forms of racism, in addition to other stressors, as the foundations of perceptions of racial-ethnic discrimination and their consequences may be set during this period.”
 

COVID-19 didn’t only bring infection

In an accompanying editorial, Tina L. Cheng, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and her daughter Alison M. Conca-Cheng, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., remarked that the study’s findings were consistent with recent research that found “4 in 10 Americans reported that it has become more common since COVID-19 for people to express racist views about Asian Americans,” and also described an increase in complaints of discriminatory experiences by Asian Americans.

In this context, a link to poor mental health “should be no surprise,” Dr. Cheng and Ms. Conca-Cheng argued, and urged pediatricians to consult the American Academy of Pediatrics’ 2019 policy statement on racism and on child and adolescent health. “It calls for us to optimize clinical practice, improve workforce development and professional education, strengthen research, and deploy systems through community engagement, advocacy, and public policy.”

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington, called the study’s main points “clear and disturbing.”

“While it is difficult to find much in the way here of a silver lining, these alarming reports have helped people working in health care and mental health to understand racism as another form of trauma and abuse which, like other types, can have real negative effects on health,” Dr. Rettew said in an interview. “The more we as mental health professions ask about racism and offer resources for people who have experienced it, just as we would people who have endured other types of trauma, the more we can help people heal. That said, it would be better just to stop this from happening in the first place.”

Dr. Cheah and colleagues’ study was supported by a National Science Foundation grant. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cheng and Ms. Conca-Cheng disclosed no financial conflicts of interest related to their editorial. Dr. Rettew said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Cheah CSL et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(5):e2020021816.

Half of Chinese American parents and their children report having experienced an in-person episode of racial discrimination related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to results from a survey study.

In the United States, where public officials continue to refer to SARS-CoV-2 as the “China virus” and have often sought to draw attention to its origins in Wuhan, China, “the associations between discrimination triggered by the racialization of this acute public health crisis and mental health are unknown,” Charissa S.L. Cheah, PhD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and colleagues wrote.

For their research published Oct. 29 in Pediatrics, Dr. Cheah and colleagues recruited a cohort of 543 Chinese American parents of school-age children, and 230 of their children aged 10-18 years, to complete online surveys between mid-March and late May 2020. Parents in the cohort were largely foreign born, with all identifying as ethnically Chinese, while their children were mostly U.S. born.
 

Evidence of discrimination against Chinese Americans

Half of parents and their children (51% of parents and 50% of youth) reported experiencing at least one in-person incident of direct discrimination (assessed using questions derived from a validated scale of racial aggression) related to the pandemic. Dr. Cheah and colleagues also reported a high incidence of direct discrimination online (32% of parents and 46% of youth). Additionally, the researchers measured reports of vicarious or indirect discrimination – such as hearing jokes or disparaging remarks about one’s ethnic group – which they used a different adapted scale to capture. More than three-quarters of the cohort reported such experiences.

The experiences of discrimination likely bore on the mental health of both parents and youth. Using a series of instruments designed to measure overall psychological well-being as well as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and certain emotional and behavioral outcomes, Dr. Cheah and colleagues reported significant negative associations between direct online or in-person discrimination and psychological health. For parents and children alike, anxiety and depressive symptoms were positively associated with all varieties of discrimination experiences measured in the study.

About a fifth of the youth in the study were deemed, based on the symptom scales used in the study, to have an elevated risk of clinically significant mental health problems, higher than the 10%-15% that would be expected for these age groups in the United States.

“This study revealed that a high percentage of Chinese American parents and their children personally experienced or witnessed anti-Chinese or anti–Asian American racial discrimination both online and in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the investigators wrote. “Most respondents reported directly experiencing or witnessing racial discrimination against other Chinese or Asian American individuals due to COVID-19 at least once.”

Dr. Cheah and colleagues noted that their cross-sectional study did not lend itself to causal interpretations and was vulnerable to certain types of reporting bias. Nonetheless, they argued, as the pandemic continues, “pediatricians should be sensitive to the potential mental health needs of Chinese American youth and their parents related to various forms of racism, in addition to other stressors, as the foundations of perceptions of racial-ethnic discrimination and their consequences may be set during this period.”
 

COVID-19 didn’t only bring infection

In an accompanying editorial, Tina L. Cheng, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and her daughter Alison M. Conca-Cheng, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., remarked that the study’s findings were consistent with recent research that found “4 in 10 Americans reported that it has become more common since COVID-19 for people to express racist views about Asian Americans,” and also described an increase in complaints of discriminatory experiences by Asian Americans.

In this context, a link to poor mental health “should be no surprise,” Dr. Cheng and Ms. Conca-Cheng argued, and urged pediatricians to consult the American Academy of Pediatrics’ 2019 policy statement on racism and on child and adolescent health. “It calls for us to optimize clinical practice, improve workforce development and professional education, strengthen research, and deploy systems through community engagement, advocacy, and public policy.”

David Rettew, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont, Burlington, called the study’s main points “clear and disturbing.”

“While it is difficult to find much in the way here of a silver lining, these alarming reports have helped people working in health care and mental health to understand racism as another form of trauma and abuse which, like other types, can have real negative effects on health,” Dr. Rettew said in an interview. “The more we as mental health professions ask about racism and offer resources for people who have experienced it, just as we would people who have endured other types of trauma, the more we can help people heal. That said, it would be better just to stop this from happening in the first place.”

Dr. Cheah and colleagues’ study was supported by a National Science Foundation grant. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cheng and Ms. Conca-Cheng disclosed no financial conflicts of interest related to their editorial. Dr. Rettew said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Cheah CSL et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(5):e2020021816.

Tocilizumab (Actemra/RoActemra) was not found to have any clear role as a treatment for COVID-19 in four new studies.

Three randomized controlled trials showed that the drug either had no benefit or only a modest one, contradicting a large retrospective study that had hinted at a more robust effect.

“This is not a blockbuster,” said David Cennimo, MD, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. “This is not something that’s going to revolutionize our treatment of COVID-19.”

But some researchers still regard these studies as showing evidence that the drug benefits certain patients with severe inflammation.

The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 includes elevated levels of the cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6). In some patients, this response becomes a nonspecific inflammation, a “cytokine storm,” involving edema and inflammatory cell infiltration in the lungs. These cases are among the most severe.

Dexamethasone has proved effective in controlling this inflammation in some patients. Researchers have theorized that a more targeted suppression of IL-6 could be even more effective or work in cases that don’t respond to dexamethasone.

A recombinant monoclonal antibody, tocilizumab blocks IL-6 receptors. It is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with rheumatologic disorders and cytokine release syndrome induced by chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

Current National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines recommend against the use of tocilizumab as a treatment for COVID-19, despite earlier observational studies that suggested the drug might help patients with moderate to severe disease. Controlled trials were lacking until now.

The most hopeful results in this batch came from the CORIMUNO-19 platform of open-label, randomized controlled trials of immune modulatory treatments for moderate or severe COVID-19 in France.

Published in JAMA Internal Medicine , the trial recruited patients from nine French hospitals. Patients were eligible if they required at least 3 L/min of oxygen without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit.

The investigators randomly assigned 64 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg body weight intravenously plus usual care and 67 patients to usual care alone. Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.

After 4 days, the investigators scored patients on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale. Twelve of the patients who received tocilizumab scored higher than 5 vs 19 of the patients in the usual care group, with higher scores indicating clinical deterioration.

After 14 days, 24% of the patients taking tocilizumab required either noninvasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation or had died, vs 36% in the usual care group (median posterior hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 90% credible interval, 0.33 – 1.00).

“We reduced the risk of dying or requiring mechanical ventilation, so for me, the study was positive,” said Olivier Hermine, MD, PhD, a professor of hematology at Paris Descartes University in Paris, France.

However, there was no difference in mortality at 28 days. Hermine hopes to have longer-term outcomes soon, he told Medscape Medical News.

A second randomized controlled trial, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine , provided less hope. In this RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 Study Group trial, conducted at 24 Italian centers, patients were enrolled if their partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂) ratios were between 200 and 300 mm Hg and if their inflammatory phenotypes were defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein level.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg within 8 hours of randomization, followed by a second dose after 12 hours. They assigned 66 patients to a control group that received supportive care until clinical worsening, at which point patients could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy.

Of the patients who received tocilizumab, 28.3% showed clinical worsening within 14 days, compared to 27.0% in the control group (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59 – 1.86). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the proportion admitted to intensive care. The researchers stopped the trial prematurely because tocilizumab did not seem to be making a difference.

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was conducted at seven Boston hospitals. The results, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine, were also discouraging.

In that trial, enrolled patients met two sets of parameters. First, the patients had at least one of the following signs: C-reactive protein level higher than 50 mg/L, ferritin level higher than 500 ng/mL, D-dimer level higher than 1000 ng/mL, or a lactate dehydrogenase level higher than 250 U/L. Second, the patients had to have at least two of the following signs: body temperature >38° C, pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%.

The investigators randomly assigned 161 patients to receive intravenous tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to 800 mg and 81 to receive a placebo.

They didn’t find a statistically significant difference between the groups. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.38 – 1.81; P = .64). The hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 – 2.10; P = .73). At 14 days, the conditions of 18.0% of the patients who received tocilizumab and 14.9% of the patients who received the placebo worsened.

In contrast to these randomized trials, STOP-COVID, a retrospective analysis of 3924 patients, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that the risk for death was lower for patients treated with tocilizumab compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 – 0.92) over a median follow-up period of 27 days.

Also on the bright side, none of the new studies showed significant adverse reactions to tocilizumab.

More randomized clinical trials are underway. In press releases announcing topline data, Roche reported mostly negative results in its phase 3 COVACTA trial but noted a 44% reduction in the risk for progression to death or ventilation in its phase 3 IMPACTA trial. Roche did not comment on the ethnicity of its COVACTA patients; it said IMPACTA enrolled a majority of Hispanic patients and included large representations of Native American and Black patients.
 

Results don’t support routine use

Commenting on the new studies, editorialists in both JAMA Internal Medicine and The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the tocilizumab results were not strong enough to support routine use.

“My take-home point from looking at all of these together is that, even if it does help, it’s most likely in a small subset of the population and/or a small effect,” Cennimo told Medscape Medical News.

But the NIH recommendation against tocilizumab goes too far, argued Cristina Mussini, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy, who is a coauthor of a cohort study of tocilizumab and served on the CORIMUNO-19 Data Safety and Monitoring Board.

“I really think it’s too early to recommend against it because at least two clinical trials showed protection against mechanical ventilation and death,” she said.

She prescribes tocilizumab for patients who have not been helped by dexamethasone. “It’s just a rescue drug,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not something you use for everybody, but it’s the only weapon we have now when the patient is really going to the intensive care unit.”

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was funded by Genentech/Roche. Genentech/Roche provided the drug for the CORIMUNO and RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 trials. The STOP-COVID study was supported by grants from the NIH and by the Frankel Cardiovascular Center COVID-19: Impact Research Ignitor. Cennimo, Hermine, and Mussini have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Tocilizumab (Actemra/RoActemra) was not found to have any clear role as a treatment for COVID-19 in four new studies.

Three randomized controlled trials showed that the drug either had no benefit or only a modest one, contradicting a large retrospective study that had hinted at a more robust effect.

“This is not a blockbuster,” said David Cennimo, MD, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. “This is not something that’s going to revolutionize our treatment of COVID-19.”

But some researchers still regard these studies as showing evidence that the drug benefits certain patients with severe inflammation.

The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 includes elevated levels of the cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6). In some patients, this response becomes a nonspecific inflammation, a “cytokine storm,” involving edema and inflammatory cell infiltration in the lungs. These cases are among the most severe.

Dexamethasone has proved effective in controlling this inflammation in some patients. Researchers have theorized that a more targeted suppression of IL-6 could be even more effective or work in cases that don’t respond to dexamethasone.

A recombinant monoclonal antibody, tocilizumab blocks IL-6 receptors. It is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with rheumatologic disorders and cytokine release syndrome induced by chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

Current National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines recommend against the use of tocilizumab as a treatment for COVID-19, despite earlier observational studies that suggested the drug might help patients with moderate to severe disease. Controlled trials were lacking until now.

The most hopeful results in this batch came from the CORIMUNO-19 platform of open-label, randomized controlled trials of immune modulatory treatments for moderate or severe COVID-19 in France.

Published in JAMA Internal Medicine , the trial recruited patients from nine French hospitals. Patients were eligible if they required at least 3 L/min of oxygen without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit.

The investigators randomly assigned 64 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg body weight intravenously plus usual care and 67 patients to usual care alone. Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.

After 4 days, the investigators scored patients on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale. Twelve of the patients who received tocilizumab scored higher than 5 vs 19 of the patients in the usual care group, with higher scores indicating clinical deterioration.

After 14 days, 24% of the patients taking tocilizumab required either noninvasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation or had died, vs 36% in the usual care group (median posterior hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 90% credible interval, 0.33 – 1.00).

“We reduced the risk of dying or requiring mechanical ventilation, so for me, the study was positive,” said Olivier Hermine, MD, PhD, a professor of hematology at Paris Descartes University in Paris, France.

However, there was no difference in mortality at 28 days. Hermine hopes to have longer-term outcomes soon, he told Medscape Medical News.

A second randomized controlled trial, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine , provided less hope. In this RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 Study Group trial, conducted at 24 Italian centers, patients were enrolled if their partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂) ratios were between 200 and 300 mm Hg and if their inflammatory phenotypes were defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein level.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg within 8 hours of randomization, followed by a second dose after 12 hours. They assigned 66 patients to a control group that received supportive care until clinical worsening, at which point patients could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy.

Of the patients who received tocilizumab, 28.3% showed clinical worsening within 14 days, compared to 27.0% in the control group (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59 – 1.86). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the proportion admitted to intensive care. The researchers stopped the trial prematurely because tocilizumab did not seem to be making a difference.

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was conducted at seven Boston hospitals. The results, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine, were also discouraging.

In that trial, enrolled patients met two sets of parameters. First, the patients had at least one of the following signs: C-reactive protein level higher than 50 mg/L, ferritin level higher than 500 ng/mL, D-dimer level higher than 1000 ng/mL, or a lactate dehydrogenase level higher than 250 U/L. Second, the patients had to have at least two of the following signs: body temperature >38° C, pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%.

The investigators randomly assigned 161 patients to receive intravenous tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to 800 mg and 81 to receive a placebo.

They didn’t find a statistically significant difference between the groups. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.38 – 1.81; P = .64). The hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 – 2.10; P = .73). At 14 days, the conditions of 18.0% of the patients who received tocilizumab and 14.9% of the patients who received the placebo worsened.

In contrast to these randomized trials, STOP-COVID, a retrospective analysis of 3924 patients, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that the risk for death was lower for patients treated with tocilizumab compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 – 0.92) over a median follow-up period of 27 days.

Also on the bright side, none of the new studies showed significant adverse reactions to tocilizumab.

More randomized clinical trials are underway. In press releases announcing topline data, Roche reported mostly negative results in its phase 3 COVACTA trial but noted a 44% reduction in the risk for progression to death or ventilation in its phase 3 IMPACTA trial. Roche did not comment on the ethnicity of its COVACTA patients; it said IMPACTA enrolled a majority of Hispanic patients and included large representations of Native American and Black patients.
 

Results don’t support routine use

Commenting on the new studies, editorialists in both JAMA Internal Medicine and The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the tocilizumab results were not strong enough to support routine use.

“My take-home point from looking at all of these together is that, even if it does help, it’s most likely in a small subset of the population and/or a small effect,” Cennimo told Medscape Medical News.

But the NIH recommendation against tocilizumab goes too far, argued Cristina Mussini, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy, who is a coauthor of a cohort study of tocilizumab and served on the CORIMUNO-19 Data Safety and Monitoring Board.

“I really think it’s too early to recommend against it because at least two clinical trials showed protection against mechanical ventilation and death,” she said.

She prescribes tocilizumab for patients who have not been helped by dexamethasone. “It’s just a rescue drug,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not something you use for everybody, but it’s the only weapon we have now when the patient is really going to the intensive care unit.”

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was funded by Genentech/Roche. Genentech/Roche provided the drug for the CORIMUNO and RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 trials. The STOP-COVID study was supported by grants from the NIH and by the Frankel Cardiovascular Center COVID-19: Impact Research Ignitor. Cennimo, Hermine, and Mussini have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Tocilizumab (Actemra/RoActemra) was not found to have any clear role as a treatment for COVID-19 in four new studies.

Three randomized controlled trials showed that the drug either had no benefit or only a modest one, contradicting a large retrospective study that had hinted at a more robust effect.

“This is not a blockbuster,” said David Cennimo, MD, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey. “This is not something that’s going to revolutionize our treatment of COVID-19.”

But some researchers still regard these studies as showing evidence that the drug benefits certain patients with severe inflammation.

The immune response to SARS-CoV-2 includes elevated levels of the cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6). In some patients, this response becomes a nonspecific inflammation, a “cytokine storm,” involving edema and inflammatory cell infiltration in the lungs. These cases are among the most severe.

Dexamethasone has proved effective in controlling this inflammation in some patients. Researchers have theorized that a more targeted suppression of IL-6 could be even more effective or work in cases that don’t respond to dexamethasone.

A recombinant monoclonal antibody, tocilizumab blocks IL-6 receptors. It is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with rheumatologic disorders and cytokine release syndrome induced by chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

Current National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines recommend against the use of tocilizumab as a treatment for COVID-19, despite earlier observational studies that suggested the drug might help patients with moderate to severe disease. Controlled trials were lacking until now.

The most hopeful results in this batch came from the CORIMUNO-19 platform of open-label, randomized controlled trials of immune modulatory treatments for moderate or severe COVID-19 in France.

Published in JAMA Internal Medicine , the trial recruited patients from nine French hospitals. Patients were eligible if they required at least 3 L/min of oxygen without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit.

The investigators randomly assigned 64 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg body weight intravenously plus usual care and 67 patients to usual care alone. Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.

After 4 days, the investigators scored patients on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale. Twelve of the patients who received tocilizumab scored higher than 5 vs 19 of the patients in the usual care group, with higher scores indicating clinical deterioration.

After 14 days, 24% of the patients taking tocilizumab required either noninvasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation or had died, vs 36% in the usual care group (median posterior hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 90% credible interval, 0.33 – 1.00).

“We reduced the risk of dying or requiring mechanical ventilation, so for me, the study was positive,” said Olivier Hermine, MD, PhD, a professor of hematology at Paris Descartes University in Paris, France.

However, there was no difference in mortality at 28 days. Hermine hopes to have longer-term outcomes soon, he told Medscape Medical News.

A second randomized controlled trial, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine , provided less hope. In this RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 Study Group trial, conducted at 24 Italian centers, patients were enrolled if their partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂) ratios were between 200 and 300 mm Hg and if their inflammatory phenotypes were defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein level.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 patients to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg within 8 hours of randomization, followed by a second dose after 12 hours. They assigned 66 patients to a control group that received supportive care until clinical worsening, at which point patients could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy.

Of the patients who received tocilizumab, 28.3% showed clinical worsening within 14 days, compared to 27.0% in the control group (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59 – 1.86). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the proportion admitted to intensive care. The researchers stopped the trial prematurely because tocilizumab did not seem to be making a difference.

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was conducted at seven Boston hospitals. The results, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine, were also discouraging.

In that trial, enrolled patients met two sets of parameters. First, the patients had at least one of the following signs: C-reactive protein level higher than 50 mg/L, ferritin level higher than 500 ng/mL, D-dimer level higher than 1000 ng/mL, or a lactate dehydrogenase level higher than 250 U/L. Second, the patients had to have at least two of the following signs: body temperature >38° C, pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%.

The investigators randomly assigned 161 patients to receive intravenous tocilizumab 8 mg/kg up to 800 mg and 81 to receive a placebo.

They didn’t find a statistically significant difference between the groups. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.38 – 1.81; P = .64). The hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 – 2.10; P = .73). At 14 days, the conditions of 18.0% of the patients who received tocilizumab and 14.9% of the patients who received the placebo worsened.

In contrast to these randomized trials, STOP-COVID, a retrospective analysis of 3924 patients, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that the risk for death was lower for patients treated with tocilizumab compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 – 0.92) over a median follow-up period of 27 days.

Also on the bright side, none of the new studies showed significant adverse reactions to tocilizumab.

More randomized clinical trials are underway. In press releases announcing topline data, Roche reported mostly negative results in its phase 3 COVACTA trial but noted a 44% reduction in the risk for progression to death or ventilation in its phase 3 IMPACTA trial. Roche did not comment on the ethnicity of its COVACTA patients; it said IMPACTA enrolled a majority of Hispanic patients and included large representations of Native American and Black patients.
 

Results don’t support routine use

Commenting on the new studies, editorialists in both JAMA Internal Medicine and The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the tocilizumab results were not strong enough to support routine use.

“My take-home point from looking at all of these together is that, even if it does help, it’s most likely in a small subset of the population and/or a small effect,” Cennimo told Medscape Medical News.

But the NIH recommendation against tocilizumab goes too far, argued Cristina Mussini, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy, who is a coauthor of a cohort study of tocilizumab and served on the CORIMUNO-19 Data Safety and Monitoring Board.

“I really think it’s too early to recommend against it because at least two clinical trials showed protection against mechanical ventilation and death,” she said.

She prescribes tocilizumab for patients who have not been helped by dexamethasone. “It’s just a rescue drug,” she told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not something you use for everybody, but it’s the only weapon we have now when the patient is really going to the intensive care unit.”

The BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial was funded by Genentech/Roche. Genentech/Roche provided the drug for the CORIMUNO and RCT-TCZ-COVID-19 trials. The STOP-COVID study was supported by grants from the NIH and by the Frankel Cardiovascular Center COVID-19: Impact Research Ignitor. Cennimo, Hermine, and Mussini have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Eli Lilly announced it will halt its ACTIV-3 trial evaluating the antibody bamlanivimab in combination with remdesivir for people hospitalized with COVID-19, after new evidence regarding efficacy emerged.

The new data from the National Institutes of Health suggest that the experimental neutralizing antibody therapy does not offer significant clinical benefit for people with more advanced COVID-19 illness, according to a company statement.

Eli Lilly also announced it plans to continue its other trials evaluating the antibody, including those assessing a potential role in treating people in the earlier stages of COVID-19.

“While there was insufficient evidence that bamlanivimab improved clinical outcomes when added to other treatments in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we remain confident based on data from Lilly’s BLAZE-1 study that bamlanivimab monotherapy may prevent progression of disease for those earlier in the course of COVID-19,” the statement reads.

The ACTIV-3 trial was paused on October 13 after a data and safety monitoring board cited safety concerns.

The most recent data update that triggered an end to the trial did not reveal any significant differences in safety, though.  
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Eli Lilly announced it will halt its ACTIV-3 trial evaluating the antibody bamlanivimab in combination with remdesivir for people hospitalized with COVID-19, after new evidence regarding efficacy emerged.

The new data from the National Institutes of Health suggest that the experimental neutralizing antibody therapy does not offer significant clinical benefit for people with more advanced COVID-19 illness, according to a company statement.

Eli Lilly also announced it plans to continue its other trials evaluating the antibody, including those assessing a potential role in treating people in the earlier stages of COVID-19.

“While there was insufficient evidence that bamlanivimab improved clinical outcomes when added to other treatments in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we remain confident based on data from Lilly’s BLAZE-1 study that bamlanivimab monotherapy may prevent progression of disease for those earlier in the course of COVID-19,” the statement reads.

The ACTIV-3 trial was paused on October 13 after a data and safety monitoring board cited safety concerns.

The most recent data update that triggered an end to the trial did not reveal any significant differences in safety, though.  
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Eli Lilly announced it will halt its ACTIV-3 trial evaluating the antibody bamlanivimab in combination with remdesivir for people hospitalized with COVID-19, after new evidence regarding efficacy emerged.

The new data from the National Institutes of Health suggest that the experimental neutralizing antibody therapy does not offer significant clinical benefit for people with more advanced COVID-19 illness, according to a company statement.

Eli Lilly also announced it plans to continue its other trials evaluating the antibody, including those assessing a potential role in treating people in the earlier stages of COVID-19.

“While there was insufficient evidence that bamlanivimab improved clinical outcomes when added to other treatments in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we remain confident based on data from Lilly’s BLAZE-1 study that bamlanivimab monotherapy may prevent progression of disease for those earlier in the course of COVID-19,” the statement reads.

The ACTIV-3 trial was paused on October 13 after a data and safety monitoring board cited safety concerns.

The most recent data update that triggered an end to the trial did not reveal any significant differences in safety, though.  
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m a big believer in my state’s Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP), perhaps more commonly known as the troll tracker. The ability to quickly access a patient’s controlled prescription records across pharmacies has been enormously helpful in my everyday practice. I rely on it and check it often.

With it I can see if my patients are getting the same drug from other prescribers, pharmacy-shopping, or carrying out other concerning activities. The database helpfully sends me emails alerting me to such conflicts, so I can take prompt action on them.

Unfortunately, the threshold for such emails has gradually crept lower, to where I now get maybe 10 a week.

A lady to whom I gave two Valium tablets to get her through a lumbar spine MRI also got 20 Percocet for the same back pain from her internist … and I get an alert email.

A long-established patient for whom I’ve been prescribing Ativan and Tramadol for years, fills them both every month … and I get an alert email every month (and I’m the only prescriber who has written for him in the last 10 years).

A patient who suffered a painful vertebral fracture, got 10 Norco in the ED, follows with up with me 5 days later, and I write her for 20 more … and I get an email.

Now, I understand what the program is trying to do – and wholeheartedly agree with it – but the problem is that the more email warnings I get the less likely I am to have time to investigate each one. It’s like the boy who cried “wolf!” In fact, it’s probably been over a year since a warning email from the PMP told me something I didn’t already know.

Granted, these emails are sent by a computer, following a rigid set of parameters to do so. The machine doesn’t know I’m aware of the situation, or keep track of case nuances, or even notice that I’m the only prescriber of all the medications involved. It just does what it’s set to do. And the warnings all make it clear that they’re just warnings, and that the treatment is still left to physician’s discretion.

Arizona currently has roughly 18,000 practicing physicians. Granted, not all of them are routinely prescribing controlled agents, but I’d guess at least two-thirds of them are. So it’s safe to assume at least 12,000 doctors here are receiving email warnings with varying degrees of frequency.

At some point, with all the other tasks and hats your average doctor goes through in a day, too many of these warnings – the vast majority of them meaningless – become part of the background noise.

There are only so many hours in a day to see patients, write notes, send prescriptions, review tests, return calls, fill out forms, and all the other things that are part of our days. Having to log into the PMP website to see what’s up every time you get an email from them, especially when the last 20 (or more) warnings that you received were meaningless, gets pushed farther and farther onto the back burner. So when a real warning shows up, it may not got noticed much at all.

Like I said, I believe in and routinely use the state PMP. But it may be time to take a second look at the criteria under which its email warning system operates.

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

I’m a big believer in my state’s Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP), perhaps more commonly known as the troll tracker. The ability to quickly access a patient’s controlled prescription records across pharmacies has been enormously helpful in my everyday practice. I rely on it and check it often.

With it I can see if my patients are getting the same drug from other prescribers, pharmacy-shopping, or carrying out other concerning activities. The database helpfully sends me emails alerting me to such conflicts, so I can take prompt action on them.

Unfortunately, the threshold for such emails has gradually crept lower, to where I now get maybe 10 a week.

A lady to whom I gave two Valium tablets to get her through a lumbar spine MRI also got 20 Percocet for the same back pain from her internist … and I get an alert email.

A long-established patient for whom I’ve been prescribing Ativan and Tramadol for years, fills them both every month … and I get an alert email every month (and I’m the only prescriber who has written for him in the last 10 years).

A patient who suffered a painful vertebral fracture, got 10 Norco in the ED, follows with up with me 5 days later, and I write her for 20 more … and I get an email.

Now, I understand what the program is trying to do – and wholeheartedly agree with it – but the problem is that the more email warnings I get the less likely I am to have time to investigate each one. It’s like the boy who cried “wolf!” In fact, it’s probably been over a year since a warning email from the PMP told me something I didn’t already know.

Granted, these emails are sent by a computer, following a rigid set of parameters to do so. The machine doesn’t know I’m aware of the situation, or keep track of case nuances, or even notice that I’m the only prescriber of all the medications involved. It just does what it’s set to do. And the warnings all make it clear that they’re just warnings, and that the treatment is still left to physician’s discretion.

Arizona currently has roughly 18,000 practicing physicians. Granted, not all of them are routinely prescribing controlled agents, but I’d guess at least two-thirds of them are. So it’s safe to assume at least 12,000 doctors here are receiving email warnings with varying degrees of frequency.

At some point, with all the other tasks and hats your average doctor goes through in a day, too many of these warnings – the vast majority of them meaningless – become part of the background noise.

There are only so many hours in a day to see patients, write notes, send prescriptions, review tests, return calls, fill out forms, and all the other things that are part of our days. Having to log into the PMP website to see what’s up every time you get an email from them, especially when the last 20 (or more) warnings that you received were meaningless, gets pushed farther and farther onto the back burner. So when a real warning shows up, it may not got noticed much at all.

Like I said, I believe in and routinely use the state PMP. But it may be time to take a second look at the criteria under which its email warning system operates.

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

I’m a big believer in my state’s Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP), perhaps more commonly known as the troll tracker. The ability to quickly access a patient’s controlled prescription records across pharmacies has been enormously helpful in my everyday practice. I rely on it and check it often.

With it I can see if my patients are getting the same drug from other prescribers, pharmacy-shopping, or carrying out other concerning activities. The database helpfully sends me emails alerting me to such conflicts, so I can take prompt action on them.

Unfortunately, the threshold for such emails has gradually crept lower, to where I now get maybe 10 a week.

A lady to whom I gave two Valium tablets to get her through a lumbar spine MRI also got 20 Percocet for the same back pain from her internist … and I get an alert email.

A long-established patient for whom I’ve been prescribing Ativan and Tramadol for years, fills them both every month … and I get an alert email every month (and I’m the only prescriber who has written for him in the last 10 years).

A patient who suffered a painful vertebral fracture, got 10 Norco in the ED, follows with up with me 5 days later, and I write her for 20 more … and I get an email.

Now, I understand what the program is trying to do – and wholeheartedly agree with it – but the problem is that the more email warnings I get the less likely I am to have time to investigate each one. It’s like the boy who cried “wolf!” In fact, it’s probably been over a year since a warning email from the PMP told me something I didn’t already know.

Granted, these emails are sent by a computer, following a rigid set of parameters to do so. The machine doesn’t know I’m aware of the situation, or keep track of case nuances, or even notice that I’m the only prescriber of all the medications involved. It just does what it’s set to do. And the warnings all make it clear that they’re just warnings, and that the treatment is still left to physician’s discretion.

Arizona currently has roughly 18,000 practicing physicians. Granted, not all of them are routinely prescribing controlled agents, but I’d guess at least two-thirds of them are. So it’s safe to assume at least 12,000 doctors here are receiving email warnings with varying degrees of frequency.

At some point, with all the other tasks and hats your average doctor goes through in a day, too many of these warnings – the vast majority of them meaningless – become part of the background noise.

There are only so many hours in a day to see patients, write notes, send prescriptions, review tests, return calls, fill out forms, and all the other things that are part of our days. Having to log into the PMP website to see what’s up every time you get an email from them, especially when the last 20 (or more) warnings that you received were meaningless, gets pushed farther and farther onto the back burner. So when a real warning shows up, it may not got noticed much at all.

Like I said, I believe in and routinely use the state PMP. But it may be time to take a second look at the criteria under which its email warning system operates.

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

A mutation of the ODC1 gene, which plays a key role in polyamine metabolism, has been implicated in a syndromic neurodevelopmental disorder first described in 2018 and linked to a number of dysmorphic features and brain abnormalities, but it may be treated with diet modifications and available therapies, according to the researcher whose group first identified the disorder.

Lance Rodan, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, reported on research into ODC1 gain-of-function disorder –named for ornithine decarboxylase 1, the rate-limiting enzyme involved in polyamine synthesis – in the Linda De Meirleir Neurometabolic award lecture at the 2020 CNS-ICNA Conjoint Meeting, held virtually this year. Dr. Rodan and colleagues first described ODC1 disorder in a multicenter case series.

Dr. Rodan noted that dysregulated polyamine levels are associated with cancer, and that ODC1 is expressed “ubiquitously” throughout the body.
 

Pathophysiology and phenotypes

In an interview, he described the metabolic process more fully. “GI flora can produce putrescine, which is the polyamine that accumulates in excess in the ODC1 gain-of-function disorder. It is yet to be elucidated if decreasing putrescine production by GI flora and/or reducing dietary sources of putrescine may play a role in the management of this disorder.” 

In the De Meirleir lecture, Dr. Rodan described four patients from his group’s published case series, all found to have heterozygous de novo variants in the ODC1 gene, along with a fifth patient reported by Caleb Bupp, MD, and colleagues at Michigan State University, East Lansing.

“There’s a recognizable phenotype to this disorder,” Dr. Rodan said. “These individuals have neurodevelopment abnormalities. They may have behavioral concerns. They have low-tone central hypertonia and macrocephaly.”

One of the most distinctive characteristics of ODC1 disorder is alopecia, he said, “which in almost everybody with this condition involves the eyebrows and eyelashes and in some individuals also involves the scalp hair.”

These patients also have what Dr. Rodan called “a common yet subtle facial gestalt.” That can include hypertelorism, spareness of the eyebrows and eyelashes, and a tubular- shaped nose with a short columella and a short philtrum.

They may also have abnormalities of the nails and cryptorchidism, and typically a prenatal history of polyhydramnios, he said.

MRI findings include prominent perivascular spaces, periventricular cysts, abnormal white matter and corpus callosum abnormalities, he said, adding that the fetal case MRI demonstrated subepidermal cysts, white matter cysts in the temporal pole, deficiency of the falx cerebri and abnormal white-matter signals.

Biochemical features of ODC1 disorder include increased N-acetylputrescine levels with normal spermine and spermidine levels, Dr. Rodan said. He also noted that Dr. Bupp’s group reported increased putrescine in fibroblasts and increased ODC1 protein levels in red blood cells.

Dr. Rodan also described possible molecular mechanisms in ODC1 disorder. One was the location of the ODC1 variants: all were reported closely located to truncating variants in the final exon of the ODC1 gene. This allows truncating proteins to survive, adding to the degradation that results in a net gain-of-function of ODC1 enzyme activity.

With regard to pathophysiology of ODC1 disorder, Dr. Rodan noted that research has implicated chronically elevated putrescine levels in the alopecia, a finding animal models support. “Since putrescine is a precursor for gamma-aminobutyric acid, it’s possible perturbed GABA levels may also be involved,” he said. Abnormal modulation N-methyl-D-aspirate receptors may also be involved, he said.

Another hypothesis purports that potential of elevated levels of toxic aldehydes/H₂O₂ similar to Snyder-Robinson syndrome, the better known polyamine-related neurometabolic disorder. “Along those lines, maybe there’s also a secondary mitochondrial or lysosomal dysfunction, but this is something that’s still being actively studied,” Dr. Rodan said.
 

Treatment

Because ODC1 disorder was only first described 2 years ago, research into treatment is nascent. “In terms of management, I think one of the more fundamental questions is whether this is more of a static developmental disorder or whether this actually represents a progressive degenerative disorder,” Dr. Rodan said.

One potential treatment that has been explored, he said, is difluoromethylornithine, a synthetic ODC1 inhibitor already Food and Drug Administration approved for African sleeping sickness and as a topical treatment for hirsutism. It is also the subject of ongoing clinical trials in colon cancer and neuroblastoma. Potential side effects include myelosuppression, seizures and hearing loss.

Dr. Rodan noted that a single-center study reported that difluoromethylornithine in a 3-year-old patient with ODC1 disorder reduced ODC protein activity and putrescine to control levels.

Other potential treatments include the natural ODC1 inhibitors agmatine and turmeric/curcumin, flagyl/rifaximin to decrease putrescine production in the gut, a low-dairy diet to lower putrescine levels, and antioxidants. “There could be a role for antioxidant stress similar to what is seen in Snyder-Robinson syndrome,” Dr. Rodan said.

Based on mouse studies, patients with ODC1 may be at risk of skin cancer, so regular skin checks along with sun protection should be part of management, he said. “This also raises the question of whether there should be surveillance for other types of cancer given the role of polyamine in various types of tumors.”

Dr. Rodan has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

A mutation of the ODC1 gene, which plays a key role in polyamine metabolism, has been implicated in a syndromic neurodevelopmental disorder first described in 2018 and linked to a number of dysmorphic features and brain abnormalities, but it may be treated with diet modifications and available therapies, according to the researcher whose group first identified the disorder.

Lance Rodan, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, reported on research into ODC1 gain-of-function disorder –named for ornithine decarboxylase 1, the rate-limiting enzyme involved in polyamine synthesis – in the Linda De Meirleir Neurometabolic award lecture at the 2020 CNS-ICNA Conjoint Meeting, held virtually this year. Dr. Rodan and colleagues first described ODC1 disorder in a multicenter case series.

Dr. Rodan noted that dysregulated polyamine levels are associated with cancer, and that ODC1 is expressed “ubiquitously” throughout the body.
 

Pathophysiology and phenotypes

In an interview, he described the metabolic process more fully. “GI flora can produce putrescine, which is the polyamine that accumulates in excess in the ODC1 gain-of-function disorder. It is yet to be elucidated if decreasing putrescine production by GI flora and/or reducing dietary sources of putrescine may play a role in the management of this disorder.” 

In the De Meirleir lecture, Dr. Rodan described four patients from his group’s published case series, all found to have heterozygous de novo variants in the ODC1 gene, along with a fifth patient reported by Caleb Bupp, MD, and colleagues at Michigan State University, East Lansing.

“There’s a recognizable phenotype to this disorder,” Dr. Rodan said. “These individuals have neurodevelopment abnormalities. They may have behavioral concerns. They have low-tone central hypertonia and macrocephaly.”

One of the most distinctive characteristics of ODC1 disorder is alopecia, he said, “which in almost everybody with this condition involves the eyebrows and eyelashes and in some individuals also involves the scalp hair.”

These patients also have what Dr. Rodan called “a common yet subtle facial gestalt.” That can include hypertelorism, spareness of the eyebrows and eyelashes, and a tubular- shaped nose with a short columella and a short philtrum.

They may also have abnormalities of the nails and cryptorchidism, and typically a prenatal history of polyhydramnios, he said.

MRI findings include prominent perivascular spaces, periventricular cysts, abnormal white matter and corpus callosum abnormalities, he said, adding that the fetal case MRI demonstrated subepidermal cysts, white matter cysts in the temporal pole, deficiency of the falx cerebri and abnormal white-matter signals.

Biochemical features of ODC1 disorder include increased N-acetylputrescine levels with normal spermine and spermidine levels, Dr. Rodan said. He also noted that Dr. Bupp’s group reported increased putrescine in fibroblasts and increased ODC1 protein levels in red blood cells.

Dr. Rodan also described possible molecular mechanisms in ODC1 disorder. One was the location of the ODC1 variants: all were reported closely located to truncating variants in the final exon of the ODC1 gene. This allows truncating proteins to survive, adding to the degradation that results in a net gain-of-function of ODC1 enzyme activity.

With regard to pathophysiology of ODC1 disorder, Dr. Rodan noted that research has implicated chronically elevated putrescine levels in the alopecia, a finding animal models support. “Since putrescine is a precursor for gamma-aminobutyric acid, it’s possible perturbed GABA levels may also be involved,” he said. Abnormal modulation N-methyl-D-aspirate receptors may also be involved, he said.

Another hypothesis purports that potential of elevated levels of toxic aldehydes/H₂O₂ similar to Snyder-Robinson syndrome, the better known polyamine-related neurometabolic disorder. “Along those lines, maybe there’s also a secondary mitochondrial or lysosomal dysfunction, but this is something that’s still being actively studied,” Dr. Rodan said.
 

Treatment

Because ODC1 disorder was only first described 2 years ago, research into treatment is nascent. “In terms of management, I think one of the more fundamental questions is whether this is more of a static developmental disorder or whether this actually represents a progressive degenerative disorder,” Dr. Rodan said.

One potential treatment that has been explored, he said, is difluoromethylornithine, a synthetic ODC1 inhibitor already Food and Drug Administration approved for African sleeping sickness and as a topical treatment for hirsutism. It is also the subject of ongoing clinical trials in colon cancer and neuroblastoma. Potential side effects include myelosuppression, seizures and hearing loss.

Dr. Rodan noted that a single-center study reported that difluoromethylornithine in a 3-year-old patient with ODC1 disorder reduced ODC protein activity and putrescine to control levels.

Other potential treatments include the natural ODC1 inhibitors agmatine and turmeric/curcumin, flagyl/rifaximin to decrease putrescine production in the gut, a low-dairy diet to lower putrescine levels, and antioxidants. “There could be a role for antioxidant stress similar to what is seen in Snyder-Robinson syndrome,” Dr. Rodan said.

Based on mouse studies, patients with ODC1 may be at risk of skin cancer, so regular skin checks along with sun protection should be part of management, he said. “This also raises the question of whether there should be surveillance for other types of cancer given the role of polyamine in various types of tumors.”

Dr. Rodan has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

A mutation of the ODC1 gene, which plays a key role in polyamine metabolism, has been implicated in a syndromic neurodevelopmental disorder first described in 2018 and linked to a number of dysmorphic features and brain abnormalities, but it may be treated with diet modifications and available therapies, according to the researcher whose group first identified the disorder.

Lance Rodan, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, reported on research into ODC1 gain-of-function disorder –named for ornithine decarboxylase 1, the rate-limiting enzyme involved in polyamine synthesis – in the Linda De Meirleir Neurometabolic award lecture at the 2020 CNS-ICNA Conjoint Meeting, held virtually this year. Dr. Rodan and colleagues first described ODC1 disorder in a multicenter case series.

Dr. Rodan noted that dysregulated polyamine levels are associated with cancer, and that ODC1 is expressed “ubiquitously” throughout the body.
 

Pathophysiology and phenotypes

In an interview, he described the metabolic process more fully. “GI flora can produce putrescine, which is the polyamine that accumulates in excess in the ODC1 gain-of-function disorder. It is yet to be elucidated if decreasing putrescine production by GI flora and/or reducing dietary sources of putrescine may play a role in the management of this disorder.” 

In the De Meirleir lecture, Dr. Rodan described four patients from his group’s published case series, all found to have heterozygous de novo variants in the ODC1 gene, along with a fifth patient reported by Caleb Bupp, MD, and colleagues at Michigan State University, East Lansing.

“There’s a recognizable phenotype to this disorder,” Dr. Rodan said. “These individuals have neurodevelopment abnormalities. They may have behavioral concerns. They have low-tone central hypertonia and macrocephaly.”

One of the most distinctive characteristics of ODC1 disorder is alopecia, he said, “which in almost everybody with this condition involves the eyebrows and eyelashes and in some individuals also involves the scalp hair.”

These patients also have what Dr. Rodan called “a common yet subtle facial gestalt.” That can include hypertelorism, spareness of the eyebrows and eyelashes, and a tubular- shaped nose with a short columella and a short philtrum.

They may also have abnormalities of the nails and cryptorchidism, and typically a prenatal history of polyhydramnios, he said.

MRI findings include prominent perivascular spaces, periventricular cysts, abnormal white matter and corpus callosum abnormalities, he said, adding that the fetal case MRI demonstrated subepidermal cysts, white matter cysts in the temporal pole, deficiency of the falx cerebri and abnormal white-matter signals.

Biochemical features of ODC1 disorder include increased N-acetylputrescine levels with normal spermine and spermidine levels, Dr. Rodan said. He also noted that Dr. Bupp’s group reported increased putrescine in fibroblasts and increased ODC1 protein levels in red blood cells.

Dr. Rodan also described possible molecular mechanisms in ODC1 disorder. One was the location of the ODC1 variants: all were reported closely located to truncating variants in the final exon of the ODC1 gene. This allows truncating proteins to survive, adding to the degradation that results in a net gain-of-function of ODC1 enzyme activity.

With regard to pathophysiology of ODC1 disorder, Dr. Rodan noted that research has implicated chronically elevated putrescine levels in the alopecia, a finding animal models support. “Since putrescine is a precursor for gamma-aminobutyric acid, it’s possible perturbed GABA levels may also be involved,” he said. Abnormal modulation N-methyl-D-aspirate receptors may also be involved, he said.

Another hypothesis purports that potential of elevated levels of toxic aldehydes/H₂O₂ similar to Snyder-Robinson syndrome, the better known polyamine-related neurometabolic disorder. “Along those lines, maybe there’s also a secondary mitochondrial or lysosomal dysfunction, but this is something that’s still being actively studied,” Dr. Rodan said.
 

Treatment

Because ODC1 disorder was only first described 2 years ago, research into treatment is nascent. “In terms of management, I think one of the more fundamental questions is whether this is more of a static developmental disorder or whether this actually represents a progressive degenerative disorder,” Dr. Rodan said.

One potential treatment that has been explored, he said, is difluoromethylornithine, a synthetic ODC1 inhibitor already Food and Drug Administration approved for African sleeping sickness and as a topical treatment for hirsutism. It is also the subject of ongoing clinical trials in colon cancer and neuroblastoma. Potential side effects include myelosuppression, seizures and hearing loss.

Dr. Rodan noted that a single-center study reported that difluoromethylornithine in a 3-year-old patient with ODC1 disorder reduced ODC protein activity and putrescine to control levels.

Other potential treatments include the natural ODC1 inhibitors agmatine and turmeric/curcumin, flagyl/rifaximin to decrease putrescine production in the gut, a low-dairy diet to lower putrescine levels, and antioxidants. “There could be a role for antioxidant stress similar to what is seen in Snyder-Robinson syndrome,” Dr. Rodan said.

Based on mouse studies, patients with ODC1 may be at risk of skin cancer, so regular skin checks along with sun protection should be part of management, he said. “This also raises the question of whether there should be surveillance for other types of cancer given the role of polyamine in various types of tumors.”

Dr. Rodan has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Sleep specialists might want to take a closer look at the connections between obstructive sleep apnea, chronic pain, and reported pain intensity in younger patients. Young adults with a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are more likely to report moderate to severe pain intensity, compared with their peers who do not have the diagnosis, results from a large cross-sectional analysis of veterans showed.

“Because of the high burden of chronic pain conditions in younger adults, this study highlights the need to understand the impact of OSA diagnosis and treatment on pain intensity,” researchers led by Wardah Athar, a graduate student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and Lori A. Bastian, MD, MPH, a professor of internal medicine at Yale, wrote in an article published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society. “This understanding would then help inform the development of interventions to promote screening for OSA among young adults with chronic pain and pain management among those with diagnosed OSA.”

In an effort to assess whether young adults with diagnosed OSA are more likely to report higher pain intensity, compared with those without OSA, the researchers drew from a sample of 858,226 veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn who had at least one visit to a VA clinic between 2001 and 2014. They used ICD-9 codes to identify OSA and assessed self-reported responses to pain measures on a 0-10 numeric scale which were recorded in each veteran’s EMR. Next, they averaged pain intensity responses over a 12-month period and categorized them as none (0), mild (1-3), and moderate/severe (4–10). Covariates included age, sex, education, race, mental health diagnoses, headache diagnoses, pain diagnoses, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index, and smoking status. The researchers used multivariate logistic regression models and multiple imputation to generate values for missing variables.

The mean age of the patients was 30 years, 64% were White, 17% were Black, 12% were Hispanic, and remainder were other/unknown race/ethnicity. Ninety percent were male, and 20% had greater than a high school education. Of the 858,226 patients, 91,244 (11%) had a diagnosis of OSA. Compared with patients who had no diagnosis of OSA, the unadjusted odds of reporting moderate/severe pain was 48% higher among those with OSA (odds ratio 1.48; P < .0001). After the researchers adjusted for all covariates in the model, the association between OSA and moderate/severe pain remained significant though attenuated, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.09 (P < .0001).

Several characteristics were different between those who had a diagnosis of OSA and those who did not, including age (a mean of 36 vs. 26 years, respectively) and having the following diagnoses: pain (36% vs. 16%), headache (28% vs. 14%), diabetes (12% vs. 2%), hypertension (40% vs. 12%), and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater (69% vs. 35%). Certain psychiatric disorders were also common among patients with OSA, including major depressive disorder (20% vs. 10%), posttraumatic stress disorder (50% vs. 30%), and substance use disorder (26% vs. 17%). Patients with OSA were also more likely to have been prescribed benzodiazepines or opioids within 90 days of their OSA diagnosis. Although men were more likely to have a diagnosis of OSA, no differences related to sex in the association of OSA and pain were observed in sex-based stratified analyses.

“Based on these results, we suggest more thorough and more frequent pain intensity screening in patients with OSA, particularly in those patients who are younger than 60 years old without significant comorbid illness,” the researchers concluded. “Furthermore, we also recommend increased OSA screening for patients with moderate/severe pain intensity and pain diagnoses.” One tool they recommend is the STOP-Bang (Snoring, Tiredness, Observed Apnea, Blood Pressure, Body Mass Index, Age, Neck Circumference, and Gender) questionnaire, which has been validated in multiple settings.

Commenting on the findings of this study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, commended the study design. “One of the problems with sleep apnea studies is that there are always confounding effects, especially from BMI. This is a population that has a significant medical burden of disease, but I think this is a well-done study to look at the relationship between pain and OSA in a younger population. The authors tried to adjust for all these confounders and they still found a significant association. This indicates that sleep affects one’s pain threshold. And sleep apnea, by mechanisms still yet to be defined, also alters that pain threshold. It may also affect the expression of pain or management of pain, making treatment more problematic in this population,” he said in an interview.

A key limitation of the study, he continued, was the fact it evaluated only one aspect of sleep: OSA. “They didn’t look at duration of sleep, comorbid insomnia, or fragmentation of sleep from apnea or from other causes,” Dr. Sundar said. “We have multiple ways of treating sleep apnea. Clearly, we need studies of treating sleep apnea with [continuous positive airway pressure] and how that affects the occurrence of pain. The relevant practical aspect of this is that there are pain clinics all over the country that should screen for sleep apnea. Along the same lines, sleep practitioners should be aware that pain has an important association with sleep apnea.”

The study was supported by the Health Services Research & Development in the Department of Veterans Affairs of the Veterans Health Administration, the Yale School of Medicine Medical Student Fellowship, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Athar W et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020;17(10):1273-48.

Correction, 10/28/20: An earlier version of this article misstated Wardah Athar's name in the photo caption.

Sleep specialists might want to take a closer look at the connections between obstructive sleep apnea, chronic pain, and reported pain intensity in younger patients. Young adults with a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are more likely to report moderate to severe pain intensity, compared with their peers who do not have the diagnosis, results from a large cross-sectional analysis of veterans showed.

“Because of the high burden of chronic pain conditions in younger adults, this study highlights the need to understand the impact of OSA diagnosis and treatment on pain intensity,” researchers led by Wardah Athar, a graduate student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and Lori A. Bastian, MD, MPH, a professor of internal medicine at Yale, wrote in an article published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society. “This understanding would then help inform the development of interventions to promote screening for OSA among young adults with chronic pain and pain management among those with diagnosed OSA.”

In an effort to assess whether young adults with diagnosed OSA are more likely to report higher pain intensity, compared with those without OSA, the researchers drew from a sample of 858,226 veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn who had at least one visit to a VA clinic between 2001 and 2014. They used ICD-9 codes to identify OSA and assessed self-reported responses to pain measures on a 0-10 numeric scale which were recorded in each veteran’s EMR. Next, they averaged pain intensity responses over a 12-month period and categorized them as none (0), mild (1-3), and moderate/severe (4–10). Covariates included age, sex, education, race, mental health diagnoses, headache diagnoses, pain diagnoses, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index, and smoking status. The researchers used multivariate logistic regression models and multiple imputation to generate values for missing variables.

The mean age of the patients was 30 years, 64% were White, 17% were Black, 12% were Hispanic, and remainder were other/unknown race/ethnicity. Ninety percent were male, and 20% had greater than a high school education. Of the 858,226 patients, 91,244 (11%) had a diagnosis of OSA. Compared with patients who had no diagnosis of OSA, the unadjusted odds of reporting moderate/severe pain was 48% higher among those with OSA (odds ratio 1.48; P < .0001). After the researchers adjusted for all covariates in the model, the association between OSA and moderate/severe pain remained significant though attenuated, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.09 (P < .0001).

Several characteristics were different between those who had a diagnosis of OSA and those who did not, including age (a mean of 36 vs. 26 years, respectively) and having the following diagnoses: pain (36% vs. 16%), headache (28% vs. 14%), diabetes (12% vs. 2%), hypertension (40% vs. 12%), and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater (69% vs. 35%). Certain psychiatric disorders were also common among patients with OSA, including major depressive disorder (20% vs. 10%), posttraumatic stress disorder (50% vs. 30%), and substance use disorder (26% vs. 17%). Patients with OSA were also more likely to have been prescribed benzodiazepines or opioids within 90 days of their OSA diagnosis. Although men were more likely to have a diagnosis of OSA, no differences related to sex in the association of OSA and pain were observed in sex-based stratified analyses.

“Based on these results, we suggest more thorough and more frequent pain intensity screening in patients with OSA, particularly in those patients who are younger than 60 years old without significant comorbid illness,” the researchers concluded. “Furthermore, we also recommend increased OSA screening for patients with moderate/severe pain intensity and pain diagnoses.” One tool they recommend is the STOP-Bang (Snoring, Tiredness, Observed Apnea, Blood Pressure, Body Mass Index, Age, Neck Circumference, and Gender) questionnaire, which has been validated in multiple settings.

Commenting on the findings of this study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, commended the study design. “One of the problems with sleep apnea studies is that there are always confounding effects, especially from BMI. This is a population that has a significant medical burden of disease, but I think this is a well-done study to look at the relationship between pain and OSA in a younger population. The authors tried to adjust for all these confounders and they still found a significant association. This indicates that sleep affects one’s pain threshold. And sleep apnea, by mechanisms still yet to be defined, also alters that pain threshold. It may also affect the expression of pain or management of pain, making treatment more problematic in this population,” he said in an interview.

A key limitation of the study, he continued, was the fact it evaluated only one aspect of sleep: OSA. “They didn’t look at duration of sleep, comorbid insomnia, or fragmentation of sleep from apnea or from other causes,” Dr. Sundar said. “We have multiple ways of treating sleep apnea. Clearly, we need studies of treating sleep apnea with [continuous positive airway pressure] and how that affects the occurrence of pain. The relevant practical aspect of this is that there are pain clinics all over the country that should screen for sleep apnea. Along the same lines, sleep practitioners should be aware that pain has an important association with sleep apnea.”

The study was supported by the Health Services Research & Development in the Department of Veterans Affairs of the Veterans Health Administration, the Yale School of Medicine Medical Student Fellowship, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Athar W et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020;17(10):1273-48.

Correction, 10/28/20: An earlier version of this article misstated Wardah Athar's name in the photo caption.

Sleep specialists might want to take a closer look at the connections between obstructive sleep apnea, chronic pain, and reported pain intensity in younger patients. Young adults with a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are more likely to report moderate to severe pain intensity, compared with their peers who do not have the diagnosis, results from a large cross-sectional analysis of veterans showed.

“Because of the high burden of chronic pain conditions in younger adults, this study highlights the need to understand the impact of OSA diagnosis and treatment on pain intensity,” researchers led by Wardah Athar, a graduate student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and Lori A. Bastian, MD, MPH, a professor of internal medicine at Yale, wrote in an article published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society. “This understanding would then help inform the development of interventions to promote screening for OSA among young adults with chronic pain and pain management among those with diagnosed OSA.”

In an effort to assess whether young adults with diagnosed OSA are more likely to report higher pain intensity, compared with those without OSA, the researchers drew from a sample of 858,226 veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn who had at least one visit to a VA clinic between 2001 and 2014. They used ICD-9 codes to identify OSA and assessed self-reported responses to pain measures on a 0-10 numeric scale which were recorded in each veteran’s EMR. Next, they averaged pain intensity responses over a 12-month period and categorized them as none (0), mild (1-3), and moderate/severe (4–10). Covariates included age, sex, education, race, mental health diagnoses, headache diagnoses, pain diagnoses, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index, and smoking status. The researchers used multivariate logistic regression models and multiple imputation to generate values for missing variables.

The mean age of the patients was 30 years, 64% were White, 17% were Black, 12% were Hispanic, and remainder were other/unknown race/ethnicity. Ninety percent were male, and 20% had greater than a high school education. Of the 858,226 patients, 91,244 (11%) had a diagnosis of OSA. Compared with patients who had no diagnosis of OSA, the unadjusted odds of reporting moderate/severe pain was 48% higher among those with OSA (odds ratio 1.48; P < .0001). After the researchers adjusted for all covariates in the model, the association between OSA and moderate/severe pain remained significant though attenuated, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.09 (P < .0001).

Several characteristics were different between those who had a diagnosis of OSA and those who did not, including age (a mean of 36 vs. 26 years, respectively) and having the following diagnoses: pain (36% vs. 16%), headache (28% vs. 14%), diabetes (12% vs. 2%), hypertension (40% vs. 12%), and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater (69% vs. 35%). Certain psychiatric disorders were also common among patients with OSA, including major depressive disorder (20% vs. 10%), posttraumatic stress disorder (50% vs. 30%), and substance use disorder (26% vs. 17%). Patients with OSA were also more likely to have been prescribed benzodiazepines or opioids within 90 days of their OSA diagnosis. Although men were more likely to have a diagnosis of OSA, no differences related to sex in the association of OSA and pain were observed in sex-based stratified analyses.

“Based on these results, we suggest more thorough and more frequent pain intensity screening in patients with OSA, particularly in those patients who are younger than 60 years old without significant comorbid illness,” the researchers concluded. “Furthermore, we also recommend increased OSA screening for patients with moderate/severe pain intensity and pain diagnoses.” One tool they recommend is the STOP-Bang (Snoring, Tiredness, Observed Apnea, Blood Pressure, Body Mass Index, Age, Neck Circumference, and Gender) questionnaire, which has been validated in multiple settings.

Commenting on the findings of this study, Krishna M. Sundar, MD, FCCP, medical director of the Sleep-Wake Center at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, commended the study design. “One of the problems with sleep apnea studies is that there are always confounding effects, especially from BMI. This is a population that has a significant medical burden of disease, but I think this is a well-done study to look at the relationship between pain and OSA in a younger population. The authors tried to adjust for all these confounders and they still found a significant association. This indicates that sleep affects one’s pain threshold. And sleep apnea, by mechanisms still yet to be defined, also alters that pain threshold. It may also affect the expression of pain or management of pain, making treatment more problematic in this population,” he said in an interview.

A key limitation of the study, he continued, was the fact it evaluated only one aspect of sleep: OSA. “They didn’t look at duration of sleep, comorbid insomnia, or fragmentation of sleep from apnea or from other causes,” Dr. Sundar said. “We have multiple ways of treating sleep apnea. Clearly, we need studies of treating sleep apnea with [continuous positive airway pressure] and how that affects the occurrence of pain. The relevant practical aspect of this is that there are pain clinics all over the country that should screen for sleep apnea. Along the same lines, sleep practitioners should be aware that pain has an important association with sleep apnea.”

The study was supported by the Health Services Research & Development in the Department of Veterans Affairs of the Veterans Health Administration, the Yale School of Medicine Medical Student Fellowship, and the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Athar W et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020;17(10):1273-48.

Correction, 10/28/20: An earlier version of this article misstated Wardah Athar's name in the photo caption.

The differences between politically left- and right-leaning individuals may have neural underpinnings, results from a new brain imaging study suggest.

Jochen Sand/Thinkstock

Investigators found that despite watching the same videos related to immigration policy, neural responses differed between liberals and conservatives.

“This divergence was strongest when the videos used language that highlighted threat, morality, and emotions, suggesting that certain words are more likely to drive polarized response,” lead researcher Yuan Chang Leong, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in cognitive neuroscience at the University of California, Berkeley, told Medscape Medical News.

“The results suggest a neural basis for partisan biases in interpreting political messages, the effects these biases have on attitude change, and the type of language most likely to drive biased interpretations,” Leong added.

The study was published online Oct. 20 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

Hardwired to disagree?

The researchers combined fMRI with semantic content analysis to investigate neural mechanisms that underlie the biased processing of political content.

They scanned 38 middle-aged men and women with liberal- or conservative-leaning immigration attitudes while the participants watched short news clips, campaign ads, and public speeches related to various immigration policies.

These policies included those that led to the United States–Mexico border wall, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) protections for undocumented immigrants, the ban on refugees from majority-Muslim countries coming to the United States, and the cutting of federal funding to sanctuary cities.

After each video, participants rated on a scale of 1 to 5 how much they agreed with the general message of the video, the credibility of the information presented, and the extent to which the video made them likely to change their position and to support the policy in question.

The study revealed evidence of “neural polarization” – activity in the brain that diverges between people who hold liberal vs. conservative political views, the researchers reported.

Neural polarization was observed in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC), a brain region associated with the interpretation of narrative content.

Neural polarization in this region intensified during moments in the videos that included risk-related and moral-emotional language, highlighting content features most likely to drive divergent interpretations between conservatives and liberals, they noted.

For a given individual, the closer that brain activity resembled that of the “average conservative” or “average liberal,” the more likely the person was to adopt that group’s position after watching the videos.

“We know that partisans respond differently to the same information. So in that sense, it’s not surprising to find that their brains respond differently as well,” Leong told Medscape Medical News.

“What we weren’t sure about was where in the brain we would find these differences, how neural differences were related to attitude change, and what type of content would be most likely to be associated with these differences,” he said.

Importantly, said Leong, these differences do not imply that people are hardwired to disagree. Rather, individual experiences and the media that is consumed likely contribute to neural polarization.

“If our goal is to reduce polarization and change minds, we need to think carefully about how we frame and structure political information – for example, by framing messages to appeal to the core values of the respective voter,” he said.
 

Brain stimulation to alter political perception?

Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director, Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, said the research “puts us one step closer to identifying how our brains interpret political information.”

The study, Lakhan noted, implicates a specific brain structure, the DMPFC, which is the “lens” in which information that gets into our brain is “viewed and acted on.”

“I trust that there will be plenty more work using a similar fMRI approach to tease out scenarios outside of immigration policy, as used in this study. Down the line, brain signatures through fMRI may be able to tell an individual’s political bent, and perhaps technologies like transcranial magnetic stimulation may be able to modulate our perceptions of political content, Shaheen said.

The research was supported by a grant from the Army Research Office. Leong and Lakhan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The differences between politically left- and right-leaning individuals may have neural underpinnings, results from a new brain imaging study suggest.

Jochen Sand/Thinkstock

Investigators found that despite watching the same videos related to immigration policy, neural responses differed between liberals and conservatives.

“This divergence was strongest when the videos used language that highlighted threat, morality, and emotions, suggesting that certain words are more likely to drive polarized response,” lead researcher Yuan Chang Leong, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in cognitive neuroscience at the University of California, Berkeley, told Medscape Medical News.

“The results suggest a neural basis for partisan biases in interpreting political messages, the effects these biases have on attitude change, and the type of language most likely to drive biased interpretations,” Leong added.

The study was published online Oct. 20 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

Hardwired to disagree?

The researchers combined fMRI with semantic content analysis to investigate neural mechanisms that underlie the biased processing of political content.

They scanned 38 middle-aged men and women with liberal- or conservative-leaning immigration attitudes while the participants watched short news clips, campaign ads, and public speeches related to various immigration policies.

These policies included those that led to the United States–Mexico border wall, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) protections for undocumented immigrants, the ban on refugees from majority-Muslim countries coming to the United States, and the cutting of federal funding to sanctuary cities.

After each video, participants rated on a scale of 1 to 5 how much they agreed with the general message of the video, the credibility of the information presented, and the extent to which the video made them likely to change their position and to support the policy in question.

The study revealed evidence of “neural polarization” – activity in the brain that diverges between people who hold liberal vs. conservative political views, the researchers reported.

Neural polarization was observed in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC), a brain region associated with the interpretation of narrative content.

Neural polarization in this region intensified during moments in the videos that included risk-related and moral-emotional language, highlighting content features most likely to drive divergent interpretations between conservatives and liberals, they noted.

For a given individual, the closer that brain activity resembled that of the “average conservative” or “average liberal,” the more likely the person was to adopt that group’s position after watching the videos.

“We know that partisans respond differently to the same information. So in that sense, it’s not surprising to find that their brains respond differently as well,” Leong told Medscape Medical News.

“What we weren’t sure about was where in the brain we would find these differences, how neural differences were related to attitude change, and what type of content would be most likely to be associated with these differences,” he said.

Importantly, said Leong, these differences do not imply that people are hardwired to disagree. Rather, individual experiences and the media that is consumed likely contribute to neural polarization.

“If our goal is to reduce polarization and change minds, we need to think carefully about how we frame and structure political information – for example, by framing messages to appeal to the core values of the respective voter,” he said.
 

Brain stimulation to alter political perception?

Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director, Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, said the research “puts us one step closer to identifying how our brains interpret political information.”

The study, Lakhan noted, implicates a specific brain structure, the DMPFC, which is the “lens” in which information that gets into our brain is “viewed and acted on.”

“I trust that there will be plenty more work using a similar fMRI approach to tease out scenarios outside of immigration policy, as used in this study. Down the line, brain signatures through fMRI may be able to tell an individual’s political bent, and perhaps technologies like transcranial magnetic stimulation may be able to modulate our perceptions of political content, Shaheen said.

The research was supported by a grant from the Army Research Office. Leong and Lakhan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The differences between politically left- and right-leaning individuals may have neural underpinnings, results from a new brain imaging study suggest.

Jochen Sand/Thinkstock

Investigators found that despite watching the same videos related to immigration policy, neural responses differed between liberals and conservatives.

“This divergence was strongest when the videos used language that highlighted threat, morality, and emotions, suggesting that certain words are more likely to drive polarized response,” lead researcher Yuan Chang Leong, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in cognitive neuroscience at the University of California, Berkeley, told Medscape Medical News.

“The results suggest a neural basis for partisan biases in interpreting political messages, the effects these biases have on attitude change, and the type of language most likely to drive biased interpretations,” Leong added.

The study was published online Oct. 20 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

Hardwired to disagree?

The researchers combined fMRI with semantic content analysis to investigate neural mechanisms that underlie the biased processing of political content.

They scanned 38 middle-aged men and women with liberal- or conservative-leaning immigration attitudes while the participants watched short news clips, campaign ads, and public speeches related to various immigration policies.

These policies included those that led to the United States–Mexico border wall, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) protections for undocumented immigrants, the ban on refugees from majority-Muslim countries coming to the United States, and the cutting of federal funding to sanctuary cities.

After each video, participants rated on a scale of 1 to 5 how much they agreed with the general message of the video, the credibility of the information presented, and the extent to which the video made them likely to change their position and to support the policy in question.

The study revealed evidence of “neural polarization” – activity in the brain that diverges between people who hold liberal vs. conservative political views, the researchers reported.

Neural polarization was observed in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC), a brain region associated with the interpretation of narrative content.

Neural polarization in this region intensified during moments in the videos that included risk-related and moral-emotional language, highlighting content features most likely to drive divergent interpretations between conservatives and liberals, they noted.

For a given individual, the closer that brain activity resembled that of the “average conservative” or “average liberal,” the more likely the person was to adopt that group’s position after watching the videos.

“We know that partisans respond differently to the same information. So in that sense, it’s not surprising to find that their brains respond differently as well,” Leong told Medscape Medical News.

“What we weren’t sure about was where in the brain we would find these differences, how neural differences were related to attitude change, and what type of content would be most likely to be associated with these differences,” he said.

Importantly, said Leong, these differences do not imply that people are hardwired to disagree. Rather, individual experiences and the media that is consumed likely contribute to neural polarization.

“If our goal is to reduce polarization and change minds, we need to think carefully about how we frame and structure political information – for example, by framing messages to appeal to the core values of the respective voter,” he said.
 

Brain stimulation to alter political perception?

Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director, Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, said the research “puts us one step closer to identifying how our brains interpret political information.”

The study, Lakhan noted, implicates a specific brain structure, the DMPFC, which is the “lens” in which information that gets into our brain is “viewed and acted on.”

“I trust that there will be plenty more work using a similar fMRI approach to tease out scenarios outside of immigration policy, as used in this study. Down the line, brain signatures through fMRI may be able to tell an individual’s political bent, and perhaps technologies like transcranial magnetic stimulation may be able to modulate our perceptions of political content, Shaheen said.

The research was supported by a grant from the Army Research Office. Leong and Lakhan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus wanes over time, latest research has suggested.

An ongoing study led by Imperial College London (ICL) found that the proportion of people testing positive for COVID-19 antibodies dropped by 26.5% over a 3-month period between June and September.

The findings from a non–peer reviewed preprint suggested that infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers only limited protection against reinfection.

Professor Paul Elliott, director of the REACT-2 programme at ICL, said: “Testing positive for antibodies does not mean you are immune to COVID-19.

“It remains unclear what level of immunity antibodies provide, or for how long this immunity lasts.”

Experts said that, while the findings suggested that immunity might fade over time, the severity of illness from further infections could be reduced.
 

Antibody prevalence declined in all adults

Results from cross-sectional studies over the 3-month period involved 365,104 adults who self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay test.

There were 17,576 positive tests over the three rounds.

Antibody prevalence, adjusted for test characteristics and weighted to the adult population of England, declined from 6.0% to 4.4%, a reduction of 26.5% over the 3 months.

The decline was seen in all age groups. However, the lowest prevalence of a positive test, and the largest fall, was seen in those aged 75 years and older.

No change was seen in positive antibody tests in health care workers over the 3 months.

The results suggested that people who did not show symptoms of COVID-19 were more likely to lose detectable antibodies sooner than those who did show symptoms.

Prof Helen Ward, one of the lead authors of the report said that, while it was clear that the proportion of people with antibodies was falling over time, “We don’t yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19, but it is essential that everyone continues to follow guidance to reduce the risk to themselves and others.”
 

Results ‘weaken argument for herd immunity’

Commenting on the results to the Science Media Centre, Rowland Kao, professor of veterinary epidemiology and data science at the University of Edinburgh, warned that, if the results were correct, “any strategy that relies on ‘herd immunity’ lacks credibility.”

However, he added that, “while the decline is substantial, nevertheless substantial proportions of the population do retain some immune response, over 4 months after the peak of the epidemic”.

Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease, also from the University of Edinburgh, said it was too early to assume that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 did not last because “the study does not look at antibody concentrations, antibody function, or other aspects of immunity such as T-cell immunity and does not look at the trajectory of antibody levels in the same individuals over time”.

However, she said the findings did not mean that a vaccine would be ineffective because vaccines contained adjuvants that could induce durable immune responses, particularly with multiple immunizations.

“What is not clear is how quickly antibody levels would rise again if a person encounters the SARS-CoV-2 virus a second time. It is possible they will still rapidly respond, and either have a milder illness, or remain protected through immune memory,” commented Dr. Alexander Edwards, associate professor in biomedical technology at the University of Reading.

Health Minister Lord Bethell said: “Regardless of the result of an antibody test, everyone must continue to comply with government guidelines including social distancing, self-isolating, and getting a test if you have symptoms, and always remember: hands, face, space.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus wanes over time, latest research has suggested.

An ongoing study led by Imperial College London (ICL) found that the proportion of people testing positive for COVID-19 antibodies dropped by 26.5% over a 3-month period between June and September.

The findings from a non–peer reviewed preprint suggested that infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers only limited protection against reinfection.

Professor Paul Elliott, director of the REACT-2 programme at ICL, said: “Testing positive for antibodies does not mean you are immune to COVID-19.

“It remains unclear what level of immunity antibodies provide, or for how long this immunity lasts.”

Experts said that, while the findings suggested that immunity might fade over time, the severity of illness from further infections could be reduced.
 

Antibody prevalence declined in all adults

Results from cross-sectional studies over the 3-month period involved 365,104 adults who self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay test.

There were 17,576 positive tests over the three rounds.

Antibody prevalence, adjusted for test characteristics and weighted to the adult population of England, declined from 6.0% to 4.4%, a reduction of 26.5% over the 3 months.

The decline was seen in all age groups. However, the lowest prevalence of a positive test, and the largest fall, was seen in those aged 75 years and older.

No change was seen in positive antibody tests in health care workers over the 3 months.

The results suggested that people who did not show symptoms of COVID-19 were more likely to lose detectable antibodies sooner than those who did show symptoms.

Prof Helen Ward, one of the lead authors of the report said that, while it was clear that the proportion of people with antibodies was falling over time, “We don’t yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19, but it is essential that everyone continues to follow guidance to reduce the risk to themselves and others.”
 

Results ‘weaken argument for herd immunity’

Commenting on the results to the Science Media Centre, Rowland Kao, professor of veterinary epidemiology and data science at the University of Edinburgh, warned that, if the results were correct, “any strategy that relies on ‘herd immunity’ lacks credibility.”

However, he added that, “while the decline is substantial, nevertheless substantial proportions of the population do retain some immune response, over 4 months after the peak of the epidemic”.

Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease, also from the University of Edinburgh, said it was too early to assume that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 did not last because “the study does not look at antibody concentrations, antibody function, or other aspects of immunity such as T-cell immunity and does not look at the trajectory of antibody levels in the same individuals over time”.

However, she said the findings did not mean that a vaccine would be ineffective because vaccines contained adjuvants that could induce durable immune responses, particularly with multiple immunizations.

“What is not clear is how quickly antibody levels would rise again if a person encounters the SARS-CoV-2 virus a second time. It is possible they will still rapidly respond, and either have a milder illness, or remain protected through immune memory,” commented Dr. Alexander Edwards, associate professor in biomedical technology at the University of Reading.

Health Minister Lord Bethell said: “Regardless of the result of an antibody test, everyone must continue to comply with government guidelines including social distancing, self-isolating, and getting a test if you have symptoms, and always remember: hands, face, space.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus wanes over time, latest research has suggested.

An ongoing study led by Imperial College London (ICL) found that the proportion of people testing positive for COVID-19 antibodies dropped by 26.5% over a 3-month period between June and September.

The findings from a non–peer reviewed preprint suggested that infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers only limited protection against reinfection.

Professor Paul Elliott, director of the REACT-2 programme at ICL, said: “Testing positive for antibodies does not mean you are immune to COVID-19.

“It remains unclear what level of immunity antibodies provide, or for how long this immunity lasts.”

Experts said that, while the findings suggested that immunity might fade over time, the severity of illness from further infections could be reduced.
 

Antibody prevalence declined in all adults

Results from cross-sectional studies over the 3-month period involved 365,104 adults who self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay test.

There were 17,576 positive tests over the three rounds.

Antibody prevalence, adjusted for test characteristics and weighted to the adult population of England, declined from 6.0% to 4.4%, a reduction of 26.5% over the 3 months.

The decline was seen in all age groups. However, the lowest prevalence of a positive test, and the largest fall, was seen in those aged 75 years and older.

No change was seen in positive antibody tests in health care workers over the 3 months.

The results suggested that people who did not show symptoms of COVID-19 were more likely to lose detectable antibodies sooner than those who did show symptoms.

Prof Helen Ward, one of the lead authors of the report said that, while it was clear that the proportion of people with antibodies was falling over time, “We don’t yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19, but it is essential that everyone continues to follow guidance to reduce the risk to themselves and others.”
 

Results ‘weaken argument for herd immunity’

Commenting on the results to the Science Media Centre, Rowland Kao, professor of veterinary epidemiology and data science at the University of Edinburgh, warned that, if the results were correct, “any strategy that relies on ‘herd immunity’ lacks credibility.”

However, he added that, “while the decline is substantial, nevertheless substantial proportions of the population do retain some immune response, over 4 months after the peak of the epidemic”.

Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease, also from the University of Edinburgh, said it was too early to assume that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 did not last because “the study does not look at antibody concentrations, antibody function, or other aspects of immunity such as T-cell immunity and does not look at the trajectory of antibody levels in the same individuals over time”.

However, she said the findings did not mean that a vaccine would be ineffective because vaccines contained adjuvants that could induce durable immune responses, particularly with multiple immunizations.

“What is not clear is how quickly antibody levels would rise again if a person encounters the SARS-CoV-2 virus a second time. It is possible they will still rapidly respond, and either have a milder illness, or remain protected through immune memory,” commented Dr. Alexander Edwards, associate professor in biomedical technology at the University of Reading.

Health Minister Lord Bethell said: “Regardless of the result of an antibody test, everyone must continue to comply with government guidelines including social distancing, self-isolating, and getting a test if you have symptoms, and always remember: hands, face, space.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.