MDedge ObGyn

Having COVID-19 during pregnancy is linked to a significantly increased risk for gestational hypertension and preeclampsia compared with not having COVID-19 while pregnant, according to findings from a retrospective study presented Jan. 28 at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine 2021 Annual Pregnancy Meeting.

“This was not entirely surprising given that inflammation has been implicated in the pathogenesis of both hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and COVID-19 infection and thus may serve to exacerbate each other,” Nigel Madden, MD, a resident physician in the ob.gyn. department at Columbia University, New York. , told this news organization after she presented the results.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy occur in 10%-15% of all pregnancies and are the leading cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality worldwide, Dr. Madden told attendees of the meeting. Although it’s not clear what causes hypertensive diseases in pregnancy generally, “it is possible that the acute inflammatory state of the COVID infection may incite or exacerbate hypertensive disease of pregnancy,” Dr. Madden said.

The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of 1,715 patients who had a singleton pregnancy and who underwent routine nasal polymerase chain reaction testing at admission to one institution’s labor and delivery department between March and June 2020. The researchers excluded patients who had a history of chronic hypertension.

Overall, 10% of the patients tested positive for COVID-19 (n = 167), and 90% tested negative (n = 1,548). There were several differences at baseline between the groups. Those who tested positive tended to be younger, with an average age of 28, compared with an average age of 31 years for the group that tested negative. The group that tested negative also had a higher proportion of mothers aged 35 and older (P < .01). There were also significant differences in the racial makeup of the groups. Half of those in the COVID-positive group reported “other” for their race. The biggest baseline disparity between the groups was with regard to insurance type: 73% of those who tested positive for COVID-19 used Medicaid; only 36% of patients in the COVID-negative group used Medicaid. Those with private insurance were more likely to test negative (43%) than positive (25%) (P < .01).

The researchers defined gestational hypertension as having a systolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 140 mm Hg or a diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 90 mm Hg on two occasions at least 4 hours apart. A preeclampsia diagnosis required elevated blood pressure (using the same definition as for hypertension) as well as proteinuria, characterized by a protein/creatine ratio greater than or equal to 0.3 mg/dL or greater than or equal to 300 mg of protein on a 24-hour urine collection. Preeclampsia with severe features required prespecified laboratory abnormalities, pulmonary edema, or symptoms of headache, vision changes, chest pain, shortness of breath, or right upper quadrant pain.

More than twice as many patients with COVID had a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (18%) as those who tested negative (8%). The patients who were COVID positive were significantly more likely than those who tested negative to have gestational hypertension and preeclampsia without severe features. Rates of preeclampsia with severe features were not significantly different between the groups.

The severity of hypertensive disease did not differ between the groups. Limitations of the study included its retrospective design, the small number of COVID-positive patients, and the fact that it was conducted at a single institution in New York. However, the study population was diverse, and it was conducted during the height of infections at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This was a study of great clinical significance,” said Kim Boggess, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, while moderating the session. “I would argue that you guys in New York are the best poised to answer some of the questions that need to be answered as it relates to the effect of coronavirus infection in pregnancy.”

Dr. Boggess asked whether the study examined associations related to the severity of COVID-19. Only 10 of the patients were symptomatic, Dr. Madden said, and only one of those patients developed preeclampsia with severe features.

Michelle Y. Owens, MD, professor and chief of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, who also moderated the session, said in an interview that the findings call for physicians to remain vigilant about evaluating patients who test positive for COVID-19 for hypertensive disease and disorders.

“Additionally, these women should be educated about hypertensive disorders and the common symptoms to facilitate early diagnosis and treatment when indicated,” Dr. Owens said. “I believe this is of particular interest in those women who are not severely affected by COVID, as these changes may occur while they are undergoing quarantine or being monitored remotely. This amplifies the need for remote assessment or home monitoring of maternal blood pressures.”

Dr. Madden, Dr. Boggess, and Dr. Owens have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Having COVID-19 during pregnancy is linked to a significantly increased risk for gestational hypertension and preeclampsia compared with not having COVID-19 while pregnant, according to findings from a retrospective study presented Jan. 28 at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine 2021 Annual Pregnancy Meeting.

“This was not entirely surprising given that inflammation has been implicated in the pathogenesis of both hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and COVID-19 infection and thus may serve to exacerbate each other,” Nigel Madden, MD, a resident physician in the ob.gyn. department at Columbia University, New York. , told this news organization after she presented the results.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy occur in 10%-15% of all pregnancies and are the leading cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality worldwide, Dr. Madden told attendees of the meeting. Although it’s not clear what causes hypertensive diseases in pregnancy generally, “it is possible that the acute inflammatory state of the COVID infection may incite or exacerbate hypertensive disease of pregnancy,” Dr. Madden said.

The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of 1,715 patients who had a singleton pregnancy and who underwent routine nasal polymerase chain reaction testing at admission to one institution’s labor and delivery department between March and June 2020. The researchers excluded patients who had a history of chronic hypertension.

Overall, 10% of the patients tested positive for COVID-19 (n = 167), and 90% tested negative (n = 1,548). There were several differences at baseline between the groups. Those who tested positive tended to be younger, with an average age of 28, compared with an average age of 31 years for the group that tested negative. The group that tested negative also had a higher proportion of mothers aged 35 and older (P < .01). There were also significant differences in the racial makeup of the groups. Half of those in the COVID-positive group reported “other” for their race. The biggest baseline disparity between the groups was with regard to insurance type: 73% of those who tested positive for COVID-19 used Medicaid; only 36% of patients in the COVID-negative group used Medicaid. Those with private insurance were more likely to test negative (43%) than positive (25%) (P < .01).

The researchers defined gestational hypertension as having a systolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 140 mm Hg or a diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 90 mm Hg on two occasions at least 4 hours apart. A preeclampsia diagnosis required elevated blood pressure (using the same definition as for hypertension) as well as proteinuria, characterized by a protein/creatine ratio greater than or equal to 0.3 mg/dL or greater than or equal to 300 mg of protein on a 24-hour urine collection. Preeclampsia with severe features required prespecified laboratory abnormalities, pulmonary edema, or symptoms of headache, vision changes, chest pain, shortness of breath, or right upper quadrant pain.

More than twice as many patients with COVID had a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (18%) as those who tested negative (8%). The patients who were COVID positive were significantly more likely than those who tested negative to have gestational hypertension and preeclampsia without severe features. Rates of preeclampsia with severe features were not significantly different between the groups.

The severity of hypertensive disease did not differ between the groups. Limitations of the study included its retrospective design, the small number of COVID-positive patients, and the fact that it was conducted at a single institution in New York. However, the study population was diverse, and it was conducted during the height of infections at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This was a study of great clinical significance,” said Kim Boggess, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, while moderating the session. “I would argue that you guys in New York are the best poised to answer some of the questions that need to be answered as it relates to the effect of coronavirus infection in pregnancy.”

Dr. Boggess asked whether the study examined associations related to the severity of COVID-19. Only 10 of the patients were symptomatic, Dr. Madden said, and only one of those patients developed preeclampsia with severe features.

Michelle Y. Owens, MD, professor and chief of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, who also moderated the session, said in an interview that the findings call for physicians to remain vigilant about evaluating patients who test positive for COVID-19 for hypertensive disease and disorders.

“Additionally, these women should be educated about hypertensive disorders and the common symptoms to facilitate early diagnosis and treatment when indicated,” Dr. Owens said. “I believe this is of particular interest in those women who are not severely affected by COVID, as these changes may occur while they are undergoing quarantine or being monitored remotely. This amplifies the need for remote assessment or home monitoring of maternal blood pressures.”

Dr. Madden, Dr. Boggess, and Dr. Owens have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Having COVID-19 during pregnancy is linked to a significantly increased risk for gestational hypertension and preeclampsia compared with not having COVID-19 while pregnant, according to findings from a retrospective study presented Jan. 28 at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine 2021 Annual Pregnancy Meeting.

“This was not entirely surprising given that inflammation has been implicated in the pathogenesis of both hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and COVID-19 infection and thus may serve to exacerbate each other,” Nigel Madden, MD, a resident physician in the ob.gyn. department at Columbia University, New York. , told this news organization after she presented the results.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy occur in 10%-15% of all pregnancies and are the leading cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality worldwide, Dr. Madden told attendees of the meeting. Although it’s not clear what causes hypertensive diseases in pregnancy generally, “it is possible that the acute inflammatory state of the COVID infection may incite or exacerbate hypertensive disease of pregnancy,” Dr. Madden said.

The researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of 1,715 patients who had a singleton pregnancy and who underwent routine nasal polymerase chain reaction testing at admission to one institution’s labor and delivery department between March and June 2020. The researchers excluded patients who had a history of chronic hypertension.

Overall, 10% of the patients tested positive for COVID-19 (n = 167), and 90% tested negative (n = 1,548). There were several differences at baseline between the groups. Those who tested positive tended to be younger, with an average age of 28, compared with an average age of 31 years for the group that tested negative. The group that tested negative also had a higher proportion of mothers aged 35 and older (P < .01). There were also significant differences in the racial makeup of the groups. Half of those in the COVID-positive group reported “other” for their race. The biggest baseline disparity between the groups was with regard to insurance type: 73% of those who tested positive for COVID-19 used Medicaid; only 36% of patients in the COVID-negative group used Medicaid. Those with private insurance were more likely to test negative (43%) than positive (25%) (P < .01).

The researchers defined gestational hypertension as having a systolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 140 mm Hg or a diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 90 mm Hg on two occasions at least 4 hours apart. A preeclampsia diagnosis required elevated blood pressure (using the same definition as for hypertension) as well as proteinuria, characterized by a protein/creatine ratio greater than or equal to 0.3 mg/dL or greater than or equal to 300 mg of protein on a 24-hour urine collection. Preeclampsia with severe features required prespecified laboratory abnormalities, pulmonary edema, or symptoms of headache, vision changes, chest pain, shortness of breath, or right upper quadrant pain.

More than twice as many patients with COVID had a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (18%) as those who tested negative (8%). The patients who were COVID positive were significantly more likely than those who tested negative to have gestational hypertension and preeclampsia without severe features. Rates of preeclampsia with severe features were not significantly different between the groups.

The severity of hypertensive disease did not differ between the groups. Limitations of the study included its retrospective design, the small number of COVID-positive patients, and the fact that it was conducted at a single institution in New York. However, the study population was diverse, and it was conducted during the height of infections at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This was a study of great clinical significance,” said Kim Boggess, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, while moderating the session. “I would argue that you guys in New York are the best poised to answer some of the questions that need to be answered as it relates to the effect of coronavirus infection in pregnancy.”

Dr. Boggess asked whether the study examined associations related to the severity of COVID-19. Only 10 of the patients were symptomatic, Dr. Madden said, and only one of those patients developed preeclampsia with severe features.

Michelle Y. Owens, MD, professor and chief of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, who also moderated the session, said in an interview that the findings call for physicians to remain vigilant about evaluating patients who test positive for COVID-19 for hypertensive disease and disorders.

“Additionally, these women should be educated about hypertensive disorders and the common symptoms to facilitate early diagnosis and treatment when indicated,” Dr. Owens said. “I believe this is of particular interest in those women who are not severely affected by COVID, as these changes may occur while they are undergoing quarantine or being monitored remotely. This amplifies the need for remote assessment or home monitoring of maternal blood pressures.”

Dr. Madden, Dr. Boggess, and Dr. Owens have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Autopsies on patients who died from COVID-19 are providing important clues on how to treat the disease. In an analysis of 40 hearts from COVID-19 patients who died early in the pandemic, myocyte necrosis was seen in 14 hearts, or 35%.

In the majority of these hearts, pathologists found both small areas of focal necrosis and cardiac thrombi, most of which were microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular cells.

In an interview, senior author Aloke V. Finn, MD, CVPath Institute, Gaithersburg, Md., stressed the importance of understanding what they saw, but also what they didn’t see.

“What we saw in the majority of patients with myocardial injury were these small areas of infarct and microthrombi in small vessels. What we didn’t see was any evidence of myocarditis and or huge infarcts in, like, the LAD artery,” he said.

“What we’re seeing here is not clinically detectable. ... There is no test that will tell you there are microthrombi and no imaging tests that will show these focal areas of necrosis, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there,” he added.

The finding of myocyte necrosis in about one-third of samples is consistent with another study that showed that 30%-40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have elevated troponins, noted Dr. Finn. The investigators were unable to obtain troponin levels on their patients, which could limit the clinical translation of myocardial necrosis detected at autopsy.

Dr. Finn and colleagues, including first author Dario Pellegrini, MD, from Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy, published their findings online in Circulation on Jan. 22, 2020.

The report is a follow-up to another just published by Dr. Finn’s group in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which showed that myocarditis is a very rare finding in COVID-19 autopsies.

Only three of 14 individuals (21.4%) with evidence of myocyte necrosis showed evidence of acute MI, which Dr. Finn and colleagues define as an area of necrosis at least 1 cm² in size. The remaining 11 (78.6%) had only discrete areas of myocyte necrosis (>20 necrotic myocytes with an area of ≥0.05 mm², but <1 cm²).

“This makes sense when we saw what type of thrombus there was in these cases; it wasn’t thrombus in major epicardial vessels but microthombi in small vessels,” said Dr. Finn.

In those with necrosis, cardiac thrombi were present in 11 of 14 (78.6%) cases, with 2 of 14 (14.2%) having epicardial coronary artery thrombi and 0 of 14 (64.3%) having microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular arteries.

Further supporting the role of COVID-19–related hypercoagulability as the cause of myocardial injury in many patients, the investigators noted that the incidence of severe coronary artery disease (defined as >75% cross sectional narrowing) did not differ significantly between those with and without necrosis.
 

COVID-19 vs. non–COVID-19 thrombi

Going one step further, Dr. Finn’s team compared cardiac microthrombi from their COVID-19–positive autopsy cases with intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19 cases. They also compared the samples with aspirated thrombi obtained during primary percutaneous coronary intervention from uninfected and COVID-19–infected patients presenting with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI).

The autopsy-obtained microthrombi had significantly more fibrin and terminal complement C5b-9 immunostaining than intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19–negative subjects and than aspirated thrombi from either COVID-positive or COVID-negative STEMI patients.

“Basically, what we’re seeing in these thrombi is evidence of an immune-mediated reaction,” said Dr. Finn, explaining that complement C5b-9 is an innate immune system protein that circulates in the blood in response to any kind of activation of the immune system. “It is nonspecific but can also lead to coagulation problems,” he said.
 

Anticoagulation, yes, but dose unclear

These findings clearly support the use of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID patients, said Jeffrey Weitz, MD, director of the Thrombosis & Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But the details of how much anticoagulation, what kind, and for whom are still a moving target.

“I think what we can say at this point is that these autopsy findings fit with previous studies that have shown microthrombi in the lungs and thrombi in the legs and gut, and support the notion that these patients should receive prophylactic doses of anticoagulants if they’re sick enough to be hospitalized,” said Dr. Weitz.

“But it’s not as simple as to say that this study shows clots form in the heart of COVID patients and therefore more anticoagulation is going to be better than less anticoagulation,” he said in an interview.

Recent top-line findings from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – show that full-dose anticoagulation was beneficial in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and reduced the need for mechanical ventilation.

Moderately ill patients are those not in intensive care and who did not require organ support, such as mechanical ventilation, at the time of enrollment.

However, the same group reported findings in December that showed that routine use of full-dose anticoagulation when started in the ICU in critically ill patients was not beneficial and possibly harmful.

Dr. Weitz was only a little bit surprised by this finding of potential harm in the sickest patients. “I figured everybody should get prophylaxis but I wasn’t sure that everybody should get intensified anticoagulant. But my assumption was that if anybody is going to benefit from it, it would be the ICU patients.”

It was notable, said Dr. Weitz, that levels of D-dimer, a fibrin degradation product, were not associated with outcomes. “So, it doesn’t seem to be that patients with evidence of more clotting are more likely to benefit, which might indicate that it’s not the anticoagulant effect of the heparin that’s helping, but maybe the anti-inflammatory effect. At this point, we just don’t know.”

All three studies have paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup, but are continuing to enroll patients with moderate illness and expect to publish results in the coming months, according to previous coverage from this news organization.

The study was funded by CVPath, a nonprofit institute that receives funding from a number of different industry entities. Dr. Finn and Dr. Weitz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Autopsies on patients who died from COVID-19 are providing important clues on how to treat the disease. In an analysis of 40 hearts from COVID-19 patients who died early in the pandemic, myocyte necrosis was seen in 14 hearts, or 35%.

In the majority of these hearts, pathologists found both small areas of focal necrosis and cardiac thrombi, most of which were microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular cells.

In an interview, senior author Aloke V. Finn, MD, CVPath Institute, Gaithersburg, Md., stressed the importance of understanding what they saw, but also what they didn’t see.

“What we saw in the majority of patients with myocardial injury were these small areas of infarct and microthrombi in small vessels. What we didn’t see was any evidence of myocarditis and or huge infarcts in, like, the LAD artery,” he said.

“What we’re seeing here is not clinically detectable. ... There is no test that will tell you there are microthrombi and no imaging tests that will show these focal areas of necrosis, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there,” he added.

The finding of myocyte necrosis in about one-third of samples is consistent with another study that showed that 30%-40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have elevated troponins, noted Dr. Finn. The investigators were unable to obtain troponin levels on their patients, which could limit the clinical translation of myocardial necrosis detected at autopsy.

Dr. Finn and colleagues, including first author Dario Pellegrini, MD, from Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy, published their findings online in Circulation on Jan. 22, 2020.

The report is a follow-up to another just published by Dr. Finn’s group in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which showed that myocarditis is a very rare finding in COVID-19 autopsies.

Only three of 14 individuals (21.4%) with evidence of myocyte necrosis showed evidence of acute MI, which Dr. Finn and colleagues define as an area of necrosis at least 1 cm² in size. The remaining 11 (78.6%) had only discrete areas of myocyte necrosis (>20 necrotic myocytes with an area of ≥0.05 mm², but <1 cm²).

“This makes sense when we saw what type of thrombus there was in these cases; it wasn’t thrombus in major epicardial vessels but microthombi in small vessels,” said Dr. Finn.

In those with necrosis, cardiac thrombi were present in 11 of 14 (78.6%) cases, with 2 of 14 (14.2%) having epicardial coronary artery thrombi and 0 of 14 (64.3%) having microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular arteries.

Further supporting the role of COVID-19–related hypercoagulability as the cause of myocardial injury in many patients, the investigators noted that the incidence of severe coronary artery disease (defined as >75% cross sectional narrowing) did not differ significantly between those with and without necrosis.
 

COVID-19 vs. non–COVID-19 thrombi

Going one step further, Dr. Finn’s team compared cardiac microthrombi from their COVID-19–positive autopsy cases with intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19 cases. They also compared the samples with aspirated thrombi obtained during primary percutaneous coronary intervention from uninfected and COVID-19–infected patients presenting with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI).

The autopsy-obtained microthrombi had significantly more fibrin and terminal complement C5b-9 immunostaining than intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19–negative subjects and than aspirated thrombi from either COVID-positive or COVID-negative STEMI patients.

“Basically, what we’re seeing in these thrombi is evidence of an immune-mediated reaction,” said Dr. Finn, explaining that complement C5b-9 is an innate immune system protein that circulates in the blood in response to any kind of activation of the immune system. “It is nonspecific but can also lead to coagulation problems,” he said.
 

Anticoagulation, yes, but dose unclear

These findings clearly support the use of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID patients, said Jeffrey Weitz, MD, director of the Thrombosis & Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But the details of how much anticoagulation, what kind, and for whom are still a moving target.

“I think what we can say at this point is that these autopsy findings fit with previous studies that have shown microthrombi in the lungs and thrombi in the legs and gut, and support the notion that these patients should receive prophylactic doses of anticoagulants if they’re sick enough to be hospitalized,” said Dr. Weitz.

“But it’s not as simple as to say that this study shows clots form in the heart of COVID patients and therefore more anticoagulation is going to be better than less anticoagulation,” he said in an interview.

Recent top-line findings from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – show that full-dose anticoagulation was beneficial in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and reduced the need for mechanical ventilation.

Moderately ill patients are those not in intensive care and who did not require organ support, such as mechanical ventilation, at the time of enrollment.

However, the same group reported findings in December that showed that routine use of full-dose anticoagulation when started in the ICU in critically ill patients was not beneficial and possibly harmful.

Dr. Weitz was only a little bit surprised by this finding of potential harm in the sickest patients. “I figured everybody should get prophylaxis but I wasn’t sure that everybody should get intensified anticoagulant. But my assumption was that if anybody is going to benefit from it, it would be the ICU patients.”

It was notable, said Dr. Weitz, that levels of D-dimer, a fibrin degradation product, were not associated with outcomes. “So, it doesn’t seem to be that patients with evidence of more clotting are more likely to benefit, which might indicate that it’s not the anticoagulant effect of the heparin that’s helping, but maybe the anti-inflammatory effect. At this point, we just don’t know.”

All three studies have paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup, but are continuing to enroll patients with moderate illness and expect to publish results in the coming months, according to previous coverage from this news organization.

The study was funded by CVPath, a nonprofit institute that receives funding from a number of different industry entities. Dr. Finn and Dr. Weitz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Autopsies on patients who died from COVID-19 are providing important clues on how to treat the disease. In an analysis of 40 hearts from COVID-19 patients who died early in the pandemic, myocyte necrosis was seen in 14 hearts, or 35%.

In the majority of these hearts, pathologists found both small areas of focal necrosis and cardiac thrombi, most of which were microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular cells.

In an interview, senior author Aloke V. Finn, MD, CVPath Institute, Gaithersburg, Md., stressed the importance of understanding what they saw, but also what they didn’t see.

“What we saw in the majority of patients with myocardial injury were these small areas of infarct and microthrombi in small vessels. What we didn’t see was any evidence of myocarditis and or huge infarcts in, like, the LAD artery,” he said.

“What we’re seeing here is not clinically detectable. ... There is no test that will tell you there are microthrombi and no imaging tests that will show these focal areas of necrosis, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there,” he added.

The finding of myocyte necrosis in about one-third of samples is consistent with another study that showed that 30%-40% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have elevated troponins, noted Dr. Finn. The investigators were unable to obtain troponin levels on their patients, which could limit the clinical translation of myocardial necrosis detected at autopsy.

Dr. Finn and colleagues, including first author Dario Pellegrini, MD, from Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy, published their findings online in Circulation on Jan. 22, 2020.

The report is a follow-up to another just published by Dr. Finn’s group in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which showed that myocarditis is a very rare finding in COVID-19 autopsies.

Only three of 14 individuals (21.4%) with evidence of myocyte necrosis showed evidence of acute MI, which Dr. Finn and colleagues define as an area of necrosis at least 1 cm² in size. The remaining 11 (78.6%) had only discrete areas of myocyte necrosis (>20 necrotic myocytes with an area of ≥0.05 mm², but <1 cm²).

“This makes sense when we saw what type of thrombus there was in these cases; it wasn’t thrombus in major epicardial vessels but microthombi in small vessels,” said Dr. Finn.

In those with necrosis, cardiac thrombi were present in 11 of 14 (78.6%) cases, with 2 of 14 (14.2%) having epicardial coronary artery thrombi and 0 of 14 (64.3%) having microthrombi in myocardial capillaries, arterioles, and small muscular arteries.

Further supporting the role of COVID-19–related hypercoagulability as the cause of myocardial injury in many patients, the investigators noted that the incidence of severe coronary artery disease (defined as >75% cross sectional narrowing) did not differ significantly between those with and without necrosis.
 

COVID-19 vs. non–COVID-19 thrombi

Going one step further, Dr. Finn’s team compared cardiac microthrombi from their COVID-19–positive autopsy cases with intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19 cases. They also compared the samples with aspirated thrombi obtained during primary percutaneous coronary intervention from uninfected and COVID-19–infected patients presenting with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI).

The autopsy-obtained microthrombi had significantly more fibrin and terminal complement C5b-9 immunostaining than intramyocardial thromboemboli from COVID-19–negative subjects and than aspirated thrombi from either COVID-positive or COVID-negative STEMI patients.

“Basically, what we’re seeing in these thrombi is evidence of an immune-mediated reaction,” said Dr. Finn, explaining that complement C5b-9 is an innate immune system protein that circulates in the blood in response to any kind of activation of the immune system. “It is nonspecific but can also lead to coagulation problems,” he said.
 

Anticoagulation, yes, but dose unclear

These findings clearly support the use of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID patients, said Jeffrey Weitz, MD, director of the Thrombosis & Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. But the details of how much anticoagulation, what kind, and for whom are still a moving target.

“I think what we can say at this point is that these autopsy findings fit with previous studies that have shown microthrombi in the lungs and thrombi in the legs and gut, and support the notion that these patients should receive prophylactic doses of anticoagulants if they’re sick enough to be hospitalized,” said Dr. Weitz.

“But it’s not as simple as to say that this study shows clots form in the heart of COVID patients and therefore more anticoagulation is going to be better than less anticoagulation,” he said in an interview.

Recent top-line findings from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – show that full-dose anticoagulation was beneficial in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and reduced the need for mechanical ventilation.

Moderately ill patients are those not in intensive care and who did not require organ support, such as mechanical ventilation, at the time of enrollment.

However, the same group reported findings in December that showed that routine use of full-dose anticoagulation when started in the ICU in critically ill patients was not beneficial and possibly harmful.

Dr. Weitz was only a little bit surprised by this finding of potential harm in the sickest patients. “I figured everybody should get prophylaxis but I wasn’t sure that everybody should get intensified anticoagulant. But my assumption was that if anybody is going to benefit from it, it would be the ICU patients.”

It was notable, said Dr. Weitz, that levels of D-dimer, a fibrin degradation product, were not associated with outcomes. “So, it doesn’t seem to be that patients with evidence of more clotting are more likely to benefit, which might indicate that it’s not the anticoagulant effect of the heparin that’s helping, but maybe the anti-inflammatory effect. At this point, we just don’t know.”

All three studies have paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup, but are continuing to enroll patients with moderate illness and expect to publish results in the coming months, according to previous coverage from this news organization.

The study was funded by CVPath, a nonprofit institute that receives funding from a number of different industry entities. Dr. Finn and Dr. Weitz reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer 3 decades after discontinuation, according to an analysis of data from more than 250,000 women.

At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.

The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.

The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.


 

Reinforcing and extending knowledge

“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”

The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”

Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.

“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”

For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.

“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”

Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.

“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
 

Data from the U.K. Biobank

To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.

Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.

The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.

In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).

Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).

“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”

Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
 

jremaly@mdedge.com

Oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer 3 decades after discontinuation, according to an analysis of data from more than 250,000 women.

At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.

The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.

The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.


 

Reinforcing and extending knowledge

“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”

The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”

Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.

“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”

For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.

“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”

Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.

“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
 

Data from the U.K. Biobank

To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.

Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.

The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.

In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).

Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).

“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”

Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
 

jremaly@mdedge.com

Oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer 3 decades after discontinuation, according to an analysis of data from more than 250,000 women.

At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.

The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.

The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.


 

Reinforcing and extending knowledge

“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”

The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”

Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.

“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”

For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.

“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”

Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.

“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
 

Data from the U.K. Biobank

To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.

Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.

The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.

In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).

Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).

“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”

Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
 

jremaly@mdedge.com

The use of low-dose aspirin among older people shows no effect in reducing the incidence of certain cancer types. However, the treatment – particularly with frequency of at least three times a week – is associated with reductions in mortality in bladder cancer and breast cancer, new observational research shows.

“The results presented here add to the accumulating evidence that aspirin may improve survival for some cancers,” the authors write in their cohort study that uses data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. The new research was published online Jan. 15 in JAMA Network Open. 

“Although prior research has been most heavily concentrated in gastrointestinal cancers, our analysis extends the advantages associated with aspirin use to other cancers, such as bladder and breast cancers,” they explained.

In commenting on the study, John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, head of the department of epidemiology and preventive medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, said the findings, though intriguing, are not necessarily conclusive.

“The data was derived from a very large and well-conducted study,” Dr. McNeil, who has led other research on aspirin use and the elderly, said in an interview.

“But these conclusions were drawn from the observational component of the study and therefore potentially confounded by other characteristics that differentiate aspirin users from nonusers.”
 

Aspirin/cancer research in older people lacking

With well-known reports of decreased risks of heart disease, stroke, cancer – particularly gastrointestinal cancers – and all-cause mortality, as many as 25%-50% of adults in the U.S. report taking aspirin daily or every other day.

However, evidence of the benefits relating to cancer, specifically in older people, has been inconsistent, with one recent notable study, the randomized, double-blind ASPREE trial, showing no effect of aspirin on cancer incidence, but a higher mortality rate in elderly patients randomly assigned to aspirin for primary prevention.

To further investigate the effects in older patients, first author Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, and colleagues with the National Cancer Institute evaluated data on patients who were either 65 years or older at baseline or who had reached aged 65 during follow-up in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial, which had enrollment from 1993 to 2001.

The authors identified 139,896 individuals with a mean age at baseline of 66.4 years; about half were women and 88.5% were non-Hispanic White.

Follow-up took place until the time of death, December 2014 for those who consented to follow-up, or December 2009 for those who refused consent to follow-up. The authors reported that there were 32,580 incident cancers, including 5.4% bladder, 14% breast, 1% esophageal, 1.2% gastric, 2.7% pancreatic, and 2.2% uterine cancers.

The study showed no association between aspirin use and the incidence of any of the cancer types included in the study among those over age 65.

However, further multivariate analysis of survival showed that, with follow-up adjusted to until the time of death, Dec. 31, 2015, or earlier refusal to consent, the use of aspirin at least three times per week was associated with reduced mortality in those with bladder (hazard ratio, 0.67) and breast (HR, 0.75) cancers, whereas no significant associations were observed with esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, or uterine cancer.

A similar association of any aspirin use (less than three times per week) with bladder (HR, 0.75) and breast (HR, 0.79) cancer survival was observed, the authors noted.

“These results may indicate that, for some cancer types, any aspirin use may be advantageous; however, greater benefit may be observed with increased frequency of use,” the authors wrote.
 

Mechanism speculation focuses on COX-2 pathway

Theories of the mechanisms behind a potential benefit of aspirin for those with bladder cancer include that urothelial cancer has increased RNA and protein expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and urinary prostaglandin E2, “suggesting up-regulation of the COX-2 pathway during cancer progression,” the authors wrote.  

In breast cancer, a similar elevated expression of COX-2 has been shown to predict disease outcomes, including progression and decreased survival.

“This may be partly due to the mechanistic interplay between angiogenesis, cell proliferation, apoptosis, and inflammatory processes,” the authors noted.

The study isn’t the first to show a benefit specifically with bladder cancer; other studies include recent research (J Urol. 2018 Nov;200[5]:1014-21) showing that daily aspirin use among patients with bladder cancer was associated with increased 5-year survival following radical cystectomy, the authors noted.

Dr. McNeil noted that the new findings from the U.S. researchers, particularly regarding bladder cancer, are of interest. “The reduction in mortality from breast cancer is modest, but the reduction in mortality from bladder cancer was more impressive,” he said.

“However, given the fact that this finding is observational data and was a sole finding among multiple comparisons, it must be seen as suggestive rather than proven.”

Regarding possible mechanisms, Dr. McNeil added that, like the bulk of the prior research, many questions remain.

“There have been many suggestions about ways that aspirin might work at a molecular and cellular level, but no firm consensus has been reached.”

The study authors and Dr. McNeil disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The use of low-dose aspirin among older people shows no effect in reducing the incidence of certain cancer types. However, the treatment – particularly with frequency of at least three times a week – is associated with reductions in mortality in bladder cancer and breast cancer, new observational research shows.

“The results presented here add to the accumulating evidence that aspirin may improve survival for some cancers,” the authors write in their cohort study that uses data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. The new research was published online Jan. 15 in JAMA Network Open. 

“Although prior research has been most heavily concentrated in gastrointestinal cancers, our analysis extends the advantages associated with aspirin use to other cancers, such as bladder and breast cancers,” they explained.

In commenting on the study, John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, head of the department of epidemiology and preventive medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, said the findings, though intriguing, are not necessarily conclusive.

“The data was derived from a very large and well-conducted study,” Dr. McNeil, who has led other research on aspirin use and the elderly, said in an interview.

“But these conclusions were drawn from the observational component of the study and therefore potentially confounded by other characteristics that differentiate aspirin users from nonusers.”
 

Aspirin/cancer research in older people lacking

With well-known reports of decreased risks of heart disease, stroke, cancer – particularly gastrointestinal cancers – and all-cause mortality, as many as 25%-50% of adults in the U.S. report taking aspirin daily or every other day.

However, evidence of the benefits relating to cancer, specifically in older people, has been inconsistent, with one recent notable study, the randomized, double-blind ASPREE trial, showing no effect of aspirin on cancer incidence, but a higher mortality rate in elderly patients randomly assigned to aspirin for primary prevention.

To further investigate the effects in older patients, first author Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, and colleagues with the National Cancer Institute evaluated data on patients who were either 65 years or older at baseline or who had reached aged 65 during follow-up in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial, which had enrollment from 1993 to 2001.

The authors identified 139,896 individuals with a mean age at baseline of 66.4 years; about half were women and 88.5% were non-Hispanic White.

Follow-up took place until the time of death, December 2014 for those who consented to follow-up, or December 2009 for those who refused consent to follow-up. The authors reported that there were 32,580 incident cancers, including 5.4% bladder, 14% breast, 1% esophageal, 1.2% gastric, 2.7% pancreatic, and 2.2% uterine cancers.

The study showed no association between aspirin use and the incidence of any of the cancer types included in the study among those over age 65.

However, further multivariate analysis of survival showed that, with follow-up adjusted to until the time of death, Dec. 31, 2015, or earlier refusal to consent, the use of aspirin at least three times per week was associated with reduced mortality in those with bladder (hazard ratio, 0.67) and breast (HR, 0.75) cancers, whereas no significant associations were observed with esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, or uterine cancer.

A similar association of any aspirin use (less than three times per week) with bladder (HR, 0.75) and breast (HR, 0.79) cancer survival was observed, the authors noted.

“These results may indicate that, for some cancer types, any aspirin use may be advantageous; however, greater benefit may be observed with increased frequency of use,” the authors wrote.
 

Mechanism speculation focuses on COX-2 pathway

Theories of the mechanisms behind a potential benefit of aspirin for those with bladder cancer include that urothelial cancer has increased RNA and protein expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and urinary prostaglandin E2, “suggesting up-regulation of the COX-2 pathway during cancer progression,” the authors wrote.  

In breast cancer, a similar elevated expression of COX-2 has been shown to predict disease outcomes, including progression and decreased survival.

“This may be partly due to the mechanistic interplay between angiogenesis, cell proliferation, apoptosis, and inflammatory processes,” the authors noted.

The study isn’t the first to show a benefit specifically with bladder cancer; other studies include recent research (J Urol. 2018 Nov;200[5]:1014-21) showing that daily aspirin use among patients with bladder cancer was associated with increased 5-year survival following radical cystectomy, the authors noted.

Dr. McNeil noted that the new findings from the U.S. researchers, particularly regarding bladder cancer, are of interest. “The reduction in mortality from breast cancer is modest, but the reduction in mortality from bladder cancer was more impressive,” he said.

“However, given the fact that this finding is observational data and was a sole finding among multiple comparisons, it must be seen as suggestive rather than proven.”

Regarding possible mechanisms, Dr. McNeil added that, like the bulk of the prior research, many questions remain.

“There have been many suggestions about ways that aspirin might work at a molecular and cellular level, but no firm consensus has been reached.”

The study authors and Dr. McNeil disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The use of low-dose aspirin among older people shows no effect in reducing the incidence of certain cancer types. However, the treatment – particularly with frequency of at least three times a week – is associated with reductions in mortality in bladder cancer and breast cancer, new observational research shows.

“The results presented here add to the accumulating evidence that aspirin may improve survival for some cancers,” the authors write in their cohort study that uses data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. The new research was published online Jan. 15 in JAMA Network Open. 

“Although prior research has been most heavily concentrated in gastrointestinal cancers, our analysis extends the advantages associated with aspirin use to other cancers, such as bladder and breast cancers,” they explained.

In commenting on the study, John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, head of the department of epidemiology and preventive medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, said the findings, though intriguing, are not necessarily conclusive.

“The data was derived from a very large and well-conducted study,” Dr. McNeil, who has led other research on aspirin use and the elderly, said in an interview.

“But these conclusions were drawn from the observational component of the study and therefore potentially confounded by other characteristics that differentiate aspirin users from nonusers.”
 

Aspirin/cancer research in older people lacking

With well-known reports of decreased risks of heart disease, stroke, cancer – particularly gastrointestinal cancers – and all-cause mortality, as many as 25%-50% of adults in the U.S. report taking aspirin daily or every other day.

However, evidence of the benefits relating to cancer, specifically in older people, has been inconsistent, with one recent notable study, the randomized, double-blind ASPREE trial, showing no effect of aspirin on cancer incidence, but a higher mortality rate in elderly patients randomly assigned to aspirin for primary prevention.

To further investigate the effects in older patients, first author Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, and colleagues with the National Cancer Institute evaluated data on patients who were either 65 years or older at baseline or who had reached aged 65 during follow-up in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial, which had enrollment from 1993 to 2001.

The authors identified 139,896 individuals with a mean age at baseline of 66.4 years; about half were women and 88.5% were non-Hispanic White.

Follow-up took place until the time of death, December 2014 for those who consented to follow-up, or December 2009 for those who refused consent to follow-up. The authors reported that there were 32,580 incident cancers, including 5.4% bladder, 14% breast, 1% esophageal, 1.2% gastric, 2.7% pancreatic, and 2.2% uterine cancers.

The study showed no association between aspirin use and the incidence of any of the cancer types included in the study among those over age 65.

However, further multivariate analysis of survival showed that, with follow-up adjusted to until the time of death, Dec. 31, 2015, or earlier refusal to consent, the use of aspirin at least three times per week was associated with reduced mortality in those with bladder (hazard ratio, 0.67) and breast (HR, 0.75) cancers, whereas no significant associations were observed with esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, or uterine cancer.

A similar association of any aspirin use (less than three times per week) with bladder (HR, 0.75) and breast (HR, 0.79) cancer survival was observed, the authors noted.

“These results may indicate that, for some cancer types, any aspirin use may be advantageous; however, greater benefit may be observed with increased frequency of use,” the authors wrote.
 

Mechanism speculation focuses on COX-2 pathway

Theories of the mechanisms behind a potential benefit of aspirin for those with bladder cancer include that urothelial cancer has increased RNA and protein expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and urinary prostaglandin E2, “suggesting up-regulation of the COX-2 pathway during cancer progression,” the authors wrote.  

In breast cancer, a similar elevated expression of COX-2 has been shown to predict disease outcomes, including progression and decreased survival.

“This may be partly due to the mechanistic interplay between angiogenesis, cell proliferation, apoptosis, and inflammatory processes,” the authors noted.

The study isn’t the first to show a benefit specifically with bladder cancer; other studies include recent research (J Urol. 2018 Nov;200[5]:1014-21) showing that daily aspirin use among patients with bladder cancer was associated with increased 5-year survival following radical cystectomy, the authors noted.

Dr. McNeil noted that the new findings from the U.S. researchers, particularly regarding bladder cancer, are of interest. “The reduction in mortality from breast cancer is modest, but the reduction in mortality from bladder cancer was more impressive,” he said.

“However, given the fact that this finding is observational data and was a sole finding among multiple comparisons, it must be seen as suggestive rather than proven.”

Regarding possible mechanisms, Dr. McNeil added that, like the bulk of the prior research, many questions remain.

“There have been many suggestions about ways that aspirin might work at a molecular and cellular level, but no firm consensus has been reached.”

The study authors and Dr. McNeil disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a semiautonomous algorithm to initiate treatment for hypertension emergencies in pregnancy significantly increased the number of individuals treated promptly, based on data from 959 obstetric patients.

Data show poor compliance with the current American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations for treatment of acute severe hypertension with no more than 30-60 minutes’ delay; low compliance may be caused by “multiple factors including lack of intravenous access, inadequate health care practitioner or nursing availability, and implicit racial biases,” wrote Courtney Martin, DO, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University School of Medicine and colleagues.

Semiautomated treatment algorithms have been used to improve timely treatment of conditions including myocardial infarction, heart failure, acute stroke, and asthma, but their use in obstetrics to date has been limited, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective cohort study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified pregnant and postpartum women treated for severe hypertension at a single center between January 2017 and March 2020. A semiautonomous treatment algorithm was implemented between May 2018 and March 2019. The algorithm included vital sign monitoring, blood pressure thresholds for diagnosis of severe hypertension, and automated order sets for recommended first-line antihypertensive therapy. The primary outcomes were treatment with antihypertensive therapy within 15, 30, and 60 minutes of diagnosis. “Severe hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure 160 mm Hg or higher or diastolic blood pressure 110 mm Hg or higher,” the researchers said.

The study population was divided into three groups; a preimplementation group (373 patients) managed between January 2017 and April 2018, a during-implementation group (334 patients) managed between May 2018 and March 2019, and a postimplementation group (252 patients) managed between April 2019 and March 2020. Patient demographics were similar among all three groups.
 

Timely treatment improves with algorithm

Overall, treatment of severe hypertension within 15 minutes of diagnosis was 36.5% preimplementation, 45.8% during implementation, and 55.6% postimplementation. Severe hypertension treatment within 30 minutes of diagnosis was 65.9% preimplementation, 77.8% during implementation, and 79.0% post implementation. Differences were significant between pre- and post implementation for 15 minutes and 30 minutes, but no significant differences occurred in the patients treated within 60 minutes before and after implementation of the algorithm.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to separate peer-to-peer education and other training from the impact of the algorithm, as well as a lack of data on the effect of the algorithm on maternal or neonatal outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results support the potential of a semiautonomous algorithm to significantly improve adherence to the recommended treatment guidelines for severe hypertension in pregnancy and post partum, they said. Given the expected increase in hypertensive disorders in pregnancy because of the trends in older age and higher obesity rates in pregnant women, “Integration of semiautonomous treatment algorithms similar to ours into routine obstetric practices could help reduce the health care burden and improve clinical outcomes, especially in areas with limited health care resources,” they concluded.
 

Algorithm may reduce disparities

The overall rise in maternal mortality in the United States remains a concern, but “Even more concerning are the disturbing racial disparities that persist across socioeconomic strata,” wrote Alisse Hauspurg, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh in an accompanying editorial. “There is clear evidence that expeditious treatment of obstetric hypertensive emergency reduces the risk of severe morbidities including stroke, eclampsia, and maternal death,” she emphasized, but compliance with the ACOG recommendations to treat severe hypertension within 30-60 minutes of confirmation remains low, she said.

In this study, not only did use of the algorithm reduce time to antihypertensive therapy, but more than 50% of patients were treated for severe hypertension within 15 minutes, and more than 90% within 60 minutes, “which was sustained after the implementation phase,” and aligns with the ACOG recommendations, Dr. Hauspurg said. “Although Martin et al.’s algorithm was limited to the initial management of obstetric hypertensive emergency, it could readily be expanded to follow the full ACOG algorithm for management of hypertension in pregnancy,” she noted.

In addition, Black women are more frequently diagnosed with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including severe hypertension, and the algorithm might improve disparities, she said.

“It is plausible that widespread implementation of such a semiautonomous algorithm at hospitals across the country could reduce delays in treatment and prevent hypertension-related morbidities,” said Dr. Hauspurg. “The use of innovative approaches to management of severe hypertension and other obstetric emergencies has the potential to allow provision of more equitable care by overcoming health care practitioner and system biases, which could meaningfully reduce disparities in care and change the trajectory of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States,” she emphasized.
 

Need to create culture of safety

“Maternal mortality in the United States is the highest among developed nations, and shocking disparities exist in outcomes for non-Hispanic Black and American Indian/Alaskan Native women,” said Lisa Hollier, MD, of Texas Children’s Health Plan in Bellaire. “In a California review of maternal deaths, the greatest quality improvement opportunities were missed diagnosis and ineffective treatment of preeclampsia and related diseases, which occurred in 65% of the cases where women died of preeclampsia/eclampsia,” she said.

The current study “is very timely as more and more states across the nation are participating in the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) programs to prevent pregnancy-related mortality,” Dr. Hollier noted.

“This study demonstrated a significant association between implementation of the algorithm and an increased percentage of treatment of severe hypertension within 30 minutes,” Dr. Hollier said. “With the implementation of a comprehensive program that included treatment algorithms, the Illinois Perinatal Quality Collaborative improved timely treatment for women with severe high blood pressure, increasing the percentage of patients treated within 60 minutes from 41% at baseline to 79% in the first year of the project.”

The take-home message is that “implementation of the semiautonomous treatment algorithm can address important clinical variation, including delays in appropriate treatment of severe hypertension,” said Dr. Hollier. However, “One of the potential barriers [to use of an algorithm] is the need for accurate, real-time clinical assessment. Resources must be available to ensure appropriate monitoring,” Dr. Hollier noted. “Collaboration and support of implementation of these treatment algorithms must extend through the nursing staff, the physicians, and advanced-practice providers. Medical staff and administrative leaders are essential in creating a culture of safety and continuous process improvement,” she said.

In addition, “long-term follow-up on the implementation of broader quality improvement programs is essential,” Dr. Hollier said. “While implementation of an algorithm can, and did, result in process improvements, assessment of broader implementation of evidence-based bundles, combined with a systematic approach to redesign of multiple related processes needs to occur and include outcomes of severe maternal morbidity and mortality,” she explained.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Neither Dr. Hauspurg nor Dr. Hollier had financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of a semiautonomous algorithm to initiate treatment for hypertension emergencies in pregnancy significantly increased the number of individuals treated promptly, based on data from 959 obstetric patients.

Data show poor compliance with the current American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations for treatment of acute severe hypertension with no more than 30-60 minutes’ delay; low compliance may be caused by “multiple factors including lack of intravenous access, inadequate health care practitioner or nursing availability, and implicit racial biases,” wrote Courtney Martin, DO, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University School of Medicine and colleagues.

Semiautomated treatment algorithms have been used to improve timely treatment of conditions including myocardial infarction, heart failure, acute stroke, and asthma, but their use in obstetrics to date has been limited, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective cohort study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified pregnant and postpartum women treated for severe hypertension at a single center between January 2017 and March 2020. A semiautonomous treatment algorithm was implemented between May 2018 and March 2019. The algorithm included vital sign monitoring, blood pressure thresholds for diagnosis of severe hypertension, and automated order sets for recommended first-line antihypertensive therapy. The primary outcomes were treatment with antihypertensive therapy within 15, 30, and 60 minutes of diagnosis. “Severe hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure 160 mm Hg or higher or diastolic blood pressure 110 mm Hg or higher,” the researchers said.

The study population was divided into three groups; a preimplementation group (373 patients) managed between January 2017 and April 2018, a during-implementation group (334 patients) managed between May 2018 and March 2019, and a postimplementation group (252 patients) managed between April 2019 and March 2020. Patient demographics were similar among all three groups.
 

Timely treatment improves with algorithm

Overall, treatment of severe hypertension within 15 minutes of diagnosis was 36.5% preimplementation, 45.8% during implementation, and 55.6% postimplementation. Severe hypertension treatment within 30 minutes of diagnosis was 65.9% preimplementation, 77.8% during implementation, and 79.0% post implementation. Differences were significant between pre- and post implementation for 15 minutes and 30 minutes, but no significant differences occurred in the patients treated within 60 minutes before and after implementation of the algorithm.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to separate peer-to-peer education and other training from the impact of the algorithm, as well as a lack of data on the effect of the algorithm on maternal or neonatal outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results support the potential of a semiautonomous algorithm to significantly improve adherence to the recommended treatment guidelines for severe hypertension in pregnancy and post partum, they said. Given the expected increase in hypertensive disorders in pregnancy because of the trends in older age and higher obesity rates in pregnant women, “Integration of semiautonomous treatment algorithms similar to ours into routine obstetric practices could help reduce the health care burden and improve clinical outcomes, especially in areas with limited health care resources,” they concluded.
 

Algorithm may reduce disparities

The overall rise in maternal mortality in the United States remains a concern, but “Even more concerning are the disturbing racial disparities that persist across socioeconomic strata,” wrote Alisse Hauspurg, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh in an accompanying editorial. “There is clear evidence that expeditious treatment of obstetric hypertensive emergency reduces the risk of severe morbidities including stroke, eclampsia, and maternal death,” she emphasized, but compliance with the ACOG recommendations to treat severe hypertension within 30-60 minutes of confirmation remains low, she said.

In this study, not only did use of the algorithm reduce time to antihypertensive therapy, but more than 50% of patients were treated for severe hypertension within 15 minutes, and more than 90% within 60 minutes, “which was sustained after the implementation phase,” and aligns with the ACOG recommendations, Dr. Hauspurg said. “Although Martin et al.’s algorithm was limited to the initial management of obstetric hypertensive emergency, it could readily be expanded to follow the full ACOG algorithm for management of hypertension in pregnancy,” she noted.

In addition, Black women are more frequently diagnosed with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including severe hypertension, and the algorithm might improve disparities, she said.

“It is plausible that widespread implementation of such a semiautonomous algorithm at hospitals across the country could reduce delays in treatment and prevent hypertension-related morbidities,” said Dr. Hauspurg. “The use of innovative approaches to management of severe hypertension and other obstetric emergencies has the potential to allow provision of more equitable care by overcoming health care practitioner and system biases, which could meaningfully reduce disparities in care and change the trajectory of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States,” she emphasized.
 

Need to create culture of safety

“Maternal mortality in the United States is the highest among developed nations, and shocking disparities exist in outcomes for non-Hispanic Black and American Indian/Alaskan Native women,” said Lisa Hollier, MD, of Texas Children’s Health Plan in Bellaire. “In a California review of maternal deaths, the greatest quality improvement opportunities were missed diagnosis and ineffective treatment of preeclampsia and related diseases, which occurred in 65% of the cases where women died of preeclampsia/eclampsia,” she said.

The current study “is very timely as more and more states across the nation are participating in the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) programs to prevent pregnancy-related mortality,” Dr. Hollier noted.

“This study demonstrated a significant association between implementation of the algorithm and an increased percentage of treatment of severe hypertension within 30 minutes,” Dr. Hollier said. “With the implementation of a comprehensive program that included treatment algorithms, the Illinois Perinatal Quality Collaborative improved timely treatment for women with severe high blood pressure, increasing the percentage of patients treated within 60 minutes from 41% at baseline to 79% in the first year of the project.”

The take-home message is that “implementation of the semiautonomous treatment algorithm can address important clinical variation, including delays in appropriate treatment of severe hypertension,” said Dr. Hollier. However, “One of the potential barriers [to use of an algorithm] is the need for accurate, real-time clinical assessment. Resources must be available to ensure appropriate monitoring,” Dr. Hollier noted. “Collaboration and support of implementation of these treatment algorithms must extend through the nursing staff, the physicians, and advanced-practice providers. Medical staff and administrative leaders are essential in creating a culture of safety and continuous process improvement,” she said.

In addition, “long-term follow-up on the implementation of broader quality improvement programs is essential,” Dr. Hollier said. “While implementation of an algorithm can, and did, result in process improvements, assessment of broader implementation of evidence-based bundles, combined with a systematic approach to redesign of multiple related processes needs to occur and include outcomes of severe maternal morbidity and mortality,” she explained.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Neither Dr. Hauspurg nor Dr. Hollier had financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of a semiautonomous algorithm to initiate treatment for hypertension emergencies in pregnancy significantly increased the number of individuals treated promptly, based on data from 959 obstetric patients.

Data show poor compliance with the current American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations for treatment of acute severe hypertension with no more than 30-60 minutes’ delay; low compliance may be caused by “multiple factors including lack of intravenous access, inadequate health care practitioner or nursing availability, and implicit racial biases,” wrote Courtney Martin, DO, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University School of Medicine and colleagues.

Semiautomated treatment algorithms have been used to improve timely treatment of conditions including myocardial infarction, heart failure, acute stroke, and asthma, but their use in obstetrics to date has been limited, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective cohort study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified pregnant and postpartum women treated for severe hypertension at a single center between January 2017 and March 2020. A semiautonomous treatment algorithm was implemented between May 2018 and March 2019. The algorithm included vital sign monitoring, blood pressure thresholds for diagnosis of severe hypertension, and automated order sets for recommended first-line antihypertensive therapy. The primary outcomes were treatment with antihypertensive therapy within 15, 30, and 60 minutes of diagnosis. “Severe hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure 160 mm Hg or higher or diastolic blood pressure 110 mm Hg or higher,” the researchers said.

The study population was divided into three groups; a preimplementation group (373 patients) managed between January 2017 and April 2018, a during-implementation group (334 patients) managed between May 2018 and March 2019, and a postimplementation group (252 patients) managed between April 2019 and March 2020. Patient demographics were similar among all three groups.
 

Timely treatment improves with algorithm

Overall, treatment of severe hypertension within 15 minutes of diagnosis was 36.5% preimplementation, 45.8% during implementation, and 55.6% postimplementation. Severe hypertension treatment within 30 minutes of diagnosis was 65.9% preimplementation, 77.8% during implementation, and 79.0% post implementation. Differences were significant between pre- and post implementation for 15 minutes and 30 minutes, but no significant differences occurred in the patients treated within 60 minutes before and after implementation of the algorithm.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to separate peer-to-peer education and other training from the impact of the algorithm, as well as a lack of data on the effect of the algorithm on maternal or neonatal outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results support the potential of a semiautonomous algorithm to significantly improve adherence to the recommended treatment guidelines for severe hypertension in pregnancy and post partum, they said. Given the expected increase in hypertensive disorders in pregnancy because of the trends in older age and higher obesity rates in pregnant women, “Integration of semiautonomous treatment algorithms similar to ours into routine obstetric practices could help reduce the health care burden and improve clinical outcomes, especially in areas with limited health care resources,” they concluded.
 

Algorithm may reduce disparities

The overall rise in maternal mortality in the United States remains a concern, but “Even more concerning are the disturbing racial disparities that persist across socioeconomic strata,” wrote Alisse Hauspurg, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh in an accompanying editorial. “There is clear evidence that expeditious treatment of obstetric hypertensive emergency reduces the risk of severe morbidities including stroke, eclampsia, and maternal death,” she emphasized, but compliance with the ACOG recommendations to treat severe hypertension within 30-60 minutes of confirmation remains low, she said.

In this study, not only did use of the algorithm reduce time to antihypertensive therapy, but more than 50% of patients were treated for severe hypertension within 15 minutes, and more than 90% within 60 minutes, “which was sustained after the implementation phase,” and aligns with the ACOG recommendations, Dr. Hauspurg said. “Although Martin et al.’s algorithm was limited to the initial management of obstetric hypertensive emergency, it could readily be expanded to follow the full ACOG algorithm for management of hypertension in pregnancy,” she noted.

In addition, Black women are more frequently diagnosed with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including severe hypertension, and the algorithm might improve disparities, she said.

“It is plausible that widespread implementation of such a semiautonomous algorithm at hospitals across the country could reduce delays in treatment and prevent hypertension-related morbidities,” said Dr. Hauspurg. “The use of innovative approaches to management of severe hypertension and other obstetric emergencies has the potential to allow provision of more equitable care by overcoming health care practitioner and system biases, which could meaningfully reduce disparities in care and change the trajectory of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States,” she emphasized.
 

Need to create culture of safety

“Maternal mortality in the United States is the highest among developed nations, and shocking disparities exist in outcomes for non-Hispanic Black and American Indian/Alaskan Native women,” said Lisa Hollier, MD, of Texas Children’s Health Plan in Bellaire. “In a California review of maternal deaths, the greatest quality improvement opportunities were missed diagnosis and ineffective treatment of preeclampsia and related diseases, which occurred in 65% of the cases where women died of preeclampsia/eclampsia,” she said.

The current study “is very timely as more and more states across the nation are participating in the AIM (Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health) programs to prevent pregnancy-related mortality,” Dr. Hollier noted.

“This study demonstrated a significant association between implementation of the algorithm and an increased percentage of treatment of severe hypertension within 30 minutes,” Dr. Hollier said. “With the implementation of a comprehensive program that included treatment algorithms, the Illinois Perinatal Quality Collaborative improved timely treatment for women with severe high blood pressure, increasing the percentage of patients treated within 60 minutes from 41% at baseline to 79% in the first year of the project.”

The take-home message is that “implementation of the semiautonomous treatment algorithm can address important clinical variation, including delays in appropriate treatment of severe hypertension,” said Dr. Hollier. However, “One of the potential barriers [to use of an algorithm] is the need for accurate, real-time clinical assessment. Resources must be available to ensure appropriate monitoring,” Dr. Hollier noted. “Collaboration and support of implementation of these treatment algorithms must extend through the nursing staff, the physicians, and advanced-practice providers. Medical staff and administrative leaders are essential in creating a culture of safety and continuous process improvement,” she said.

In addition, “long-term follow-up on the implementation of broader quality improvement programs is essential,” Dr. Hollier said. “While implementation of an algorithm can, and did, result in process improvements, assessment of broader implementation of evidence-based bundles, combined with a systematic approach to redesign of multiple related processes needs to occur and include outcomes of severe maternal morbidity and mortality,” she explained.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Neither Dr. Hauspurg nor Dr. Hollier had financial conflicts to disclose.

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.

Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”

Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.

Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.

“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.

The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.

“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”

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

The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.

Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”

Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.

Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.

“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.

The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.

“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”

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

The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.

Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”

Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.

Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.

“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.

The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.

“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More new evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More new evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More new evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications for maternal COVID-19 vaccination

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus emerging from maternal antibodies data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications for maternal COVID-19 vaccination

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus emerging from maternal antibodies data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications for maternal COVID-19 vaccination

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus emerging from maternal antibodies data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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