Hematology

The application of improved chemotherapy regimens and novel chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has increased the complete remission rate to 85%-90%, however, secondary ALL is common, and the prolonged long-term survival rate is only 30%-50% among ALL patients.

Favorable outcomes decrease with increasing age, and overall survival is greater for adult patients with de novo ALL, compared with patients with secondary ALL, according to the Jiansheng Zhong of the department of hematology, Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, and colleagues in a new study published online in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed the results of 8,305 ALL patients undergoing chemotherapy from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database during 1975 to 2015, of which 7,454 (80.1%) cases were in the de novo ALL group, and 851 (19.9%) cases were in the secondary acute lymphoblastic leukemia (sALL) group. They used propensity matching before assessing overall survival between the two groups.

Demographically, the results showed that women ALL patients had a lower risk of death than men [hazard ratio (HR) = .93, P < .01], and that the mortality in blacks was higher than that of whites (HR = 1.29, P < .001).

For both ALL groups, patients aged 45-75 years and patients 75 years and older had a higher risk of death than younger patients (HR = 1.82, P < .001 and HR = 3.85, P < .001, respectively).

Although the mean age of de novo ALL group was significantly less than that of the sALL group (51.1 vs. 60.3 years, P < .001), after the propensity matching, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year overall survival of the de novo ALL group was higher than that of the sALL group at all ages (18-75 years, P < .001).

The authors speculated that one reason for the across-the-board increased mortality in sALL, compared with de novo ALL, might be the fact that sALL patients have been reported to have more MLL gene rearrangements and chromosomal aberrations than are found in de novo ALL. This has previously been suggested as the reason for poor prognosis in secondary ALL patients.

One limitation of the study mentioned by the authors was the lack of individualized chemotherapy data available for analysis. “Considering that the features of sALL and chemotherapeutic modalities or therapy protocols may affect the mortality of sALL, more work is needed to be done in the future to demonstrate the association between chemotherapy and the prognosis of ALL patients, and the influence of cytogenetic lesions and molecular characteristics on sALL,” they concluded.

The authors declared they had no conflicts of interest.
 

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zhong J et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Apr 30; doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2020.04.013.

The application of improved chemotherapy regimens and novel chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has increased the complete remission rate to 85%-90%, however, secondary ALL is common, and the prolonged long-term survival rate is only 30%-50% among ALL patients.

Favorable outcomes decrease with increasing age, and overall survival is greater for adult patients with de novo ALL, compared with patients with secondary ALL, according to the Jiansheng Zhong of the department of hematology, Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, and colleagues in a new study published online in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed the results of 8,305 ALL patients undergoing chemotherapy from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database during 1975 to 2015, of which 7,454 (80.1%) cases were in the de novo ALL group, and 851 (19.9%) cases were in the secondary acute lymphoblastic leukemia (sALL) group. They used propensity matching before assessing overall survival between the two groups.

Demographically, the results showed that women ALL patients had a lower risk of death than men [hazard ratio (HR) = .93, P < .01], and that the mortality in blacks was higher than that of whites (HR = 1.29, P < .001).

For both ALL groups, patients aged 45-75 years and patients 75 years and older had a higher risk of death than younger patients (HR = 1.82, P < .001 and HR = 3.85, P < .001, respectively).

Although the mean age of de novo ALL group was significantly less than that of the sALL group (51.1 vs. 60.3 years, P < .001), after the propensity matching, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year overall survival of the de novo ALL group was higher than that of the sALL group at all ages (18-75 years, P < .001).

The authors speculated that one reason for the across-the-board increased mortality in sALL, compared with de novo ALL, might be the fact that sALL patients have been reported to have more MLL gene rearrangements and chromosomal aberrations than are found in de novo ALL. This has previously been suggested as the reason for poor prognosis in secondary ALL patients.

One limitation of the study mentioned by the authors was the lack of individualized chemotherapy data available for analysis. “Considering that the features of sALL and chemotherapeutic modalities or therapy protocols may affect the mortality of sALL, more work is needed to be done in the future to demonstrate the association between chemotherapy and the prognosis of ALL patients, and the influence of cytogenetic lesions and molecular characteristics on sALL,” they concluded.

The authors declared they had no conflicts of interest.
 

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zhong J et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Apr 30; doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2020.04.013.

The application of improved chemotherapy regimens and novel chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has increased the complete remission rate to 85%-90%, however, secondary ALL is common, and the prolonged long-term survival rate is only 30%-50% among ALL patients.

Favorable outcomes decrease with increasing age, and overall survival is greater for adult patients with de novo ALL, compared with patients with secondary ALL, according to the Jiansheng Zhong of the department of hematology, Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, and colleagues in a new study published online in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed the results of 8,305 ALL patients undergoing chemotherapy from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database during 1975 to 2015, of which 7,454 (80.1%) cases were in the de novo ALL group, and 851 (19.9%) cases were in the secondary acute lymphoblastic leukemia (sALL) group. They used propensity matching before assessing overall survival between the two groups.

Demographically, the results showed that women ALL patients had a lower risk of death than men [hazard ratio (HR) = .93, P < .01], and that the mortality in blacks was higher than that of whites (HR = 1.29, P < .001).

For both ALL groups, patients aged 45-75 years and patients 75 years and older had a higher risk of death than younger patients (HR = 1.82, P < .001 and HR = 3.85, P < .001, respectively).

Although the mean age of de novo ALL group was significantly less than that of the sALL group (51.1 vs. 60.3 years, P < .001), after the propensity matching, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year overall survival of the de novo ALL group was higher than that of the sALL group at all ages (18-75 years, P < .001).

The authors speculated that one reason for the across-the-board increased mortality in sALL, compared with de novo ALL, might be the fact that sALL patients have been reported to have more MLL gene rearrangements and chromosomal aberrations than are found in de novo ALL. This has previously been suggested as the reason for poor prognosis in secondary ALL patients.

One limitation of the study mentioned by the authors was the lack of individualized chemotherapy data available for analysis. “Considering that the features of sALL and chemotherapeutic modalities or therapy protocols may affect the mortality of sALL, more work is needed to be done in the future to demonstrate the association between chemotherapy and the prognosis of ALL patients, and the influence of cytogenetic lesions and molecular characteristics on sALL,” they concluded.

The authors declared they had no conflicts of interest.
 

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zhong J et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Apr 30; doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2020.04.013.

A blood test detected 11 of 11 cases of colorectal cancer in a study involving 354 patients, and also spotted a majority of cases – 40 out of 53 – in which participants had advanced adenomas, an investigator said.

Results from a single-center study of CellMax Life’s FirstSight blood test were released as a poster as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week^®, which was canceled because of COVID-19.

For a study conducted at one site, the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto (Calif.) Healthcare System, Shai Friedland, MD, and colleagues recruited 354 patients between ages 45 and 80 who were scheduled for elective colonoscopy. The researchers excluded people with a personal history of cancer or inflammatory bowel disease. They used CellMax’s FirstSight test on blood samples from the study participants.

The FirstSight test result was positive for colorectal cancer in all 11 patients in the study who were found by colonoscopy to have this condition, said Dr. Friedland, who is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and chief of gastroenterology at the VA Palo Alto Healthcare System. Thus, the test showed a sensitivity of 100% in this instance.

Among the 53 study participants found by colonoscopy to have advanced adenoma, 40 were positive on FirstSight; thus, so the test has a sensitivity of 75.5% for this result.

Among 79 patients who had negative colonoscopy results, meaning they were judged free of cancer or polyps, the test showed 8 as having signs of disease or growths.

“If you had a large adenoma that was removed years ago and now you have a negative colonoscopy, your score might still be high,” Dr. Friedland said in a recorded presentation for DDW. “In other words, the changes that are detectable in your blood might persist even after the polypectomy.”

He said there are plans to soon start a large-scale multicenter study of the CellMax assay.

“The blood test has the potential to fill an unmet need by giving patients a highly sensitive convenient option for colorectal cancer screening,” he said.

CellMax already is seeking to position its test as a more convenient alternative to either colonoscopy or the Cologuard screening test. Many patients put off cancer screening because of the need to take time off from work and the invasive nature of colonoscopy. Exact Sciences has used direct-to-consumer advertising to promote its Cologuard home-based test as a more convenient alternative to colonoscopy, but its product requires patients to collect their own stool samples and mail them to a lab, a process many people find off-putting.

Public health advocates, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), have for years been pressing for wider screening of American adults for colon cancer. USPSTF is in the midst of updating its recommendations on colon cancer. In announcing its latest update of these recommendations in 2016, USPSTF said “the best screening test is the one that gets done” (JAMA. 2016;315[23]:2564-75).

USPSTF pressed for maximizing the total proportion of the eligible population, a point Dr. Friedland echoed in a CellMax press release.

“For colon cancer screening to be most effective, it is essential to detect precancerous polyps and then perform a colonoscopy to remove the polyps,” said Dr. Friedland in the CellMax press release. “Giving patients the option of getting a blood test for screening would undoubtedly increase compliance and thereby reduce mortality from colorectal cancer.”

In the DDW presentation, Dr. Friedland and colleagues also said the CellMax test showed greater sensitivity (100%) for colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions (75.5%) than did Cologuard (92.3% for colorectal cancer and 42.4% for advanced precancerous lesions).

Cara Connelly, Director of Public Relations and Corporate Communications for Exact Sciences said that the company “is dedicated to getting more people screened for colorectal cancer and applaud the researchers for their efforts. We look forward to hearing more about the performance of this test in a prospective multisite study with nonsymptomatic patients.”

Naresh T. Gunaratnam, MD, a gastroenterologist and research director at Huron Gastro in Ypsilanti, Mich., said he is concerned that aggressive promotion of alternative tests may obscure the benefits of colonoscopy. Dr. Gunaratnam, a 2019 winner of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Distinguished Clinician Award, has been a public critic of the marketing of colon cancer tests, which emphasize the convenience of these products. When asked by MDedge to comment on the CellMax-funded study, Dr. Gunaratnam said alternative tests do have a place for the care of patients who cannot or will not have a colonoscopy.

“But if you convince a patient who would be willing to have a colonoscopy not to, that’s a disservice,” he said.

“If you want the best test, the one that is best at finding cancers and finding polyps and the only one that can remove the polyp, that’s colonoscopy,” Dr. Gunaratnam added. “One day there may be a pill you can swallow that blows up the polyps, but we’re not there yet. We have to mechanically remove them.”

SOURCE: Friedland S et al. DDW 2020, eposter 575.

A blood test detected 11 of 11 cases of colorectal cancer in a study involving 354 patients, and also spotted a majority of cases – 40 out of 53 – in which participants had advanced adenomas, an investigator said.

Results from a single-center study of CellMax Life’s FirstSight blood test were released as a poster as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week^®, which was canceled because of COVID-19.

For a study conducted at one site, the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto (Calif.) Healthcare System, Shai Friedland, MD, and colleagues recruited 354 patients between ages 45 and 80 who were scheduled for elective colonoscopy. The researchers excluded people with a personal history of cancer or inflammatory bowel disease. They used CellMax’s FirstSight test on blood samples from the study participants.

The FirstSight test result was positive for colorectal cancer in all 11 patients in the study who were found by colonoscopy to have this condition, said Dr. Friedland, who is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and chief of gastroenterology at the VA Palo Alto Healthcare System. Thus, the test showed a sensitivity of 100% in this instance.

Among the 53 study participants found by colonoscopy to have advanced adenoma, 40 were positive on FirstSight; thus, so the test has a sensitivity of 75.5% for this result.

Among 79 patients who had negative colonoscopy results, meaning they were judged free of cancer or polyps, the test showed 8 as having signs of disease or growths.

“If you had a large adenoma that was removed years ago and now you have a negative colonoscopy, your score might still be high,” Dr. Friedland said in a recorded presentation for DDW. “In other words, the changes that are detectable in your blood might persist even after the polypectomy.”

He said there are plans to soon start a large-scale multicenter study of the CellMax assay.

“The blood test has the potential to fill an unmet need by giving patients a highly sensitive convenient option for colorectal cancer screening,” he said.

CellMax already is seeking to position its test as a more convenient alternative to either colonoscopy or the Cologuard screening test. Many patients put off cancer screening because of the need to take time off from work and the invasive nature of colonoscopy. Exact Sciences has used direct-to-consumer advertising to promote its Cologuard home-based test as a more convenient alternative to colonoscopy, but its product requires patients to collect their own stool samples and mail them to a lab, a process many people find off-putting.

Public health advocates, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), have for years been pressing for wider screening of American adults for colon cancer. USPSTF is in the midst of updating its recommendations on colon cancer. In announcing its latest update of these recommendations in 2016, USPSTF said “the best screening test is the one that gets done” (JAMA. 2016;315[23]:2564-75).

USPSTF pressed for maximizing the total proportion of the eligible population, a point Dr. Friedland echoed in a CellMax press release.

“For colon cancer screening to be most effective, it is essential to detect precancerous polyps and then perform a colonoscopy to remove the polyps,” said Dr. Friedland in the CellMax press release. “Giving patients the option of getting a blood test for screening would undoubtedly increase compliance and thereby reduce mortality from colorectal cancer.”

In the DDW presentation, Dr. Friedland and colleagues also said the CellMax test showed greater sensitivity (100%) for colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions (75.5%) than did Cologuard (92.3% for colorectal cancer and 42.4% for advanced precancerous lesions).

Cara Connelly, Director of Public Relations and Corporate Communications for Exact Sciences said that the company “is dedicated to getting more people screened for colorectal cancer and applaud the researchers for their efforts. We look forward to hearing more about the performance of this test in a prospective multisite study with nonsymptomatic patients.”

Naresh T. Gunaratnam, MD, a gastroenterologist and research director at Huron Gastro in Ypsilanti, Mich., said he is concerned that aggressive promotion of alternative tests may obscure the benefits of colonoscopy. Dr. Gunaratnam, a 2019 winner of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Distinguished Clinician Award, has been a public critic of the marketing of colon cancer tests, which emphasize the convenience of these products. When asked by MDedge to comment on the CellMax-funded study, Dr. Gunaratnam said alternative tests do have a place for the care of patients who cannot or will not have a colonoscopy.

“But if you convince a patient who would be willing to have a colonoscopy not to, that’s a disservice,” he said.

“If you want the best test, the one that is best at finding cancers and finding polyps and the only one that can remove the polyp, that’s colonoscopy,” Dr. Gunaratnam added. “One day there may be a pill you can swallow that blows up the polyps, but we’re not there yet. We have to mechanically remove them.”

SOURCE: Friedland S et al. DDW 2020, eposter 575.

A blood test detected 11 of 11 cases of colorectal cancer in a study involving 354 patients, and also spotted a majority of cases – 40 out of 53 – in which participants had advanced adenomas, an investigator said.

Results from a single-center study of CellMax Life’s FirstSight blood test were released as a poster as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week^®, which was canceled because of COVID-19.

For a study conducted at one site, the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto (Calif.) Healthcare System, Shai Friedland, MD, and colleagues recruited 354 patients between ages 45 and 80 who were scheduled for elective colonoscopy. The researchers excluded people with a personal history of cancer or inflammatory bowel disease. They used CellMax’s FirstSight test on blood samples from the study participants.

The FirstSight test result was positive for colorectal cancer in all 11 patients in the study who were found by colonoscopy to have this condition, said Dr. Friedland, who is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University and chief of gastroenterology at the VA Palo Alto Healthcare System. Thus, the test showed a sensitivity of 100% in this instance.

Among the 53 study participants found by colonoscopy to have advanced adenoma, 40 were positive on FirstSight; thus, so the test has a sensitivity of 75.5% for this result.

Among 79 patients who had negative colonoscopy results, meaning they were judged free of cancer or polyps, the test showed 8 as having signs of disease or growths.

“If you had a large adenoma that was removed years ago and now you have a negative colonoscopy, your score might still be high,” Dr. Friedland said in a recorded presentation for DDW. “In other words, the changes that are detectable in your blood might persist even after the polypectomy.”

He said there are plans to soon start a large-scale multicenter study of the CellMax assay.

“The blood test has the potential to fill an unmet need by giving patients a highly sensitive convenient option for colorectal cancer screening,” he said.

CellMax already is seeking to position its test as a more convenient alternative to either colonoscopy or the Cologuard screening test. Many patients put off cancer screening because of the need to take time off from work and the invasive nature of colonoscopy. Exact Sciences has used direct-to-consumer advertising to promote its Cologuard home-based test as a more convenient alternative to colonoscopy, but its product requires patients to collect their own stool samples and mail them to a lab, a process many people find off-putting.

Public health advocates, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), have for years been pressing for wider screening of American adults for colon cancer. USPSTF is in the midst of updating its recommendations on colon cancer. In announcing its latest update of these recommendations in 2016, USPSTF said “the best screening test is the one that gets done” (JAMA. 2016;315[23]:2564-75).

USPSTF pressed for maximizing the total proportion of the eligible population, a point Dr. Friedland echoed in a CellMax press release.

“For colon cancer screening to be most effective, it is essential to detect precancerous polyps and then perform a colonoscopy to remove the polyps,” said Dr. Friedland in the CellMax press release. “Giving patients the option of getting a blood test for screening would undoubtedly increase compliance and thereby reduce mortality from colorectal cancer.”

In the DDW presentation, Dr. Friedland and colleagues also said the CellMax test showed greater sensitivity (100%) for colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions (75.5%) than did Cologuard (92.3% for colorectal cancer and 42.4% for advanced precancerous lesions).

Cara Connelly, Director of Public Relations and Corporate Communications for Exact Sciences said that the company “is dedicated to getting more people screened for colorectal cancer and applaud the researchers for their efforts. We look forward to hearing more about the performance of this test in a prospective multisite study with nonsymptomatic patients.”

Naresh T. Gunaratnam, MD, a gastroenterologist and research director at Huron Gastro in Ypsilanti, Mich., said he is concerned that aggressive promotion of alternative tests may obscure the benefits of colonoscopy. Dr. Gunaratnam, a 2019 winner of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Distinguished Clinician Award, has been a public critic of the marketing of colon cancer tests, which emphasize the convenience of these products. When asked by MDedge to comment on the CellMax-funded study, Dr. Gunaratnam said alternative tests do have a place for the care of patients who cannot or will not have a colonoscopy.

“But if you convince a patient who would be willing to have a colonoscopy not to, that’s a disservice,” he said.

“If you want the best test, the one that is best at finding cancers and finding polyps and the only one that can remove the polyp, that’s colonoscopy,” Dr. Gunaratnam added. “One day there may be a pill you can swallow that blows up the polyps, but we’re not there yet. We have to mechanically remove them.”

SOURCE: Friedland S et al. DDW 2020, eposter 575.

Sickle cell disease is associated with worse long-term bone health than that of the general population, and SCD patients are more likely to experience vitamin D [25(OH)D] deficiency. Oral vitamin D3 supplementation can achieve protective levels in children with sickle cell disease, and a daily dose was able to achieved optimal blood levels, according to a report published online in Bone.

The researchers performed a prospective, longitudinal, single-center study of 80 children with SCD. They collected demographic, clinical, and management data, as well as 25(OH)D levels. Bone densitometries (DXA) were also collected.

Among the 80 patients were included in the analysis, there were significant differences between the means of 25(OH)D levels based on whether the patient started prophylactic treatment as an infant or not (35.7 vs. 27.9 ng/mL, respectively [P = .014]), according to the researchers.

They also found that, in multivariate analysis, an oral 800 IU daily dose of vitamin D3 was shown to be a protective factor (P = .044) in reaching optimal 25(OH)D blood levels (≥ 30 ng/mL).

Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that those patients younger than 10 years of age reached optimal levels significantly earlier than older patients when on supplementation (P = .002), as did those patients who were not being treated with hydroxyurea (P = .039), the researchers wrote.

Significant differences were seen between the mean bone mineral density in both DXAs performed when comparing suboptimal vs. optimal blood levels of 25(OH)D (0.54 g/cm² vs. 0.64 g/cm2, respectively, P = .001), for the initial DXA, and for the most recent DXA (0.59 g/cm² vs. 0.77 g/cm², respectively, P = .044). “VitD3 prophylaxis is a safe practice in SCD. It is important to start this prophylactic treatment when the child is an infant. The daily regimen with 800 IU could be more effective for reaching levels ≥ 30 ng/mL, and, especially in preadolescent and adolescent patients, we should raise awareness about the importance of good bone health,” the authors concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Garrido C et al. Bone. 2020;133: doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115228.

Sickle cell disease is associated with worse long-term bone health than that of the general population, and SCD patients are more likely to experience vitamin D [25(OH)D] deficiency. Oral vitamin D3 supplementation can achieve protective levels in children with sickle cell disease, and a daily dose was able to achieved optimal blood levels, according to a report published online in Bone.

The researchers performed a prospective, longitudinal, single-center study of 80 children with SCD. They collected demographic, clinical, and management data, as well as 25(OH)D levels. Bone densitometries (DXA) were also collected.

Among the 80 patients were included in the analysis, there were significant differences between the means of 25(OH)D levels based on whether the patient started prophylactic treatment as an infant or not (35.7 vs. 27.9 ng/mL, respectively [P = .014]), according to the researchers.

They also found that, in multivariate analysis, an oral 800 IU daily dose of vitamin D3 was shown to be a protective factor (P = .044) in reaching optimal 25(OH)D blood levels (≥ 30 ng/mL).

Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that those patients younger than 10 years of age reached optimal levels significantly earlier than older patients when on supplementation (P = .002), as did those patients who were not being treated with hydroxyurea (P = .039), the researchers wrote.

Significant differences were seen between the mean bone mineral density in both DXAs performed when comparing suboptimal vs. optimal blood levels of 25(OH)D (0.54 g/cm² vs. 0.64 g/cm2, respectively, P = .001), for the initial DXA, and for the most recent DXA (0.59 g/cm² vs. 0.77 g/cm², respectively, P = .044). “VitD3 prophylaxis is a safe practice in SCD. It is important to start this prophylactic treatment when the child is an infant. The daily regimen with 800 IU could be more effective for reaching levels ≥ 30 ng/mL, and, especially in preadolescent and adolescent patients, we should raise awareness about the importance of good bone health,” the authors concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Garrido C et al. Bone. 2020;133: doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115228.

Sickle cell disease is associated with worse long-term bone health than that of the general population, and SCD patients are more likely to experience vitamin D [25(OH)D] deficiency. Oral vitamin D3 supplementation can achieve protective levels in children with sickle cell disease, and a daily dose was able to achieved optimal blood levels, according to a report published online in Bone.

The researchers performed a prospective, longitudinal, single-center study of 80 children with SCD. They collected demographic, clinical, and management data, as well as 25(OH)D levels. Bone densitometries (DXA) were also collected.

Among the 80 patients were included in the analysis, there were significant differences between the means of 25(OH)D levels based on whether the patient started prophylactic treatment as an infant or not (35.7 vs. 27.9 ng/mL, respectively [P = .014]), according to the researchers.

They also found that, in multivariate analysis, an oral 800 IU daily dose of vitamin D3 was shown to be a protective factor (P = .044) in reaching optimal 25(OH)D blood levels (≥ 30 ng/mL).

Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that those patients younger than 10 years of age reached optimal levels significantly earlier than older patients when on supplementation (P = .002), as did those patients who were not being treated with hydroxyurea (P = .039), the researchers wrote.

Significant differences were seen between the mean bone mineral density in both DXAs performed when comparing suboptimal vs. optimal blood levels of 25(OH)D (0.54 g/cm² vs. 0.64 g/cm2, respectively, P = .001), for the initial DXA, and for the most recent DXA (0.59 g/cm² vs. 0.77 g/cm², respectively, P = .044). “VitD3 prophylaxis is a safe practice in SCD. It is important to start this prophylactic treatment when the child is an infant. The daily regimen with 800 IU could be more effective for reaching levels ≥ 30 ng/mL, and, especially in preadolescent and adolescent patients, we should raise awareness about the importance of good bone health,” the authors concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Garrido C et al. Bone. 2020;133: doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2020.115228.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), currently causing a pandemic affecting many countries around the world, beginning in December 2019 and spreading rapidly on a global scale since. Globally, its burden has been increasing rapidly, with more than 1.2 million people testing positive for the illness and 123,000 people losing their lives, as per April 15th’s WHO COVID-19 Situation Report.¹ These numbers are increasing with each passing day. Clinically, SARS-CoV-2 has a highly variable course, ranging from mild disease manifested as a self-limited illness (seen in younger and healthier patients) to severe pneumonia/ARDS and multiorgan failure with intravascular coagulopathy.²

In this article, we intend to investigate and establish a comprehensive review of COVID-19–associated coagulopathy mechanisms, laboratory findings, and current management guidelines put forth by various societies globally. 
 

Mechanism of coagulopathy

COVID-19–associated coagulopathy has been shown to predispose to both arterial and venous thrombosis through excessive inflammation and hypoxia, leading to activation of the coagulation cascade and consumption of coagulation factors, resulting in microvascular thrombosis.³ Though the exact pathophysiology for the activation of this cascade is not known, the proposed mechanism has been: endothelial damage triggering platelet activation within the lung, leading to aggregation, thrombosis, and consumption of platelets in the lung.^2,5,6

Fox et al. noted similar coagulopathy findings of four deceased COVID-19 patients. Autopsy results concluded that the dominant process was diffuse alveolar damage, notable CD4+ aggregates around thrombosed small vessels, significant associated hemorrhage, and thrombotic microangiopathy restricted to the lungs. The proposed mechanism was the activation of megakaryocytes, possibly native to the lung, with platelet aggregation, formation of platelet-rich clots, and fibrin deposition playing a major role.⁴

It has been noted that diabetic patients are at an increased risk of vascular events and hypercoagulability with COVID-19.⁷ COVID-19 can also cause livedo reticularis and acrocyanosis because of the microthrombosis in the cutaneous vasculature secondary to underlying coagulopathy, as reported in a case report of two U.S. patients with COVID-19.⁸

Clinical and laboratory abnormalities

A recent study reported from Netherlands by Klok et al. analyzed 184 ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and concluded that the cumulative incidence of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), ischemic stroke, MI, or systemic arterial embolism was 31% (95% confidence interval, 20%-41%). PE was the most frequent thrombotic complication and was noted in 81% of patients. Coagulopathy, defined as spontaneous prolongation of prothrombin time (PT) > 3s or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) > 5s, was reported as an independent predictor of thrombotic complications.³

Hematologic abnormalities that were noted in COVID-19 coagulopathy include: decreased platelet counts, decreased fibrinogen levels, elevated PT/INR, elevated partial thromboplastin time (PTT), and elevated d-dimer.^9,10 In a retrospective analysis⁹ by Tang et al., 71.4% of nonsurvivors and 0.6% of survivors had met the criteria of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) during their hospital stay. Nonsurvivors of COVID-19 had statistically significant elevation of d-dimer levels, FDP levels, PT, and aPTT, when compared to survivors (P < .05). The overall mortality in this study was reported as 11.5%.⁹ In addition, elevated ^d-dimer, fibrin and fibrinogen degradation product (FDP) levels and longer PT and aPTT were associated with poor prognosis.

Thus, d-dimer, PT, and platelet count should be measured in all patients who present with COVID-19 infection. We can also suggest that in patients with markedly elevated d-dimer (three- to fourfold increase), admission to hospital should be considered even in the absence of severe clinical symptoms.¹¹

COVID-19 coagulopathy management

In a retrospective study⁹ of 449 patients with severe COVID-19 from Wuhan, China, by Tang et al., 99 patients mainly received low-weight molecular heparin (LMWH) for 7 days or longer. No difference in 28-day mortality was noted between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%; P = .910). A lower 28-day mortality rate was noted in heparin patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of ≥4.0 (40.0% vs. 64.2%; P = .029) or a d-dimer level greater than sixfold of upper limit of normal, compared with nonusers of heparin.¹²

Another small study of seven COVID-19 patients with acroischemia in China demonstrated that administering LMWH was successful at decreasing the d-dimer and fibrinogen degradation product levels but noted no significant improvement in clinical symptoms.¹³

Recently, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis and American Society of Hematology published recommendations and guidelines regarding the recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19.¹¹ Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy with LMWH was recommended in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, provided there was an absence of any contraindications (active bleeding, platelet count less than 25 x 10⁹/L and fibrinogen less than 0.5 g/dL). Anticoagulation with LMWH was associated with better prognosis in severe COVID-19 patients and in COVID-19 patients with markedly elevated d-dimer, as it also has anti-inflammatory effects.¹² This anti-inflammatory property of heparin has been documented in previous studies but the underlying mechanism is unknown and more research is required.^14,15

Despite coagulopathy being noticed with cases of COVID-19, bleeding has been a rare finding in COVID-19 infections. If bleeding is noted, recommendations were made to keep platelet levels greater than 50 x10⁹/L, fibrinogen less than 2.0 g/L, and INR [international normalized ratio] greater than 1.5.¹¹ Mechanical thromboprophylaxis should be used when pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is contraindicated.¹⁶

COVID-19 patients with new diagnoses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or atrial fibrillation should be prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation. Patients who are already on anticoagulation for VTE or atrial fibrillation should continue their therapy unless the platelet count is less than 30-50x10⁹/L or if the fibrinogen is less than 1.0 g/L.¹⁶

Conclusion

Coagulopathies associated with COVID-19 infections have been documented in several studies around the world, and it has been shown to be fatal in some cases. Despite documentation, the mechanism behind this coagulopathy is not well understood. Because of the potentially lethal complications associated with coagulopathies, early recognition and anticoagulation is imperative to improve clinical outcomes. These results are very preliminary: More studies are required to understand the role of anticoagulation and its effect on the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–associated coagulopathy.

Dr. Yeruva is a board-certified hematologist/medical oncologist with WellSpan Health and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, Penn State University, Hershey. Mr. Henderson is a third-year graduate-entry medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland with interests in family medicine, dermatology, and tropical diseases. Dr. Al-Tawfiq is a consultant of internal medicine & infectious diseases, and the director of quality at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, an adjunct associate professor of infectious diseases, molecular medicine and clinical pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and adjunct associate professor at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals.

References

1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports.

2. Lippi G et al. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: A meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Mar 13. 506:145-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022.

3. Klok FA et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Throm Res. 2020;18(4):844-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013.

4. Fox S et al. Pulmonary and cardiac pathology in Covid-19: The first autopsy series from New Orleans. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.06.20050575. 

5. Yang M et al. Thrombocytopenia in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (review). Hematology 2013 Sep 4. doi: 10.1080/1024533040002617.

6. Giannis D et al. Coagulation disorders in coronavirus infected patients: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and lessons from the past. J Clin Virol. 2020 June. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104362. 

7. Guo W et al. Diabetes is a risk factor for the progression and prognosis of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3319. 

8.  Manalo IF et al. A dermatologic manifestation of COVID-19: Transient livedo reticularis. J Am Acad Dermat. 2020 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.018.

9. Tang N et al. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1111/jth.14768, 18: 844-847. 

10. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.

11. Thachil J et al. ISTH interim guidance on recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14810. 

12. Tang N et al. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14817. 

13.  Zhang Y et al. Clinical and coagulation characteristics of 7 patients with critical COVID-2019 pneumonia and acro-ischemia. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2020.0006.

14. Poterucha TJ et al. More than an anticoagulant: Do heparins have direct anti-inflammatory effects? Thromb Haemost. 2017. doi: 10.1160/TH16-08-0620.

15. Mousavi S et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of heparin and its derivatives: A systematic review. Adv Pharmacol Pharm Sci. 2015 May 12. doi: 10.1155/2015/507151.

16. Kreuziger L et al. COVID-19 and VTE/anticoagulation: Frequently asked questions. American Society of Hematology. 2020 Apr 17.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), currently causing a pandemic affecting many countries around the world, beginning in December 2019 and spreading rapidly on a global scale since. Globally, its burden has been increasing rapidly, with more than 1.2 million people testing positive for the illness and 123,000 people losing their lives, as per April 15th’s WHO COVID-19 Situation Report.¹ These numbers are increasing with each passing day. Clinically, SARS-CoV-2 has a highly variable course, ranging from mild disease manifested as a self-limited illness (seen in younger and healthier patients) to severe pneumonia/ARDS and multiorgan failure with intravascular coagulopathy.²

In this article, we intend to investigate and establish a comprehensive review of COVID-19–associated coagulopathy mechanisms, laboratory findings, and current management guidelines put forth by various societies globally. 
 

Mechanism of coagulopathy

COVID-19–associated coagulopathy has been shown to predispose to both arterial and venous thrombosis through excessive inflammation and hypoxia, leading to activation of the coagulation cascade and consumption of coagulation factors, resulting in microvascular thrombosis.³ Though the exact pathophysiology for the activation of this cascade is not known, the proposed mechanism has been: endothelial damage triggering platelet activation within the lung, leading to aggregation, thrombosis, and consumption of platelets in the lung.^2,5,6

Fox et al. noted similar coagulopathy findings of four deceased COVID-19 patients. Autopsy results concluded that the dominant process was diffuse alveolar damage, notable CD4+ aggregates around thrombosed small vessels, significant associated hemorrhage, and thrombotic microangiopathy restricted to the lungs. The proposed mechanism was the activation of megakaryocytes, possibly native to the lung, with platelet aggregation, formation of platelet-rich clots, and fibrin deposition playing a major role.⁴

It has been noted that diabetic patients are at an increased risk of vascular events and hypercoagulability with COVID-19.⁷ COVID-19 can also cause livedo reticularis and acrocyanosis because of the microthrombosis in the cutaneous vasculature secondary to underlying coagulopathy, as reported in a case report of two U.S. patients with COVID-19.⁸

Clinical and laboratory abnormalities

A recent study reported from Netherlands by Klok et al. analyzed 184 ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and concluded that the cumulative incidence of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), ischemic stroke, MI, or systemic arterial embolism was 31% (95% confidence interval, 20%-41%). PE was the most frequent thrombotic complication and was noted in 81% of patients. Coagulopathy, defined as spontaneous prolongation of prothrombin time (PT) > 3s or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) > 5s, was reported as an independent predictor of thrombotic complications.³

Hematologic abnormalities that were noted in COVID-19 coagulopathy include: decreased platelet counts, decreased fibrinogen levels, elevated PT/INR, elevated partial thromboplastin time (PTT), and elevated d-dimer.^9,10 In a retrospective analysis⁹ by Tang et al., 71.4% of nonsurvivors and 0.6% of survivors had met the criteria of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) during their hospital stay. Nonsurvivors of COVID-19 had statistically significant elevation of d-dimer levels, FDP levels, PT, and aPTT, when compared to survivors (P < .05). The overall mortality in this study was reported as 11.5%.⁹ In addition, elevated ^d-dimer, fibrin and fibrinogen degradation product (FDP) levels and longer PT and aPTT were associated with poor prognosis.

Thus, d-dimer, PT, and platelet count should be measured in all patients who present with COVID-19 infection. We can also suggest that in patients with markedly elevated d-dimer (three- to fourfold increase), admission to hospital should be considered even in the absence of severe clinical symptoms.¹¹

COVID-19 coagulopathy management

In a retrospective study⁹ of 449 patients with severe COVID-19 from Wuhan, China, by Tang et al., 99 patients mainly received low-weight molecular heparin (LMWH) for 7 days or longer. No difference in 28-day mortality was noted between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%; P = .910). A lower 28-day mortality rate was noted in heparin patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of ≥4.0 (40.0% vs. 64.2%; P = .029) or a d-dimer level greater than sixfold of upper limit of normal, compared with nonusers of heparin.¹²

Another small study of seven COVID-19 patients with acroischemia in China demonstrated that administering LMWH was successful at decreasing the d-dimer and fibrinogen degradation product levels but noted no significant improvement in clinical symptoms.¹³

Recently, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis and American Society of Hematology published recommendations and guidelines regarding the recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19.¹¹ Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy with LMWH was recommended in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, provided there was an absence of any contraindications (active bleeding, platelet count less than 25 x 10⁹/L and fibrinogen less than 0.5 g/dL). Anticoagulation with LMWH was associated with better prognosis in severe COVID-19 patients and in COVID-19 patients with markedly elevated d-dimer, as it also has anti-inflammatory effects.¹² This anti-inflammatory property of heparin has been documented in previous studies but the underlying mechanism is unknown and more research is required.^14,15

Despite coagulopathy being noticed with cases of COVID-19, bleeding has been a rare finding in COVID-19 infections. If bleeding is noted, recommendations were made to keep platelet levels greater than 50 x10⁹/L, fibrinogen less than 2.0 g/L, and INR [international normalized ratio] greater than 1.5.¹¹ Mechanical thromboprophylaxis should be used when pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is contraindicated.¹⁶

COVID-19 patients with new diagnoses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or atrial fibrillation should be prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation. Patients who are already on anticoagulation for VTE or atrial fibrillation should continue their therapy unless the platelet count is less than 30-50x10⁹/L or if the fibrinogen is less than 1.0 g/L.¹⁶

Conclusion

Coagulopathies associated with COVID-19 infections have been documented in several studies around the world, and it has been shown to be fatal in some cases. Despite documentation, the mechanism behind this coagulopathy is not well understood. Because of the potentially lethal complications associated with coagulopathies, early recognition and anticoagulation is imperative to improve clinical outcomes. These results are very preliminary: More studies are required to understand the role of anticoagulation and its effect on the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–associated coagulopathy.

Dr. Yeruva is a board-certified hematologist/medical oncologist with WellSpan Health and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, Penn State University, Hershey. Mr. Henderson is a third-year graduate-entry medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland with interests in family medicine, dermatology, and tropical diseases. Dr. Al-Tawfiq is a consultant of internal medicine & infectious diseases, and the director of quality at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, an adjunct associate professor of infectious diseases, molecular medicine and clinical pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and adjunct associate professor at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals.

References

1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports.

2. Lippi G et al. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: A meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Mar 13. 506:145-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022.

3. Klok FA et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Throm Res. 2020;18(4):844-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013.

4. Fox S et al. Pulmonary and cardiac pathology in Covid-19: The first autopsy series from New Orleans. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.06.20050575. 

5. Yang M et al. Thrombocytopenia in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (review). Hematology 2013 Sep 4. doi: 10.1080/1024533040002617.

6. Giannis D et al. Coagulation disorders in coronavirus infected patients: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and lessons from the past. J Clin Virol. 2020 June. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104362. 

7. Guo W et al. Diabetes is a risk factor for the progression and prognosis of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3319. 

8.  Manalo IF et al. A dermatologic manifestation of COVID-19: Transient livedo reticularis. J Am Acad Dermat. 2020 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.018.

9. Tang N et al. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1111/jth.14768, 18: 844-847. 

10. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.

11. Thachil J et al. ISTH interim guidance on recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14810. 

12. Tang N et al. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14817. 

13.  Zhang Y et al. Clinical and coagulation characteristics of 7 patients with critical COVID-2019 pneumonia and acro-ischemia. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2020.0006.

14. Poterucha TJ et al. More than an anticoagulant: Do heparins have direct anti-inflammatory effects? Thromb Haemost. 2017. doi: 10.1160/TH16-08-0620.

15. Mousavi S et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of heparin and its derivatives: A systematic review. Adv Pharmacol Pharm Sci. 2015 May 12. doi: 10.1155/2015/507151.

16. Kreuziger L et al. COVID-19 and VTE/anticoagulation: Frequently asked questions. American Society of Hematology. 2020 Apr 17.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), currently causing a pandemic affecting many countries around the world, beginning in December 2019 and spreading rapidly on a global scale since. Globally, its burden has been increasing rapidly, with more than 1.2 million people testing positive for the illness and 123,000 people losing their lives, as per April 15th’s WHO COVID-19 Situation Report.¹ These numbers are increasing with each passing day. Clinically, SARS-CoV-2 has a highly variable course, ranging from mild disease manifested as a self-limited illness (seen in younger and healthier patients) to severe pneumonia/ARDS and multiorgan failure with intravascular coagulopathy.²

In this article, we intend to investigate and establish a comprehensive review of COVID-19–associated coagulopathy mechanisms, laboratory findings, and current management guidelines put forth by various societies globally. 
 

Mechanism of coagulopathy

COVID-19–associated coagulopathy has been shown to predispose to both arterial and venous thrombosis through excessive inflammation and hypoxia, leading to activation of the coagulation cascade and consumption of coagulation factors, resulting in microvascular thrombosis.³ Though the exact pathophysiology for the activation of this cascade is not known, the proposed mechanism has been: endothelial damage triggering platelet activation within the lung, leading to aggregation, thrombosis, and consumption of platelets in the lung.^2,5,6

Fox et al. noted similar coagulopathy findings of four deceased COVID-19 patients. Autopsy results concluded that the dominant process was diffuse alveolar damage, notable CD4+ aggregates around thrombosed small vessels, significant associated hemorrhage, and thrombotic microangiopathy restricted to the lungs. The proposed mechanism was the activation of megakaryocytes, possibly native to the lung, with platelet aggregation, formation of platelet-rich clots, and fibrin deposition playing a major role.⁴

It has been noted that diabetic patients are at an increased risk of vascular events and hypercoagulability with COVID-19.⁷ COVID-19 can also cause livedo reticularis and acrocyanosis because of the microthrombosis in the cutaneous vasculature secondary to underlying coagulopathy, as reported in a case report of two U.S. patients with COVID-19.⁸

Clinical and laboratory abnormalities

A recent study reported from Netherlands by Klok et al. analyzed 184 ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and concluded that the cumulative incidence of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), ischemic stroke, MI, or systemic arterial embolism was 31% (95% confidence interval, 20%-41%). PE was the most frequent thrombotic complication and was noted in 81% of patients. Coagulopathy, defined as spontaneous prolongation of prothrombin time (PT) > 3s or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) > 5s, was reported as an independent predictor of thrombotic complications.³

Hematologic abnormalities that were noted in COVID-19 coagulopathy include: decreased platelet counts, decreased fibrinogen levels, elevated PT/INR, elevated partial thromboplastin time (PTT), and elevated d-dimer.^9,10 In a retrospective analysis⁹ by Tang et al., 71.4% of nonsurvivors and 0.6% of survivors had met the criteria of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) during their hospital stay. Nonsurvivors of COVID-19 had statistically significant elevation of d-dimer levels, FDP levels, PT, and aPTT, when compared to survivors (P < .05). The overall mortality in this study was reported as 11.5%.⁹ In addition, elevated ^d-dimer, fibrin and fibrinogen degradation product (FDP) levels and longer PT and aPTT were associated with poor prognosis.

Thus, d-dimer, PT, and platelet count should be measured in all patients who present with COVID-19 infection. We can also suggest that in patients with markedly elevated d-dimer (three- to fourfold increase), admission to hospital should be considered even in the absence of severe clinical symptoms.¹¹

COVID-19 coagulopathy management

In a retrospective study⁹ of 449 patients with severe COVID-19 from Wuhan, China, by Tang et al., 99 patients mainly received low-weight molecular heparin (LMWH) for 7 days or longer. No difference in 28-day mortality was noted between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%; P = .910). A lower 28-day mortality rate was noted in heparin patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of ≥4.0 (40.0% vs. 64.2%; P = .029) or a d-dimer level greater than sixfold of upper limit of normal, compared with nonusers of heparin.¹²

Another small study of seven COVID-19 patients with acroischemia in China demonstrated that administering LMWH was successful at decreasing the d-dimer and fibrinogen degradation product levels but noted no significant improvement in clinical symptoms.¹³

Recently, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis and American Society of Hematology published recommendations and guidelines regarding the recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19.¹¹ Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy with LMWH was recommended in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, provided there was an absence of any contraindications (active bleeding, platelet count less than 25 x 10⁹/L and fibrinogen less than 0.5 g/dL). Anticoagulation with LMWH was associated with better prognosis in severe COVID-19 patients and in COVID-19 patients with markedly elevated d-dimer, as it also has anti-inflammatory effects.¹² This anti-inflammatory property of heparin has been documented in previous studies but the underlying mechanism is unknown and more research is required.^14,15

Despite coagulopathy being noticed with cases of COVID-19, bleeding has been a rare finding in COVID-19 infections. If bleeding is noted, recommendations were made to keep platelet levels greater than 50 x10⁹/L, fibrinogen less than 2.0 g/L, and INR [international normalized ratio] greater than 1.5.¹¹ Mechanical thromboprophylaxis should be used when pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is contraindicated.¹⁶

COVID-19 patients with new diagnoses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or atrial fibrillation should be prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation. Patients who are already on anticoagulation for VTE or atrial fibrillation should continue their therapy unless the platelet count is less than 30-50x10⁹/L or if the fibrinogen is less than 1.0 g/L.¹⁶

Conclusion

Coagulopathies associated with COVID-19 infections have been documented in several studies around the world, and it has been shown to be fatal in some cases. Despite documentation, the mechanism behind this coagulopathy is not well understood. Because of the potentially lethal complications associated with coagulopathies, early recognition and anticoagulation is imperative to improve clinical outcomes. These results are very preliminary: More studies are required to understand the role of anticoagulation and its effect on the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–associated coagulopathy.

Dr. Yeruva is a board-certified hematologist/medical oncologist with WellSpan Health and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, Penn State University, Hershey. Mr. Henderson is a third-year graduate-entry medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland with interests in family medicine, dermatology, and tropical diseases. Dr. Al-Tawfiq is a consultant of internal medicine & infectious diseases, and the director of quality at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, an adjunct associate professor of infectious diseases, molecular medicine and clinical pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and adjunct associate professor at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals.

References

1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports.

2. Lippi G et al. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: A meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Mar 13. 506:145-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022.

3. Klok FA et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Throm Res. 2020;18(4):844-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013.

4. Fox S et al. Pulmonary and cardiac pathology in Covid-19: The first autopsy series from New Orleans. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.06.20050575. 

5. Yang M et al. Thrombocytopenia in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (review). Hematology 2013 Sep 4. doi: 10.1080/1024533040002617.

6. Giannis D et al. Coagulation disorders in coronavirus infected patients: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and lessons from the past. J Clin Virol. 2020 June. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104362. 

7. Guo W et al. Diabetes is a risk factor for the progression and prognosis of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3319. 

8.  Manalo IF et al. A dermatologic manifestation of COVID-19: Transient livedo reticularis. J Am Acad Dermat. 2020 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.018.

9. Tang N et al. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1111/jth.14768, 18: 844-847. 

10. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.

11. Thachil J et al. ISTH interim guidance on recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14810. 

12. Tang N et al. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14817. 

13.  Zhang Y et al. Clinical and coagulation characteristics of 7 patients with critical COVID-2019 pneumonia and acro-ischemia. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2020.0006.

14. Poterucha TJ et al. More than an anticoagulant: Do heparins have direct anti-inflammatory effects? Thromb Haemost. 2017. doi: 10.1160/TH16-08-0620.

15. Mousavi S et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of heparin and its derivatives: A systematic review. Adv Pharmacol Pharm Sci. 2015 May 12. doi: 10.1155/2015/507151.

16. Kreuziger L et al. COVID-19 and VTE/anticoagulation: Frequently asked questions. American Society of Hematology. 2020 Apr 17.

Differences in COVID-19-related death rates between people of white and Asian ancestry may be partly explained by documented ethnic/racial differences in risk for blood clotting and pulmonary thrombotic events, investigators propose.

“Our novel findings demonstrate that COVID-19 is associated with a unique type of blood clotting disorder that is primarily focused within the lungs and which undoubtedly contributes to the high levels of mortality being seen in patients with COVID-19,” said James O’Donnell, MB, PhD, director of the Irish Centre for Vascular Biology at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.

Dr. O’Donnell and colleagues studied pulmonary effects and outcomes of 83 patients admitted to St. James Hospital in Dublin, and found evidence to suggest that the diffuse, bilateral pulmonary inflammation seen in many patients with severe COVID-19 infections may be caused by a pulmonary-specific vasculopathy they label “pulmonary intravascular coagulopathy” (PIC), an entity distinct from disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC).

“Given that thrombotic risk is significantly impacted by race, coupled with the accumulating evidence that coagulopathy is important in COVID-19 pathogenesis, our findings raise the intriguing possibility that pulmonary vasculopathy may contribute to the unexplained differences that are beginning to emerge highlighting racial susceptibility to COVID-19 mortality,” they wrote in a study published online in the British Journal of Haematology.
 

Study flaws harm conclusions

But critical care specialists who agreed to review and comment on the study for MDedge News said that it has significant flaws that affect the ability to interpret the findings and “undermine the conclusions reached by the authors.”

“The underlying premise of the study is that there are racial and ethnic differences in the development of venous thromboembolism that may explain the racial and ethnic differences in outcomes from COVID-19,” J. Daryl Thornton, MD, MPH, a fellow of the American Thoracic Society and associate professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. “This is an interesting hypothesis and one that could be easily tested in a well-designed study with sufficient representation from the relevant racial and ethnic groups. However, this study is neither well designed nor does it have sufficient racial and ethnic representation.”

Elliott R. Haut, MD, PhD, associate professor of surgery, anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an interview that the study is “mediocre” and has the feel of a paper rushed to press.

“It talks about their theory that race, ethnicity, have an effect on venous thromboembolism, and that’s a pretty well-known fact. No one’s a hundred percent sure why that is, but certainly there are tons and tons of papers that show that there are groups that are at higher risk than others,” he said. “Their idea that this is caused by this pulmonary inflammation, that is totally a guess; there is no data in this paper to support that.”

Dr. Thornton and Dr. Haut both noted that the authors don’t define how race and ethnicity were determined and whether patients were asked to provide it, and although they mention the racial/ethnic breakdown once, subsequent references are to entire cohort are as “Caucasian.”

They also called into question the value of comparing laboratory data across continents in centers with different testing methods and parameters, especially in a time when the clinical picture changes so rapidly.
 

Coagulation differences

Dr. O’Donnell and colleagues noted that most studies of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy published to date have been with Chinese patients.

“This is important because race and ethnicity have major effects upon thrombotic risk. In particular, epidemiological studies have shown that the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is approximately three to fourfold lower in Chinese compared to Caucasian individuals. Conversely, VTE risk is significantly higher in African-Americans compared to Caucasians,” they wrote.

Because of the lower risk of VTE in the Chinese population, thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or other agents is less frequently used in Chinese hospitals than in hospitals with predominantly non-Asian patients, they noted.

To see whether the were differences in coagulopathy between Chinese and white patients, the researchers enrolled 55 men and 28 women, median age 64, who were admitted to St. James Hospital with COVID-19 infections from March 13 through April 10, 2020. The cohort included 67 patients of white background, 10 of Asian ancestry, 5 of African ethnicity, and 1 of Latino/Hispanic ancestry.

Of the 83 patients, 67 had comorbidities at admission. At the time of the report, 50 patients had fully recovered and were discharged, 20 remained in the hospital, and 13 had died. In all, 50 patients were discharged without needing ICU care, 23 were admitted to the ICU, and 10 required ICU but were deemed “clinically unsuitable” for ICU admission.

Although the patients had normal prothrombin time (PT) and normal activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), plasma d-dimer levels were significantly elevated and were above the range of normal in two-thirds of patients on admission.

Despite the increased d-dimer levels, however, there was no evidence of DIC as defined by the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scientific and Standardization committee (ISTH SSC) guidelines. Platelet counts were in the normal range in 83.1% of patients, and only five had counts less than 100 x 109/L at admission. Fibrinogen levels were also elevated, as were C-reactive protein levels, both likely indicating an acute phase response.

“Thus, despite the fact that thrombotic risk is much higher in Caucasian patients and the significant elevated levels of d-dimers observed, overt DIC as defined according to the ISTH SSC DIC score was present in none of our COVID-19 patients at time of admission. Nevertheless, our data confirm that severe COVID-19 infection is associated with a significant coagulopathy in Caucasian patients that appears to be similar in magnitude to that previously reported in the original Chinese cohorts,” they wrote.

When they compared patients who required ICU admission for ventilator support and those who died with patients who were discharged without needing ICU support, they found that survivors were younger (median age 60.2 vs. 75.2 years), and that more critically ill patients were more likely to have comorbidities.

They also found that patients with abnormal coagulation parameters on admission were significantly more likely to have poor prognosis (P = .018), and that patients in the adverse outcomes group had significantly higher fibrinogen and CRP levels (P = .045 and .0005, respectively).

There was no significant difference in PT between the prognosis groups at admission, but by day 4 and beyond PT was a median of 13.1 vs. 12.5 seconds in the favorable outcomes groups (P = .007), and patients with poor prognosis continued to have significantly higher d-dimer levels. (P = .003)

“Cumulatively, these data support the hypothesis that COVID-19–associated coagulopathy probably contributes to the underlying pulmonary pathogenesis,” the researchers wrote.

They noted that the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor that COVID-19 uses to enter cells is expressed on both type II pneumocytes and vascular endothelial cells within the lung, suggesting that the coagulopathy may be related to direct pulmonary endothelial cell infection , activation, and/or damage, and to the documented cytokine storm that can affect thrombin generation and fibrin deposition within the lungs.

“In the context of this lung-centric vasculopathy, we hypothesize that the refractory acute respiratory distress syndrome phenotype observed in severe COVID-19 is due to concurrent ‘double-hit’ pathologies targeting both ventilation (V) and perfusion (Q) within the lungs where alveoli and pulmonary microvasculature exist in close anatomical juxtaposition,” they wrote.

The investigators noted that larger randomized trials will be needed to determine whether more aggressive anti-coagulation and/or targeted anti-inflammatory therapies could effectively treated PIC in patients with severe COVID-19.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board Health Service and the Research and Development Division, Northern Ireland. Dr. O’Donnell disclosed speakers bureau activities, advisory board participation, and research grants from multiple companies. The other doctors had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Fogarty H et al. Br J Haematol. 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1111/bjh.16749.

Differences in COVID-19-related death rates between people of white and Asian ancestry may be partly explained by documented ethnic/racial differences in risk for blood clotting and pulmonary thrombotic events, investigators propose.

“Our novel findings demonstrate that COVID-19 is associated with a unique type of blood clotting disorder that is primarily focused within the lungs and which undoubtedly contributes to the high levels of mortality being seen in patients with COVID-19,” said James O’Donnell, MB, PhD, director of the Irish Centre for Vascular Biology at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.

Dr. O’Donnell and colleagues studied pulmonary effects and outcomes of 83 patients admitted to St. James Hospital in Dublin, and found evidence to suggest that the diffuse, bilateral pulmonary inflammation seen in many patients with severe COVID-19 infections may be caused by a pulmonary-specific vasculopathy they label “pulmonary intravascular coagulopathy” (PIC), an entity distinct from disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC).

“Given that thrombotic risk is significantly impacted by race, coupled with the accumulating evidence that coagulopathy is important in COVID-19 pathogenesis, our findings raise the intriguing possibility that pulmonary vasculopathy may contribute to the unexplained differences that are beginning to emerge highlighting racial susceptibility to COVID-19 mortality,” they wrote in a study published online in the British Journal of Haematology.
 

Study flaws harm conclusions

But critical care specialists who agreed to review and comment on the study for MDedge News said that it has significant flaws that affect the ability to interpret the findings and “undermine the conclusions reached by the authors.”

“The underlying premise of the study is that there are racial and ethnic differences in the development of venous thromboembolism that may explain the racial and ethnic differences in outcomes from COVID-19,” J. Daryl Thornton, MD, MPH, a fellow of the American Thoracic Society and associate professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. “This is an interesting hypothesis and one that could be easily tested in a well-designed study with sufficient representation from the relevant racial and ethnic groups. However, this study is neither well designed nor does it have sufficient racial and ethnic representation.”

Elliott R. Haut, MD, PhD, associate professor of surgery, anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an interview that the study is “mediocre” and has the feel of a paper rushed to press.

“It talks about their theory that race, ethnicity, have an effect on venous thromboembolism, and that’s a pretty well-known fact. No one’s a hundred percent sure why that is, but certainly there are tons and tons of papers that show that there are groups that are at higher risk than others,” he said. “Their idea that this is caused by this pulmonary inflammation, that is totally a guess; there is no data in this paper to support that.”

Dr. Thornton and Dr. Haut both noted that the authors don’t define how race and ethnicity were determined and whether patients were asked to provide it, and although they mention the racial/ethnic breakdown once, subsequent references are to entire cohort are as “Caucasian.”

They also called into question the value of comparing laboratory data across continents in centers with different testing methods and parameters, especially in a time when the clinical picture changes so rapidly.
 

Coagulation differences

Dr. O’Donnell and colleagues noted that most studies of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy published to date have been with Chinese patients.

“This is important because race and ethnicity have major effects upon thrombotic risk. In particular, epidemiological studies have shown that the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is approximately three to fourfold lower in Chinese compared to Caucasian individuals. Conversely, VTE risk is significantly higher in African-Americans compared to Caucasians,” they wrote.

Because of the lower risk of VTE in the Chinese population, thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or other agents is less frequently used in Chinese hospitals than in hospitals with predominantly non-Asian patients, they noted.

To see whether the were differences in coagulopathy between Chinese and white patients, the researchers enrolled 55 men and 28 women, median age 64, who were admitted to St. James Hospital with COVID-19 infections from March 13 through April 10, 2020. The cohort included 67 patients of white background, 10 of Asian ancestry, 5 of African ethnicity, and 1 of Latino/Hispanic ancestry.

Of the 83 patients, 67 had comorbidities at admission. At the time of the report, 50 patients had fully recovered and were discharged, 20 remained in the hospital, and 13 had died. In all, 50 patients were discharged without needing ICU care, 23 were admitted to the ICU, and 10 required ICU but were deemed “clinically unsuitable” for ICU admission.

Although the patients had normal prothrombin time (PT) and normal activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), plasma d-dimer levels were significantly elevated and were above the range of normal in two-thirds of patients on admission.

Despite the increased d-dimer levels, however, there was no evidence of DIC as defined by the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scientific and Standardization committee (ISTH SSC) guidelines. Platelet counts were in the normal range in 83.1% of patients, and only five had counts less than 100 x 109/L at admission. Fibrinogen levels were also elevated, as were C-reactive protein levels, both likely indicating an acute phase response.

“Thus, despite the fact that thrombotic risk is much higher in Caucasian patients and the significant elevated levels of d-dimers observed, overt DIC as defined according to the ISTH SSC DIC score was present in none of our COVID-19 patients at time of admission. Nevertheless, our data confirm that severe COVID-19 infection is associated with a significant coagulopathy in Caucasian patients that appears to be similar in magnitude to that previously reported in the original Chinese cohorts,” they wrote.

When they compared patients who required ICU admission for ventilator support and those who died with patients who were discharged without needing ICU support, they found that survivors were younger (median age 60.2 vs. 75.2 years), and that more critically ill patients were more likely to have comorbidities.

They also found that patients with abnormal coagulation parameters on admission were significantly more likely to have poor prognosis (P = .018), and that patients in the adverse outcomes group had significantly higher fibrinogen and CRP levels (P = .045 and .0005, respectively).

There was no significant difference in PT between the prognosis groups at admission, but by day 4 and beyond PT was a median of 13.1 vs. 12.5 seconds in the favorable outcomes groups (P = .007), and patients with poor prognosis continued to have significantly higher d-dimer levels. (P = .003)

“Cumulatively, these data support the hypothesis that COVID-19–associated coagulopathy probably contributes to the underlying pulmonary pathogenesis,” the researchers wrote.

They noted that the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor that COVID-19 uses to enter cells is expressed on both type II pneumocytes and vascular endothelial cells within the lung, suggesting that the coagulopathy may be related to direct pulmonary endothelial cell infection , activation, and/or damage, and to the documented cytokine storm that can affect thrombin generation and fibrin deposition within the lungs.

“In the context of this lung-centric vasculopathy, we hypothesize that the refractory acute respiratory distress syndrome phenotype observed in severe COVID-19 is due to concurrent ‘double-hit’ pathologies targeting both ventilation (V) and perfusion (Q) within the lungs where alveoli and pulmonary microvasculature exist in close anatomical juxtaposition,” they wrote.

The investigators noted that larger randomized trials will be needed to determine whether more aggressive anti-coagulation and/or targeted anti-inflammatory therapies could effectively treated PIC in patients with severe COVID-19.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board Health Service and the Research and Development Division, Northern Ireland. Dr. O’Donnell disclosed speakers bureau activities, advisory board participation, and research grants from multiple companies. The other doctors had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Fogarty H et al. Br J Haematol. 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1111/bjh.16749.

Differences in COVID-19-related death rates between people of white and Asian ancestry may be partly explained by documented ethnic/racial differences in risk for blood clotting and pulmonary thrombotic events, investigators propose.

“Our novel findings demonstrate that COVID-19 is associated with a unique type of blood clotting disorder that is primarily focused within the lungs and which undoubtedly contributes to the high levels of mortality being seen in patients with COVID-19,” said James O’Donnell, MB, PhD, director of the Irish Centre for Vascular Biology at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.

Dr. O’Donnell and colleagues studied pulmonary effects and outcomes of 83 patients admitted to St. James Hospital in Dublin, and found evidence to suggest that the diffuse, bilateral pulmonary inflammation seen in many patients with severe COVID-19 infections may be caused by a pulmonary-specific vasculopathy they label “pulmonary intravascular coagulopathy” (PIC), an entity distinct from disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC).

“Given that thrombotic risk is significantly impacted by race, coupled with the accumulating evidence that coagulopathy is important in COVID-19 pathogenesis, our findings raise the intriguing possibility that pulmonary vasculopathy may contribute to the unexplained differences that are beginning to emerge highlighting racial susceptibility to COVID-19 mortality,” they wrote in a study published online in the British Journal of Haematology.
 

Study flaws harm conclusions

But critical care specialists who agreed to review and comment on the study for MDedge News said that it has significant flaws that affect the ability to interpret the findings and “undermine the conclusions reached by the authors.”

“The underlying premise of the study is that there are racial and ethnic differences in the development of venous thromboembolism that may explain the racial and ethnic differences in outcomes from COVID-19,” J. Daryl Thornton, MD, MPH, a fellow of the American Thoracic Society and associate professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. “This is an interesting hypothesis and one that could be easily tested in a well-designed study with sufficient representation from the relevant racial and ethnic groups. However, this study is neither well designed nor does it have sufficient racial and ethnic representation.”

Elliott R. Haut, MD, PhD, associate professor of surgery, anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an interview that the study is “mediocre” and has the feel of a paper rushed to press.

“It talks about their theory that race, ethnicity, have an effect on venous thromboembolism, and that’s a pretty well-known fact. No one’s a hundred percent sure why that is, but certainly there are tons and tons of papers that show that there are groups that are at higher risk than others,” he said. “Their idea that this is caused by this pulmonary inflammation, that is totally a guess; there is no data in this paper to support that.”

Dr. Thornton and Dr. Haut both noted that the authors don’t define how race and ethnicity were determined and whether patients were asked to provide it, and although they mention the racial/ethnic breakdown once, subsequent references are to entire cohort are as “Caucasian.”

They also called into question the value of comparing laboratory data across continents in centers with different testing methods and parameters, especially in a time when the clinical picture changes so rapidly.
 

Coagulation differences

Dr. O’Donnell and colleagues noted that most studies of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy published to date have been with Chinese patients.

“This is important because race and ethnicity have major effects upon thrombotic risk. In particular, epidemiological studies have shown that the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is approximately three to fourfold lower in Chinese compared to Caucasian individuals. Conversely, VTE risk is significantly higher in African-Americans compared to Caucasians,” they wrote.

Because of the lower risk of VTE in the Chinese population, thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or other agents is less frequently used in Chinese hospitals than in hospitals with predominantly non-Asian patients, they noted.

To see whether the were differences in coagulopathy between Chinese and white patients, the researchers enrolled 55 men and 28 women, median age 64, who were admitted to St. James Hospital with COVID-19 infections from March 13 through April 10, 2020. The cohort included 67 patients of white background, 10 of Asian ancestry, 5 of African ethnicity, and 1 of Latino/Hispanic ancestry.

Of the 83 patients, 67 had comorbidities at admission. At the time of the report, 50 patients had fully recovered and were discharged, 20 remained in the hospital, and 13 had died. In all, 50 patients were discharged without needing ICU care, 23 were admitted to the ICU, and 10 required ICU but were deemed “clinically unsuitable” for ICU admission.

Although the patients had normal prothrombin time (PT) and normal activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), plasma d-dimer levels were significantly elevated and were above the range of normal in two-thirds of patients on admission.

Despite the increased d-dimer levels, however, there was no evidence of DIC as defined by the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scientific and Standardization committee (ISTH SSC) guidelines. Platelet counts were in the normal range in 83.1% of patients, and only five had counts less than 100 x 109/L at admission. Fibrinogen levels were also elevated, as were C-reactive protein levels, both likely indicating an acute phase response.

“Thus, despite the fact that thrombotic risk is much higher in Caucasian patients and the significant elevated levels of d-dimers observed, overt DIC as defined according to the ISTH SSC DIC score was present in none of our COVID-19 patients at time of admission. Nevertheless, our data confirm that severe COVID-19 infection is associated with a significant coagulopathy in Caucasian patients that appears to be similar in magnitude to that previously reported in the original Chinese cohorts,” they wrote.

When they compared patients who required ICU admission for ventilator support and those who died with patients who were discharged without needing ICU support, they found that survivors were younger (median age 60.2 vs. 75.2 years), and that more critically ill patients were more likely to have comorbidities.

They also found that patients with abnormal coagulation parameters on admission were significantly more likely to have poor prognosis (P = .018), and that patients in the adverse outcomes group had significantly higher fibrinogen and CRP levels (P = .045 and .0005, respectively).

There was no significant difference in PT between the prognosis groups at admission, but by day 4 and beyond PT was a median of 13.1 vs. 12.5 seconds in the favorable outcomes groups (P = .007), and patients with poor prognosis continued to have significantly higher d-dimer levels. (P = .003)

“Cumulatively, these data support the hypothesis that COVID-19–associated coagulopathy probably contributes to the underlying pulmonary pathogenesis,” the researchers wrote.

They noted that the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor that COVID-19 uses to enter cells is expressed on both type II pneumocytes and vascular endothelial cells within the lung, suggesting that the coagulopathy may be related to direct pulmonary endothelial cell infection , activation, and/or damage, and to the documented cytokine storm that can affect thrombin generation and fibrin deposition within the lungs.

“In the context of this lung-centric vasculopathy, we hypothesize that the refractory acute respiratory distress syndrome phenotype observed in severe COVID-19 is due to concurrent ‘double-hit’ pathologies targeting both ventilation (V) and perfusion (Q) within the lungs where alveoli and pulmonary microvasculature exist in close anatomical juxtaposition,” they wrote.

The investigators noted that larger randomized trials will be needed to determine whether more aggressive anti-coagulation and/or targeted anti-inflammatory therapies could effectively treated PIC in patients with severe COVID-19.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board Health Service and the Research and Development Division, Northern Ireland. Dr. O’Donnell disclosed speakers bureau activities, advisory board participation, and research grants from multiple companies. The other doctors had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Fogarty H et al. Br J Haematol. 2020 Apr 24. doi: 10.1111/bjh.16749.

Click here to access May 2020 Advances in Hematology and Oncology

Table of Contents

• Distress and Factors Associated with Suicidal Ideation in Veterans Living with Cancer
• Incidental Findings of Pulmonary and Hilar Malignancy by Low-Resolution Computed Tomography Used in Perfusion Imaging
• Applying a Text-Search Algorithm to Radiology Reports Can Find More Patients With Pulmonary Nodules Than Radiology Coding Alone
• Radiotherapeutic Care of Patients With Stage IV Lung Cancer and Thoracic Symptoms in the Veterans Health Administration
• Atrial Fibrillation and Bleeding in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Treated with Ibrutinib in the Veterans Health Administration

Click here to access May 2020 Advances in Hematology and Oncology

Table of Contents

• Distress and Factors Associated with Suicidal Ideation in Veterans Living with Cancer
• Incidental Findings of Pulmonary and Hilar Malignancy by Low-Resolution Computed Tomography Used in Perfusion Imaging
• Applying a Text-Search Algorithm to Radiology Reports Can Find More Patients With Pulmonary Nodules Than Radiology Coding Alone
• Radiotherapeutic Care of Patients With Stage IV Lung Cancer and Thoracic Symptoms in the Veterans Health Administration
• Atrial Fibrillation and Bleeding in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Treated with Ibrutinib in the Veterans Health Administration

Click here to access May 2020 Advances in Hematology and Oncology

Table of Contents

• Distress and Factors Associated with Suicidal Ideation in Veterans Living with Cancer
• Incidental Findings of Pulmonary and Hilar Malignancy by Low-Resolution Computed Tomography Used in Perfusion Imaging
• Applying a Text-Search Algorithm to Radiology Reports Can Find More Patients With Pulmonary Nodules Than Radiology Coding Alone
• Radiotherapeutic Care of Patients With Stage IV Lung Cancer and Thoracic Symptoms in the Veterans Health Administration
• Atrial Fibrillation and Bleeding in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Treated with Ibrutinib in the Veterans Health Administration

Cancer type, stage, and recent treatment may affect outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients, according to a study of patients from China.

The data showed that patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying.

On the other hand, patients with nonmetastatic cancer had outcomes comparable to those of noncancer patients with COVID-19.

Similarly, cancer patients who had recently undergone surgery or received immunotherapy were more likely to have poor outcomes, whereas cancer patients treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

Hongbing Cai, MD, of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China, presented these results at the AACR virtual meeting I. The results also were published in Cancer Discovery.
 

Cancer vs. noncancer patients

The study included 105 cancer patients with COVID-19 who were treated from Jan. 1 to Feb. 24, 2020, at 14 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Patients had lung (20.95%), gastrointestinal (12.38%), breast (10.48%), and thyroid cancers (10.48%) as well as hematologic malignancies (8.57%). Dr. Cai and colleagues matched the COVID-19 cancer patients to 536 COVID-19 patients without cancer. Patients were matched by hospital, duration of hospitalization, and age.

“COVID-19 patients with cancer had higher risks of all severe outcomes,” Dr. Cai noted.

Compared with noncancer patients, the cancer patients had a higher risk of:

• Severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms – odds ratio, 2.79 (P < .01).
• Being admitted to the ICU – OR, 2.84 (P < .01).
• Requiring invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 14 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 2.34 (P = .03).

Cancer type and stage

Dr. Cai noted that outcomes were the worst among patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancer (stage IV).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with hematologic malignancies had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 9.66 (P < .01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 38 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .01).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with metastatic cancer had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 5.97 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 6.59 (P < 0.01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 55.42 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 5.58 (P = .01).

On the other hand, outcomes in patients with nonmetastatic cancer were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .05 for all outcomes).
 

Cancer treatment

The treatments cancer patients received within 40 days before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms were radiotherapy (12.26%), chemotherapy (14.15%), surgery (7.62%), targeted therapies (3.81%), and immunotherapy (5.71%).

Compared with patients without cancer, those who received immunotherapy had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .04).

Patients who underwent surgery had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 8.84 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 7.24 (P = .02).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 44.33 (P < .01).

Conversely, outcomes in cancer patients who received radiotherapy were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .10 for all).

These results suggest that “postponing surgery should be considered in outbreak areas,” Dr. Cai said, adding that scheduled radiotherapy can go ahead but with “intensive protection and surveillance.”

Dr. Cai said it remains to be seen whether patients with early-stage cancer need to postpone their treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic or whether immunotherapy aggravates severe outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19. For now, she said, cancer patients should have individualized treatment plans based on their tumor type and stage.

Dr. Cai disclosed no conflicts of interest. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Xiu Research Fund.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cai H. AACR 2020. Patients with cancer appear more vulnerable to SARS-COV-2: A multicenter study during the COVID-19 outbreak; Dai M et al. Cancer Discov. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0422.

Cancer type, stage, and recent treatment may affect outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients, according to a study of patients from China.

The data showed that patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying.

On the other hand, patients with nonmetastatic cancer had outcomes comparable to those of noncancer patients with COVID-19.

Similarly, cancer patients who had recently undergone surgery or received immunotherapy were more likely to have poor outcomes, whereas cancer patients treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

Hongbing Cai, MD, of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China, presented these results at the AACR virtual meeting I. The results also were published in Cancer Discovery.
 

Cancer vs. noncancer patients

The study included 105 cancer patients with COVID-19 who were treated from Jan. 1 to Feb. 24, 2020, at 14 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Patients had lung (20.95%), gastrointestinal (12.38%), breast (10.48%), and thyroid cancers (10.48%) as well as hematologic malignancies (8.57%). Dr. Cai and colleagues matched the COVID-19 cancer patients to 536 COVID-19 patients without cancer. Patients were matched by hospital, duration of hospitalization, and age.

“COVID-19 patients with cancer had higher risks of all severe outcomes,” Dr. Cai noted.

Compared with noncancer patients, the cancer patients had a higher risk of:

• Severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms – odds ratio, 2.79 (P < .01).
• Being admitted to the ICU – OR, 2.84 (P < .01).
• Requiring invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 14 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 2.34 (P = .03).

Cancer type and stage

Dr. Cai noted that outcomes were the worst among patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancer (stage IV).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with hematologic malignancies had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 9.66 (P < .01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 38 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .01).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with metastatic cancer had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 5.97 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 6.59 (P < 0.01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 55.42 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 5.58 (P = .01).

On the other hand, outcomes in patients with nonmetastatic cancer were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .05 for all outcomes).
 

Cancer treatment

The treatments cancer patients received within 40 days before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms were radiotherapy (12.26%), chemotherapy (14.15%), surgery (7.62%), targeted therapies (3.81%), and immunotherapy (5.71%).

Compared with patients without cancer, those who received immunotherapy had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .04).

Patients who underwent surgery had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 8.84 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 7.24 (P = .02).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 44.33 (P < .01).

Conversely, outcomes in cancer patients who received radiotherapy were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .10 for all).

These results suggest that “postponing surgery should be considered in outbreak areas,” Dr. Cai said, adding that scheduled radiotherapy can go ahead but with “intensive protection and surveillance.”

Dr. Cai said it remains to be seen whether patients with early-stage cancer need to postpone their treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic or whether immunotherapy aggravates severe outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19. For now, she said, cancer patients should have individualized treatment plans based on their tumor type and stage.

Dr. Cai disclosed no conflicts of interest. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Xiu Research Fund.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cai H. AACR 2020. Patients with cancer appear more vulnerable to SARS-COV-2: A multicenter study during the COVID-19 outbreak; Dai M et al. Cancer Discov. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0422.

Cancer type, stage, and recent treatment may affect outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients, according to a study of patients from China.

The data showed that patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancers had higher risks of developing severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms, being admitted to the ICU, requiring ventilation, and dying.

On the other hand, patients with nonmetastatic cancer had outcomes comparable to those of noncancer patients with COVID-19.

Similarly, cancer patients who had recently undergone surgery or received immunotherapy were more likely to have poor outcomes, whereas cancer patients treated with radiotherapy had outcomes similar to those of noncancer COVID-19 patients.

Hongbing Cai, MD, of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China, presented these results at the AACR virtual meeting I. The results also were published in Cancer Discovery.
 

Cancer vs. noncancer patients

The study included 105 cancer patients with COVID-19 who were treated from Jan. 1 to Feb. 24, 2020, at 14 hospitals in Wuhan, China. Patients had lung (20.95%), gastrointestinal (12.38%), breast (10.48%), and thyroid cancers (10.48%) as well as hematologic malignancies (8.57%). Dr. Cai and colleagues matched the COVID-19 cancer patients to 536 COVID-19 patients without cancer. Patients were matched by hospital, duration of hospitalization, and age.

“COVID-19 patients with cancer had higher risks of all severe outcomes,” Dr. Cai noted.

Compared with noncancer patients, the cancer patients had a higher risk of:

• Severe or critical COVID-19 symptoms – odds ratio, 2.79 (P < .01).
• Being admitted to the ICU – OR, 2.84 (P < .01).
• Requiring invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 14 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 2.34 (P = .03).

Cancer type and stage

Dr. Cai noted that outcomes were the worst among patients with hematologic malignancies and those with metastatic cancer (stage IV).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with hematologic malignancies had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 9.66 (P < .01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 38 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .01).

Compared with patients without cancer, those with metastatic cancer had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 5.97 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 6.59 (P < 0.01).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 55.42 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 5.58 (P = .01).

On the other hand, outcomes in patients with nonmetastatic cancer were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .05 for all outcomes).
 

Cancer treatment

The treatments cancer patients received within 40 days before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms were radiotherapy (12.26%), chemotherapy (14.15%), surgery (7.62%), targeted therapies (3.81%), and immunotherapy (5.71%).

Compared with patients without cancer, those who received immunotherapy had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 10.61 (P < .01).
• Death – OR, 9.07 (P = .04).

Patients who underwent surgery had a higher risk of:

• Severe/critical symptoms – OR, 8.84 (P < .01).
• ICU admission – OR, 7.24 (P = .02).
• Invasive mechanical ventilation – OR, 44.33 (P < .01).

Conversely, outcomes in cancer patients who received radiotherapy were not significantly different from outcomes in patients without cancer (P > .10 for all).

These results suggest that “postponing surgery should be considered in outbreak areas,” Dr. Cai said, adding that scheduled radiotherapy can go ahead but with “intensive protection and surveillance.”

Dr. Cai said it remains to be seen whether patients with early-stage cancer need to postpone their treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic or whether immunotherapy aggravates severe outcomes in cancer patients with COVID-19. For now, she said, cancer patients should have individualized treatment plans based on their tumor type and stage.

Dr. Cai disclosed no conflicts of interest. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the Xiu Research Fund.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cai H. AACR 2020. Patients with cancer appear more vulnerable to SARS-COV-2: A multicenter study during the COVID-19 outbreak; Dai M et al. Cancer Discov. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0422.

Unless global investments are made to improve care worldwide, 11.1 million children will die from cancer over the next 30 years; 9.3 million of them (84%) will be in low- and lower-middle–income countries, according to a report in Lancet Oncology.

The report suggests that one in two new cases of childhood cancer are undiagnosed in low- and middle-income countries. If that trend continues, the number of children with cancer who are never diagnosed over the next 3 decades will exceed the number of those who are diagnosed.

Childhood cancer “is not complex, expensive, difficult to diagnose, or complicated to treat,” yet there’s a “worldwide inequity and a bleak picture for children with cancer” in low-income and middle-income countries, according to the report authors. The authors are 44 oncologists, pediatricians, and global health experts from around the world, led by Rifat Atun, MD, a professor of global health systems at Harvard University in Boston.

“For too long, there has been a widespread misconception that caring for children with cancer in low- and middle-income countries is expensive, unattainable, and inappropriate because of competing health priorities. Nothing could be further from the truth,” Dr. Atun said in a statement.

Dr. Atun and colleagues argued that the burden of childhood cancer “could be vastly reduced with new funding to scale up cost-effective interventions.” In fact, the authors estimated that scaling up interventions could prevent 6.2 million childhood cancer deaths between 2020 and 2050.

The reduction in deaths would translate to 318.4 million life-years gained, which would, in turn, translate to a global lifetime productivity gain of $2,580 billion, four times greater than the cumulative cost of $594 billion. This would mean a net return of $3 for every $1 spent.

Potential funders include governments, professional organizations, philanthropic groups, and industry, according to the authors. They also laid out the following six-pronged framework on how to proceed:

• Include childhood cancer in universal health coverage.
• Develop national cancer control plans for low-income and middle-income countries.
• End out-of-pocket costs for childhood cancer.
• Establish national and regional cancer networks to increase access to care.
• Expand population-based cancer registries to include children.
• Invest in research and innovations in low-income and middle-income countries.

“Success will be attained through political leadership, global solidarity, collective action, inclusive participation of all major stakeholders, and alignment of national and global efforts to expand access to effective and sustainable care for children with cancer,” the authors wrote.

No funding sources were reported. The authors didn’t have any disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Atun R et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Apr;21(4):e185-224.

Unless global investments are made to improve care worldwide, 11.1 million children will die from cancer over the next 30 years; 9.3 million of them (84%) will be in low- and lower-middle–income countries, according to a report in Lancet Oncology.

The report suggests that one in two new cases of childhood cancer are undiagnosed in low- and middle-income countries. If that trend continues, the number of children with cancer who are never diagnosed over the next 3 decades will exceed the number of those who are diagnosed.

Childhood cancer “is not complex, expensive, difficult to diagnose, or complicated to treat,” yet there’s a “worldwide inequity and a bleak picture for children with cancer” in low-income and middle-income countries, according to the report authors. The authors are 44 oncologists, pediatricians, and global health experts from around the world, led by Rifat Atun, MD, a professor of global health systems at Harvard University in Boston.

“For too long, there has been a widespread misconception that caring for children with cancer in low- and middle-income countries is expensive, unattainable, and inappropriate because of competing health priorities. Nothing could be further from the truth,” Dr. Atun said in a statement.

Dr. Atun and colleagues argued that the burden of childhood cancer “could be vastly reduced with new funding to scale up cost-effective interventions.” In fact, the authors estimated that scaling up interventions could prevent 6.2 million childhood cancer deaths between 2020 and 2050.

The reduction in deaths would translate to 318.4 million life-years gained, which would, in turn, translate to a global lifetime productivity gain of $2,580 billion, four times greater than the cumulative cost of $594 billion. This would mean a net return of $3 for every $1 spent.

Potential funders include governments, professional organizations, philanthropic groups, and industry, according to the authors. They also laid out the following six-pronged framework on how to proceed:

• Include childhood cancer in universal health coverage.
• Develop national cancer control plans for low-income and middle-income countries.
• End out-of-pocket costs for childhood cancer.
• Establish national and regional cancer networks to increase access to care.
• Expand population-based cancer registries to include children.
• Invest in research and innovations in low-income and middle-income countries.

“Success will be attained through political leadership, global solidarity, collective action, inclusive participation of all major stakeholders, and alignment of national and global efforts to expand access to effective and sustainable care for children with cancer,” the authors wrote.

No funding sources were reported. The authors didn’t have any disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Atun R et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Apr;21(4):e185-224.

Unless global investments are made to improve care worldwide, 11.1 million children will die from cancer over the next 30 years; 9.3 million of them (84%) will be in low- and lower-middle–income countries, according to a report in Lancet Oncology.

The report suggests that one in two new cases of childhood cancer are undiagnosed in low- and middle-income countries. If that trend continues, the number of children with cancer who are never diagnosed over the next 3 decades will exceed the number of those who are diagnosed.

Childhood cancer “is not complex, expensive, difficult to diagnose, or complicated to treat,” yet there’s a “worldwide inequity and a bleak picture for children with cancer” in low-income and middle-income countries, according to the report authors. The authors are 44 oncologists, pediatricians, and global health experts from around the world, led by Rifat Atun, MD, a professor of global health systems at Harvard University in Boston.

“For too long, there has been a widespread misconception that caring for children with cancer in low- and middle-income countries is expensive, unattainable, and inappropriate because of competing health priorities. Nothing could be further from the truth,” Dr. Atun said in a statement.

Dr. Atun and colleagues argued that the burden of childhood cancer “could be vastly reduced with new funding to scale up cost-effective interventions.” In fact, the authors estimated that scaling up interventions could prevent 6.2 million childhood cancer deaths between 2020 and 2050.

The reduction in deaths would translate to 318.4 million life-years gained, which would, in turn, translate to a global lifetime productivity gain of $2,580 billion, four times greater than the cumulative cost of $594 billion. This would mean a net return of $3 for every $1 spent.

Potential funders include governments, professional organizations, philanthropic groups, and industry, according to the authors. They also laid out the following six-pronged framework on how to proceed:

• Include childhood cancer in universal health coverage.
• Develop national cancer control plans for low-income and middle-income countries.
• End out-of-pocket costs for childhood cancer.
• Establish national and regional cancer networks to increase access to care.
• Expand population-based cancer registries to include children.
• Invest in research and innovations in low-income and middle-income countries.

“Success will be attained through political leadership, global solidarity, collective action, inclusive participation of all major stakeholders, and alignment of national and global efforts to expand access to effective and sustainable care for children with cancer,” the authors wrote.

No funding sources were reported. The authors didn’t have any disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Atun R et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Apr;21(4):e185-224.

My pathology lab once faced a daily flood of colon polyps, pap smears, and prostate biopsies. Suddenly, our work has dried up. The coronavirus pandemic has cleared out operating rooms and clinics across the country. Endoscopy and radiology suites have gone dark.

Pathology is largely driven by mass screening programs, and the machinery of screening has grinded to a halt during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Cancer Society currently recommends that “no one should go to a health care facility for routine cancer screening at this time.”

But malignancies are still growing and spreading even though a great deal of medical care is on hold. The most urgent cancer care is still taking place; the risks of delaying treatment for patients with advanced or symptomatic cancer are obvious—these tumors can cause severe pain and life-threatening complications.

But that leaves us with a more complex and uncomfortable question: Will the pause in screening ultimately leave patients with tiny, asymptomatic cancers or precursor lesions worse off? What will a delay mean for those with ductal carcinoma in situ or small breast cancers? What’s the long-term effect of all those dysplastic nevi and early melanoma left unexcised by dermatologists? Perhaps more troubling, what about the spreading kidney cancer that may have turned up as an incidental finding on a CT scan?
 

COVID-19: A natural experiment

For many years, we’ve been dealing with the other side of the screening question: overdiagnosing and treating cancers that would probably never harm the patient. Overdiagnosis has been on a decades-long rise due to organized screening like PSA testing and mammography, as well as through ad hoc detection from heavier use of medical imaging. All of these have been disrupted by the pandemic.

Because the correlation between medical interventions and cancer overdiagnosis is clear, we can safely assume that overdiagnosis will decline during the pandemic. But what will be the net effect? Early detection of cancer undoubtedly saves some lives, but how many and at what cost has been a seemingly intractable debate.

Until now.

The coronavirus outbreak will be a natural experiment like no other. Economists and epidemiologists love to study “natural experiments” – systemic shocks that shed light on a complex phenomenon.

The unexpected nationwide delay in screening will undoubtedly inform the debate on overdiagnosis. For one, we can learn whether less intensive screening leads to more advanced cancers. Because screening will probably return to normal at different times across the country, we can almost simulate a randomized trial. Will this transformative data be a silver lining to this awful time?
 

The pressure to ‘fight’

The pandemic has also raised a question about cancer screening that goes beyond data: Why has the loud epidemic of coronavirus so thoroughly trumped cancer’s silent one? To me, the necessary urgency of our coronavirus response stands in stark contrast to the overly aggressive public health messaging used for cancer screening.

The tools used to fight the coronavirus epidemic have been forceful. We’re all diligently washing our hands and staying inside. We’re making sacrifices in our jobs and personal lives to stop the virus’ spread.

Cancer screening has similarly been touted as dogma – an urgent public health intervention that only a fool would turn down. The American Cancer Society once ran an infamous advertisement suggesting that if you decline mammography, you “need more than your breasts examined.” Even today, well-intentioned organizations run cancer screening drives pushing people to pledge to “get screened now.” It is no surprise, then, that I have had patients and family members confide in me that they feel guilty about not pursuing all of their recommended screening tests. The thought of anyone feeling like they caused their own cancer appalls me.

This pressure extends into the clinic. In many practices, primary care doctors are evaluated based on how many patients “comply” with screening recommendations. There seems to be a relentless drive to reach 100% screening penetration. These oversimplified tactics run counter to the shared decision making and informed consent we profess to value in medicine.

The tricky thing about cancer screening is that because most people will never develop the cancer being screened for, we know that most people can also never be helped by it. This doesn’t make screening useless, just as washing your hands can help even if it doesn’t guarantee that you won’t catch coronavirus. We know that some individuals benefit, which we detect at the population level. Overdiagnosis arises in the same way, as a phenomenon detected within populations and not individuals. These aspects of screening are what has led to cancer being viewed as a “societal disease” requiring a uniform response – 100% screening compliance.
 

Metaphors of war

These assumptions fall apart now that we are facing a real societal disease, an infectious disease outbreak. Coronavirus has made us reflect on what actions individuals should take in order to protect others. But cancer is not a contagion. When we decide whether and how to screen, we make intimate decisions affecting primarily ourselves and our family – not society at large.

Countless articles have been written about the use of metaphor in cancer, perhaps most famously by essayist and breast cancer patient Susan Sontag. Sontag and others have been critical of the rampant use of war metaphors in the cancer community. Wars invoke sacrifice, duty, and suffering. The “battle” against coronavirus really puts the “war on cancer” in perspective. These pandemic weeks have terrified me. I have been willing to do anything to protect myself and others. They’ve also exhausted me. We can’t be at war forever.

When this current war ends, will the “war on cancer” resume unchanged? Screening will no doubt begin again, hopefully improved by data from the coronavirus natural experiment. But I wonder whether we will tolerate the same kinds of public health messages – and whether we should – having now experienced an infectious disease outbreak where our actions as individuals really do have an impact on the health of others.

After feeling helpless, besieged, and even guilt-ridden during the pandemic, I think many people would appreciate regaining a sense of control over other aspects of their health. Cancer screening can save lives, but it’s a choice we should make for ourselves based on an understanding of the trade-offs and our own preferences. When screening restarts, I hope its paternalistic dogma can be replaced by nuanced, empowering tactics more appropriate for peacetime.

Benjamin Mazer, MD, MBA, is an anatomic and clinical pathology resident at Yale with interests in diagnostic surgical pathology, laboratory management, and evidence-based medicine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

My pathology lab once faced a daily flood of colon polyps, pap smears, and prostate biopsies. Suddenly, our work has dried up. The coronavirus pandemic has cleared out operating rooms and clinics across the country. Endoscopy and radiology suites have gone dark.

Pathology is largely driven by mass screening programs, and the machinery of screening has grinded to a halt during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Cancer Society currently recommends that “no one should go to a health care facility for routine cancer screening at this time.”

But malignancies are still growing and spreading even though a great deal of medical care is on hold. The most urgent cancer care is still taking place; the risks of delaying treatment for patients with advanced or symptomatic cancer are obvious—these tumors can cause severe pain and life-threatening complications.

But that leaves us with a more complex and uncomfortable question: Will the pause in screening ultimately leave patients with tiny, asymptomatic cancers or precursor lesions worse off? What will a delay mean for those with ductal carcinoma in situ or small breast cancers? What’s the long-term effect of all those dysplastic nevi and early melanoma left unexcised by dermatologists? Perhaps more troubling, what about the spreading kidney cancer that may have turned up as an incidental finding on a CT scan?
 

COVID-19: A natural experiment

For many years, we’ve been dealing with the other side of the screening question: overdiagnosing and treating cancers that would probably never harm the patient. Overdiagnosis has been on a decades-long rise due to organized screening like PSA testing and mammography, as well as through ad hoc detection from heavier use of medical imaging. All of these have been disrupted by the pandemic.

Because the correlation between medical interventions and cancer overdiagnosis is clear, we can safely assume that overdiagnosis will decline during the pandemic. But what will be the net effect? Early detection of cancer undoubtedly saves some lives, but how many and at what cost has been a seemingly intractable debate.

Until now.

The coronavirus outbreak will be a natural experiment like no other. Economists and epidemiologists love to study “natural experiments” – systemic shocks that shed light on a complex phenomenon.

The unexpected nationwide delay in screening will undoubtedly inform the debate on overdiagnosis. For one, we can learn whether less intensive screening leads to more advanced cancers. Because screening will probably return to normal at different times across the country, we can almost simulate a randomized trial. Will this transformative data be a silver lining to this awful time?
 

The pressure to ‘fight’

The pandemic has also raised a question about cancer screening that goes beyond data: Why has the loud epidemic of coronavirus so thoroughly trumped cancer’s silent one? To me, the necessary urgency of our coronavirus response stands in stark contrast to the overly aggressive public health messaging used for cancer screening.

The tools used to fight the coronavirus epidemic have been forceful. We’re all diligently washing our hands and staying inside. We’re making sacrifices in our jobs and personal lives to stop the virus’ spread.

Cancer screening has similarly been touted as dogma – an urgent public health intervention that only a fool would turn down. The American Cancer Society once ran an infamous advertisement suggesting that if you decline mammography, you “need more than your breasts examined.” Even today, well-intentioned organizations run cancer screening drives pushing people to pledge to “get screened now.” It is no surprise, then, that I have had patients and family members confide in me that they feel guilty about not pursuing all of their recommended screening tests. The thought of anyone feeling like they caused their own cancer appalls me.

This pressure extends into the clinic. In many practices, primary care doctors are evaluated based on how many patients “comply” with screening recommendations. There seems to be a relentless drive to reach 100% screening penetration. These oversimplified tactics run counter to the shared decision making and informed consent we profess to value in medicine.

The tricky thing about cancer screening is that because most people will never develop the cancer being screened for, we know that most people can also never be helped by it. This doesn’t make screening useless, just as washing your hands can help even if it doesn’t guarantee that you won’t catch coronavirus. We know that some individuals benefit, which we detect at the population level. Overdiagnosis arises in the same way, as a phenomenon detected within populations and not individuals. These aspects of screening are what has led to cancer being viewed as a “societal disease” requiring a uniform response – 100% screening compliance.
 

Metaphors of war

These assumptions fall apart now that we are facing a real societal disease, an infectious disease outbreak. Coronavirus has made us reflect on what actions individuals should take in order to protect others. But cancer is not a contagion. When we decide whether and how to screen, we make intimate decisions affecting primarily ourselves and our family – not society at large.

Countless articles have been written about the use of metaphor in cancer, perhaps most famously by essayist and breast cancer patient Susan Sontag. Sontag and others have been critical of the rampant use of war metaphors in the cancer community. Wars invoke sacrifice, duty, and suffering. The “battle” against coronavirus really puts the “war on cancer” in perspective. These pandemic weeks have terrified me. I have been willing to do anything to protect myself and others. They’ve also exhausted me. We can’t be at war forever.

When this current war ends, will the “war on cancer” resume unchanged? Screening will no doubt begin again, hopefully improved by data from the coronavirus natural experiment. But I wonder whether we will tolerate the same kinds of public health messages – and whether we should – having now experienced an infectious disease outbreak where our actions as individuals really do have an impact on the health of others.

After feeling helpless, besieged, and even guilt-ridden during the pandemic, I think many people would appreciate regaining a sense of control over other aspects of their health. Cancer screening can save lives, but it’s a choice we should make for ourselves based on an understanding of the trade-offs and our own preferences. When screening restarts, I hope its paternalistic dogma can be replaced by nuanced, empowering tactics more appropriate for peacetime.

Benjamin Mazer, MD, MBA, is an anatomic and clinical pathology resident at Yale with interests in diagnostic surgical pathology, laboratory management, and evidence-based medicine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

My pathology lab once faced a daily flood of colon polyps, pap smears, and prostate biopsies. Suddenly, our work has dried up. The coronavirus pandemic has cleared out operating rooms and clinics across the country. Endoscopy and radiology suites have gone dark.

Pathology is largely driven by mass screening programs, and the machinery of screening has grinded to a halt during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Cancer Society currently recommends that “no one should go to a health care facility for routine cancer screening at this time.”

But malignancies are still growing and spreading even though a great deal of medical care is on hold. The most urgent cancer care is still taking place; the risks of delaying treatment for patients with advanced or symptomatic cancer are obvious—these tumors can cause severe pain and life-threatening complications.

But that leaves us with a more complex and uncomfortable question: Will the pause in screening ultimately leave patients with tiny, asymptomatic cancers or precursor lesions worse off? What will a delay mean for those with ductal carcinoma in situ or small breast cancers? What’s the long-term effect of all those dysplastic nevi and early melanoma left unexcised by dermatologists? Perhaps more troubling, what about the spreading kidney cancer that may have turned up as an incidental finding on a CT scan?
 

COVID-19: A natural experiment

For many years, we’ve been dealing with the other side of the screening question: overdiagnosing and treating cancers that would probably never harm the patient. Overdiagnosis has been on a decades-long rise due to organized screening like PSA testing and mammography, as well as through ad hoc detection from heavier use of medical imaging. All of these have been disrupted by the pandemic.

Because the correlation between medical interventions and cancer overdiagnosis is clear, we can safely assume that overdiagnosis will decline during the pandemic. But what will be the net effect? Early detection of cancer undoubtedly saves some lives, but how many and at what cost has been a seemingly intractable debate.

Until now.

The coronavirus outbreak will be a natural experiment like no other. Economists and epidemiologists love to study “natural experiments” – systemic shocks that shed light on a complex phenomenon.

The unexpected nationwide delay in screening will undoubtedly inform the debate on overdiagnosis. For one, we can learn whether less intensive screening leads to more advanced cancers. Because screening will probably return to normal at different times across the country, we can almost simulate a randomized trial. Will this transformative data be a silver lining to this awful time?
 

The pressure to ‘fight’

The pandemic has also raised a question about cancer screening that goes beyond data: Why has the loud epidemic of coronavirus so thoroughly trumped cancer’s silent one? To me, the necessary urgency of our coronavirus response stands in stark contrast to the overly aggressive public health messaging used for cancer screening.

The tools used to fight the coronavirus epidemic have been forceful. We’re all diligently washing our hands and staying inside. We’re making sacrifices in our jobs and personal lives to stop the virus’ spread.

Cancer screening has similarly been touted as dogma – an urgent public health intervention that only a fool would turn down. The American Cancer Society once ran an infamous advertisement suggesting that if you decline mammography, you “need more than your breasts examined.” Even today, well-intentioned organizations run cancer screening drives pushing people to pledge to “get screened now.” It is no surprise, then, that I have had patients and family members confide in me that they feel guilty about not pursuing all of their recommended screening tests. The thought of anyone feeling like they caused their own cancer appalls me.

This pressure extends into the clinic. In many practices, primary care doctors are evaluated based on how many patients “comply” with screening recommendations. There seems to be a relentless drive to reach 100% screening penetration. These oversimplified tactics run counter to the shared decision making and informed consent we profess to value in medicine.

The tricky thing about cancer screening is that because most people will never develop the cancer being screened for, we know that most people can also never be helped by it. This doesn’t make screening useless, just as washing your hands can help even if it doesn’t guarantee that you won’t catch coronavirus. We know that some individuals benefit, which we detect at the population level. Overdiagnosis arises in the same way, as a phenomenon detected within populations and not individuals. These aspects of screening are what has led to cancer being viewed as a “societal disease” requiring a uniform response – 100% screening compliance.
 

Metaphors of war

These assumptions fall apart now that we are facing a real societal disease, an infectious disease outbreak. Coronavirus has made us reflect on what actions individuals should take in order to protect others. But cancer is not a contagion. When we decide whether and how to screen, we make intimate decisions affecting primarily ourselves and our family – not society at large.

Countless articles have been written about the use of metaphor in cancer, perhaps most famously by essayist and breast cancer patient Susan Sontag. Sontag and others have been critical of the rampant use of war metaphors in the cancer community. Wars invoke sacrifice, duty, and suffering. The “battle” against coronavirus really puts the “war on cancer” in perspective. These pandemic weeks have terrified me. I have been willing to do anything to protect myself and others. They’ve also exhausted me. We can’t be at war forever.

When this current war ends, will the “war on cancer” resume unchanged? Screening will no doubt begin again, hopefully improved by data from the coronavirus natural experiment. But I wonder whether we will tolerate the same kinds of public health messages – and whether we should – having now experienced an infectious disease outbreak where our actions as individuals really do have an impact on the health of others.

After feeling helpless, besieged, and even guilt-ridden during the pandemic, I think many people would appreciate regaining a sense of control over other aspects of their health. Cancer screening can save lives, but it’s a choice we should make for ourselves based on an understanding of the trade-offs and our own preferences. When screening restarts, I hope its paternalistic dogma can be replaced by nuanced, empowering tactics more appropriate for peacetime.

Benjamin Mazer, MD, MBA, is an anatomic and clinical pathology resident at Yale with interests in diagnostic surgical pathology, laboratory management, and evidence-based medicine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Ruxolitinib produced significantly better efficacy outcomes in patients with glucocorticoid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), compared with investigator’s choice of control therapy, in the phase 3 REACH2 trial.

However, there was a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia with ruxolitinib than with control treatment, according to a report by Robert Zeiser, MD, of University of Freiburg (Germany) and colleagues on behalf of the REACH2 research group. The report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The REACH2 trial (NCT02913261) is a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of oral ruxolitinib (10 mg twice daily) with investigator’s choice of therapy for control treatment using a list of nine commonly used options.

Patients were 12 years of age or older with glucocorticoid-refractory acute GVHD after allogeneic stem cell transplant. A total of 154 patients were assigned to the ruxolitinib group, and 155 patients were in the control group.

Most patients – 152 in the ruxolitinib group and 150 in the control group – received at least one dose of trial treatment.

Treatment discontinuation occurred in 72% (111/154) of patients in the ruxolitinib group and in 85% (132/155) of those in the control group. The most common reason for discontinuation was lack of efficacy (in 21% and 44%, respectively).
 

Outcomes

The overall response at day 28 (the primary endpoint) was significantly higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (62% vs. 39%; odds ratio, 2.64; P < .001). The durable overall response at day 56 was also significantly higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (40% vs. 22%; OR, 2.38; P < .001).

The estimated cumulative incidence of loss of response at 6 months was 10% in the ruxolitinib group compared with 39% in the control group.

The median failure-free survival was considerably longer with ruxolitinib than with control treatment (5.0 months vs. 1.0 month; hazard ratio for relapse or progression of hematologic disease, non–relapse-related death, or the use of new systemic therapy for acute GVHD, 0.46).

The median overall survival was 11.1 months in the ruxolitinib group and 6.5 months in the control group (HR, 0.83).

Overall, 72 patients (47%) in the ruxolitinib group and 77 (51%) in the control group died by the data cutoff date. Most deaths were attributed to acute GVHD (22% in the ruxolitinib group and 25% in the control group).

The most common adverse events at day 28 (in the ruxolitinib and control arms, respectively) were thrombocytopenia (33% and 18%), anemia (30% and 28%), and cytomegalovirus infection (26% and 21%).
 

Praise for ‘successful’ randomized trial in GVHD

“The authors are to be congratulated for completing this successful randomized trial, which showed convincingly that ruxolitinib was more effective than the investigator’s choice of therapy ... in patients in whom glucocorticoid therapy had failed,” wrote Nelson Chao, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., in his invited editorial.

He went on to speculate on the possible mechanism for ruxolitinib in these patients, discussing the possible role of the STAT3 and STAT1 signaling pathways.

Dr. Chao also found it “interesting that the incidence of infectious complications or relapse was apparently not greater with ruxolitinib than with control therapy,” but he noted that the total follow-up time was short.

“As with all good research, these observations raise important questions and set the stage for further work in this area,” he concluded.

The REACH2 trial was funded by Novartis. The study authors disclosed relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis. Dr. Chao reported having no relevant disclosures.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zeiser R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1917635.

Ruxolitinib produced significantly better efficacy outcomes in patients with glucocorticoid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), compared with investigator’s choice of control therapy, in the phase 3 REACH2 trial.

However, there was a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia with ruxolitinib than with control treatment, according to a report by Robert Zeiser, MD, of University of Freiburg (Germany) and colleagues on behalf of the REACH2 research group. The report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The REACH2 trial (NCT02913261) is a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of oral ruxolitinib (10 mg twice daily) with investigator’s choice of therapy for control treatment using a list of nine commonly used options.

Patients were 12 years of age or older with glucocorticoid-refractory acute GVHD after allogeneic stem cell transplant. A total of 154 patients were assigned to the ruxolitinib group, and 155 patients were in the control group.

Most patients – 152 in the ruxolitinib group and 150 in the control group – received at least one dose of trial treatment.

Treatment discontinuation occurred in 72% (111/154) of patients in the ruxolitinib group and in 85% (132/155) of those in the control group. The most common reason for discontinuation was lack of efficacy (in 21% and 44%, respectively).
 

Outcomes

The overall response at day 28 (the primary endpoint) was significantly higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (62% vs. 39%; odds ratio, 2.64; P < .001). The durable overall response at day 56 was also significantly higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (40% vs. 22%; OR, 2.38; P < .001).

The estimated cumulative incidence of loss of response at 6 months was 10% in the ruxolitinib group compared with 39% in the control group.

The median failure-free survival was considerably longer with ruxolitinib than with control treatment (5.0 months vs. 1.0 month; hazard ratio for relapse or progression of hematologic disease, non–relapse-related death, or the use of new systemic therapy for acute GVHD, 0.46).

The median overall survival was 11.1 months in the ruxolitinib group and 6.5 months in the control group (HR, 0.83).

Overall, 72 patients (47%) in the ruxolitinib group and 77 (51%) in the control group died by the data cutoff date. Most deaths were attributed to acute GVHD (22% in the ruxolitinib group and 25% in the control group).

The most common adverse events at day 28 (in the ruxolitinib and control arms, respectively) were thrombocytopenia (33% and 18%), anemia (30% and 28%), and cytomegalovirus infection (26% and 21%).
 

Praise for ‘successful’ randomized trial in GVHD

“The authors are to be congratulated for completing this successful randomized trial, which showed convincingly that ruxolitinib was more effective than the investigator’s choice of therapy ... in patients in whom glucocorticoid therapy had failed,” wrote Nelson Chao, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., in his invited editorial.

He went on to speculate on the possible mechanism for ruxolitinib in these patients, discussing the possible role of the STAT3 and STAT1 signaling pathways.

Dr. Chao also found it “interesting that the incidence of infectious complications or relapse was apparently not greater with ruxolitinib than with control therapy,” but he noted that the total follow-up time was short.

“As with all good research, these observations raise important questions and set the stage for further work in this area,” he concluded.

The REACH2 trial was funded by Novartis. The study authors disclosed relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis. Dr. Chao reported having no relevant disclosures.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zeiser R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1917635.

Ruxolitinib produced significantly better efficacy outcomes in patients with glucocorticoid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), compared with investigator’s choice of control therapy, in the phase 3 REACH2 trial.

However, there was a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia with ruxolitinib than with control treatment, according to a report by Robert Zeiser, MD, of University of Freiburg (Germany) and colleagues on behalf of the REACH2 research group. The report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The REACH2 trial (NCT02913261) is a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of oral ruxolitinib (10 mg twice daily) with investigator’s choice of therapy for control treatment using a list of nine commonly used options.

Patients were 12 years of age or older with glucocorticoid-refractory acute GVHD after allogeneic stem cell transplant. A total of 154 patients were assigned to the ruxolitinib group, and 155 patients were in the control group.

Most patients – 152 in the ruxolitinib group and 150 in the control group – received at least one dose of trial treatment.

Treatment discontinuation occurred in 72% (111/154) of patients in the ruxolitinib group and in 85% (132/155) of those in the control group. The most common reason for discontinuation was lack of efficacy (in 21% and 44%, respectively).
 

Outcomes

The overall response at day 28 (the primary endpoint) was significantly higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (62% vs. 39%; odds ratio, 2.64; P < .001). The durable overall response at day 56 was also significantly higher in the ruxolitinib group than in the control group (40% vs. 22%; OR, 2.38; P < .001).

The estimated cumulative incidence of loss of response at 6 months was 10% in the ruxolitinib group compared with 39% in the control group.

The median failure-free survival was considerably longer with ruxolitinib than with control treatment (5.0 months vs. 1.0 month; hazard ratio for relapse or progression of hematologic disease, non–relapse-related death, or the use of new systemic therapy for acute GVHD, 0.46).

The median overall survival was 11.1 months in the ruxolitinib group and 6.5 months in the control group (HR, 0.83).

Overall, 72 patients (47%) in the ruxolitinib group and 77 (51%) in the control group died by the data cutoff date. Most deaths were attributed to acute GVHD (22% in the ruxolitinib group and 25% in the control group).

The most common adverse events at day 28 (in the ruxolitinib and control arms, respectively) were thrombocytopenia (33% and 18%), anemia (30% and 28%), and cytomegalovirus infection (26% and 21%).
 

Praise for ‘successful’ randomized trial in GVHD

“The authors are to be congratulated for completing this successful randomized trial, which showed convincingly that ruxolitinib was more effective than the investigator’s choice of therapy ... in patients in whom glucocorticoid therapy had failed,” wrote Nelson Chao, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., in his invited editorial.

He went on to speculate on the possible mechanism for ruxolitinib in these patients, discussing the possible role of the STAT3 and STAT1 signaling pathways.

Dr. Chao also found it “interesting that the incidence of infectious complications or relapse was apparently not greater with ruxolitinib than with control therapy,” but he noted that the total follow-up time was short.

“As with all good research, these observations raise important questions and set the stage for further work in this area,” he concluded.

The REACH2 trial was funded by Novartis. The study authors disclosed relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis. Dr. Chao reported having no relevant disclosures.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zeiser R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1917635.