Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘coronavirus’ Category

National Cancer Institute Director Neil Sharpless says mortality from delays in cancer screenings due to COVID19 pandemic could result in tens of thousands of extra deaths in next decade

Reporter: Stephen J Williams, PhD

UPDATED: 08/14/2023

A Cross Sectional Study Reveals What Oncologists Had Feared: Cancer Screenings During Pandemic Has Decreased, leading to Decreased Early Detection

As discussed in many articles here on COVID-19 and cancer, during the pandemic many oncologists were worried that people slowed getting their cancer screenings due to health risks due to the COVID-19 outbreak.  Governmental agencies went as far to project upticks in future cancer rates, as preventative screening rates were down due to closed hospitals, shuttered services, or patient trepidation during the height of the pandemic.  As many oncologists voiced, a decrease in cancer screenings might lead to missing out on the early stages of the disease, when most treatable. Now, reported in a Lancet cross-sectional analysis by investigators at ACS and University of Texas Southwest (1), we have the first indication of the effects of this decrease in preventative screening, namely decreased early detection and diagnosis.

The authors used data from the US National Cancer Database, a nationwide hospital-based cancer registry, to perform a cross sectional nationwide assessment of the prevalence of new cancer diagnosis before, during, and after the height of the pandemic (March 1 2020 to December 31, 2020).  Newly diagnosed cases of first primary malignant cancer between Jan1, 2018 to Dec 31, 2020 were identified and monthly and annual counts and stage distributions were caluculated andpresented as adjusted odds ratios (aORs).  They also used the period from 2018 to Jan 2020 as a baseline or prepandemic level of newly diagnosed cancer.

Results of this analysis identified 2,404,050 adults with newly diagnosed cancer during study period 2018 to 2020.  The monthly number of new cancer diagnoses (all stages) decreased significantly after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.  However new cancer diagnosis returned to pre-pandemic levels by end of 2020.  The decrease in diagnosis was largest for stage I diseases however the odds of being diagnosed with late stage IV disease were higher in 2020 than in 2019.  When the authors stratified the cohorts based on sociodemographic groups, interestingly those most affected (with lowest diagnosis rates during the pandemic) were those living in socioeconomic deprived areas, hispanics, asian americans, pacific Islanders, and uninsured individuals.

The authors’ interpretations are a warning: Substantial cancer underdiagnosis and decreases in the proportion of early stage diagnoses occurred during 2020 in the USA, particularly among medically underserved individuals. Monitoring the long-term effects of the pandemic on morbidity, survival, and mortality is warranted.

 

 

Evidence before this study

We searched PubMed using the terms “COVID”, “pandemic”, and “cancer” for studies published in English between

March 1, 2020, and Nov 30, 2022. Health care was disrupted during the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the USA, rapid decreases in screening were reported for nearly all types of cancer screening services after the declaration of the COVID-19 national emergency. Decreased screening, and delayed and forgone routine check-ups or health-care visits, can lead to underdiagnosis of cancer, especially for early stage disease for which treatment is most effective. Several studies have identified reduced use of diagnostic procedures and decreases in the number of newly diagnosed patients during 2020 in the USA. However, these studies were done in selected populations, in specific geographical areas, or for only a single cancer type, limiting understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer burden nationally.

Added value of this study

Using a recently released nationwide cancer registry dataset, we comprehensively evaluated changes in cancer diagnoses and stage distribution during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic by cancer type and key sociodemographic factors in the USA.

Implications of all the available evidence

Along with existing evidence, our findings should help to inform future policy and cancer care delivery interventions to improve access to care for underserved populations. Research is warranted to monitor the long-term effects of the underdiagnosis of early stage cancer identified in this study on morbidity, mortality, and disparities in health outcomes.

Results

The main results from the paper are summarized below:

 

Between 2020 and 2019, annual stage I diagnoses decreased by 17·2% (95% CI 16·8–17·6), and annual stage IV diagnoses decreased 9·8% (9·2–10·5). Notably, by race and ethnicity, the largest percentage reduction in stage I diagnoses was among Hispanic individuals and Asian American and Pacific Islander individuals, and the largest percentage reduction in stage IV diagnoses was among non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White individuals. Diagnoses of lung cancer, colorectal cancer, melanoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma had the largest percentage reduction among both stage I (>18%) and stage IV (>10%) diagnoses; cancers of the prostate, cervix, liver, oesophagus, stomach, and thyroid also had large percentage reductions in stage I diagnoses (>20).

After adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors, the stage distribution of new diagnoses changed in 2020 compared with 2019 (table 3). Specifically, the aOR for being diagnosed with stage I disease versus stage II–IV disease in 2020 compared with 2019 was 0·946 (95% CI 0·939–0·952), and the aOR for being diagnosed with stage IV disease versus stage I–III disease in 2020 compared with 2019 was 1·074 (1·066–1·083).

These results also confirmed results seen in other studies coming from Europe (2,3, 4).

References

  1. Han X, Yang NN, Nogueira L, Jiang C, Wagle NS, Zhao J, Shi KS, Fan Q, Schafer E, Yabroff KR, Jemal A. Changes in cancer diagnoses and stage distribution during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA: a cross-sectional nationwide assessment. Lancet Oncol. 2023 Aug;24(8):855-867. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00293-0. PMID: 37541271.
  2. Kuzuu K, Misawa N, Ashikari K, et al. Gastrointestinal cancer stage at diagnosis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4: e2126334. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.26334
  3. Linck PA, Garnier C, Depetiteville MP, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 lockdown in France on the diagnosis and staging of breast cancers in a tertiary cancer centre. Eur Radiol 2022; 32: 1644–51. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08264-3
  4. Mynard N, Saxena A, Mavracick A, et al. Lung cancer stage shift as a result of COVID-19 lockdowns in New York City, a brief report. Clin Lung Cancer 2022; 23: e238–42.  DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2021.08.010

 

 

UPDATED: 10/11/2021

Source: https://cancerletter.com/articles/20200619_1/

NCI Director’s Report

Sharpless: COVID-19 expected to increase mortality by at least 10,000 deaths from breast and colorectal cancers over 10 years

By Matthew Bin Han Ong

This story is part of The Cancer Letter’s ongoing coverage of COVID-19’s impact on oncology. A full list of our coverage, as well as the latest meeting cancellations, is available here.

The COVID-19 pandemic will likely cause at least 10,000 excess deaths from breast cancer and colorectal cancer over the next 10 years in the United States.

Scenarios run by NCI and affiliated modeling groups predict that delays in screening for and diagnosis of breast and colorectal cancers will lead to a 1% increase in deaths through 2030. This translates into 10,000 additional deaths, on top of the expected one million deaths resulting from these two cancers.

“For both these cancer types, we believe the pandemic will influence cancer deaths for at least a decade,” NCI Director Ned Sharpless said in a virtual joint meeting of the Board of Scientific Advisors and the National Cancer Advisory Board June 15. “I find this worrisome as cancer mortality is common. Even a 1% increase every decade is a lot of cancer suffering.

“And this analysis, frankly, is pretty conservative. We do not consider cancers other than those of breast and colon, but there is every reason to believe the pandemic will affect other types of cancer, too. We did not account for the additional non-lethal morbidity from upstaging, but this could also be significant and burdensome.”

An editorial by Sharpless on this subject appears in the journal Science.

The early analyses, conducted by the institute’s Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, focused on breast and colorectal cancers, because these are common, with relatively high screening rates.

CISNET modelers created four scenarios to assess long-term increases in cancer mortality rates for these two diseases:

  1. The pandemic has no effect on cancer mortality
  1. Delayed screening—with 75% reduction in mammography and, colorectal screening and adenoma surveillance for six months
  1. Delayed diagnosis—with one-third of people delaying follow-up after a positive screening or diagnostic mammogram, positive FIT or clinical symptoms for six months during a six-month period
  1. Combination of scenarios two and three

Treatment scenarios after diagnosis were not included in the model. These would be: delays in treatment, cancellation of treatment, or modified treatment.

“What we did is show the impact of the number of excess deaths per year for 10 years for each year starting in 2020 for scenario four versus scenario one,” Eric “Rocky” Feuer, chief of the NCI’s Statistical Research and Applications Branch in the Surveillance Research Program, said to The Cancer Letter.

Feuer is the overall project scientist for CISNET, a collaborative group of investigators who use simulation modeling to guide public health research and priorities.

“The results for breast cancer were somewhat larger than for colorectal,” Feuer said. “And that’s because breast cancer has a longer preclinical natural history relative to colorectal cancer.”

Modelers in oncology are creating a global modeling consortium, COVID-19 and Cancer Taskforce, to “support decision-making in cancer control both during and after the crisis.” The consortium is supported by the Union for International Cancer Control, The International Agency for Research on Cancer, The International Cancer Screening Network, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, and Cancer Council NSW, Australia.

A spike in cancer mortality rates threatens to reverse or slow down—at least in the medium term—the steady trend of reduction of cancer deaths. On Jan. 8, the American Cancer Society published its annual estimates of new cancer cases and deaths, declaring that the latest data—from 2016 to 2017—show the “largest ever single-year drop in overall cancer mortality of 2.2%.” Experts say that innovation in lung cancer treatment and the success of smoking cessation programs are driving the sharp decrease (The Cancer LetterFeb. 7, 2020).

The pandemic is expected to have broader impact, including increases in mortality rates for other cancer types. Also, variations in severity of COVID-19 in different regions in the U.S. will influence mortality metrics.

“There’s some other cancers that might have delays in screening—for example cervical, prostate, and lung cancer, although lung cancer screening rates are still quite low and prostate cancer screening should only be conducted on those who determine that the benefits outweigh the harms,” Feuer said. “So, those are the major screening cancers, but impacts of delays in treatment, canceling treatment or alternative treatments—could impact a larger range of cancer sites.

“This model assumes a moderate disruption which resolves after six months, and doesn’t consider non-lethal morbidities associated with the delay. One thing I think probably is occurring is regional variation in these impacts,” Feuer said. “If you’re living in New York City where things were ground zero for some of the worst impact early on, probably delays were larger than other areas of the country. But now, as we’re seeing upticks in other areas of the country, there may be in impact in these areas as well”

How can health care providers mitigate some of these harms? For example, for people who delayed screening and diagnosis, are providers able to perform triage, so that those at highest risk are prioritized?

“From a strictly cancer control point of view, let’s get those people who delayed screening, or followup to a positive test, or treatment back on schedule as soon as possible,” Feuer said. “But it’s not a simple calculus, because in every situation, we have to weigh the harms and benefits. As we come out of the pandemic, it tips more and more to, ‘Let’s get back to business with respect to cancer control.’

“Telemedicine doesn’t completely substitute for seeing patients in person, but at least people could get the advice they need, and then are triaged through their health care providers to indicate if they really should prioritize coming in. That helps the individual and the health care provider  weigh the harms and benefits, and try to strategize about what’s best for any individual.”

If the pandemic continues to disrupt routine care, cancer-related mortality rates would rise beyond the predictions in this model.

“I think this analysis begins to help us understand the costs with regard to cancer outcomes of the pandemic,” Sharpless said. “Let’s all agree we will do everything in our power to minimize these adverse effects, to protect our patients from cancer suffering.”

UPDATED: 10/11/2021

Patients with Cancer Appear More Vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2: A Multicenter Study during the COVID-19 Outbreak

Source:

Mengyuan DaiDianbo LiuMiao LiuFuxiang ZhouGuiling LiZhen ChenZhian ZhangHua YouMeng WuQichao ZhengYong XiongHuihua XiongChun WangChangchun ChenFei XiongYan ZhangYaqin PengSiping GeBo ZhenTingting YuLing WangHua WangYu LiuYeshan ChenJunhua MeiXiaojia GaoZhuyan LiLijuan GanCan HeZhen LiYuying ShiYuwen QiJing YangDaniel G. TenenLi ChaiLorelei A. MucciMauricio Santillana and Hongbing Cai. Patients with Cancer Appear More Vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2: A Multicenter Study during the COVID-19 Outbreak

Abstract

The novel COVID-19 outbreak has affected more than 200 countries and territories as of March 2020. Given that patients with cancer are generally more vulnerable to infections, systematic analysis of diverse cohorts of patients with cancer affected by COVID-19 is needed. We performed a multicenter study including 105 patients with cancer and 536 age-matched noncancer patients confirmed with COVID-19. Our results showed COVID-19 patients with cancer had higher risks in all severe outcomes. Patients with hematologic cancer, lung cancer, or with metastatic cancer (stage IV) had the highest frequency of severe events. Patients with nonmetastatic cancer experienced similar frequencies of severe conditions to those observed in patients without cancer. Patients who received surgery had higher risks of having severe events, whereas patients who underwent only radiotherapy did not demonstrate significant differences in severe events when compared with patients without cancer. These findings indicate that patients with cancer appear more vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.

Significance: Because this is the first large cohort study on this topic, our report will provide much-needed information that will benefit patients with cancer globally. As such, we believe it is extremely important that our study be disseminated widely to alert clinicians and patients.

Introduction

A new acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, named SARS-CoV-2 by the World Health Organization (WHO), has rapidly spread around the world since its first reported case in late December 2019 from Wuhan, China (1). As of March 2020, this virus has affected more than 200 countries and territories, infecting more than 800,000 individuals and causing more than 40,000 deaths (2).

With more than 18 million new cases per year globally, cancer affects a significant portion of the population. Individuals affected by cancer are more susceptible to infections due to coexisting chronic diseases, overall poor health status, and systemic immunosuppressive states caused by both cancer and anticancer treatments (3). As a consequence, patients with cancer who are infected by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus may experience more difficult outcomes than other populations. Until now, there is still no systematic evaluation of the effects that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has of patients with cancer in a representative population. A recent study reported a higher risk of severe events in patients with cancer when compared with patients without cancer (4); however, the small sample size of SARS-CoV-2 patients with cancer used in the study limited how representative it was of the whole population and made it difficult to conduct more insightful analyses, such as comparing clinical characteristics of patients with different types of cancer, as well as anticancer treatments (5, 6).

Using patient information collected from 14 hospitals in Hubei Province, China, the epicenter of the 2019–2020 COVID-19 outbreak, we describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes [death, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, development of severe/critical symptoms, and utilization of invasive mechanical ventilation] of patients affected by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus for 105 hospitalized patients with cancer and 536 patients without cancer. We document our findings for different cancer types and stages, as well as different types of cancer treatments. We believe the information and insights provided in this study will help improve our understanding of the effects of SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer.

Results

Patients Characteristics

In total, 105 COVID-19 patients with cancer were enrolled in our study for the time period January 1, 2020, to February 24, 2020, from 14 hospitals in Wuhan, China. COVID-19 patients without cancer matched by the same hospital, hospitalization time, and age were randomly selected as our control group. Our patient population included 339 females and 302 males. Patients with cancer [median = 64.00, interquartile range (IQR) = 14.00], when compared with those without cancer (median = 63.50, IQR = 14.00) had similar age distributions (by design), experienced more in-hospital infections [20 (19.04%) of 105 patients vs. 8 (1.49%) of 536 patients;P < 0.01], and had more smoking history [36 (34.28%) of 105 patients vs. 46 (8.58%) of 536 patients; P < 0.01], but had no significant differences in sex, other baseline symptoms, and other comorbidities (Table 1). With respect to signs and symptoms upon admission, COVID-19 patients with cancer were similar to those without cancer except for a higher prevalence of chest distress [15 (14.29%) of 105 patients vs. 36 (6.16%) of 536 patients; P = 0.02].

Table 1.

Characteristics of COVID-19 patients with and without cancer

Clinical Outcomes

Compared with COVID-19 patients without cancer, patients with cancer had higher observed death rates [OR, 2.34; 95% confidence interval (CI), (1.15–4.77); P = 0.03], higher rates of ICU admission [OR, 2.84; 95% CI (1.59–5.08); P < 0.01], higher rates of having at least one severe or critical symptom [OR, 2.79; 95% CI, (1.74–4.41); P < 0.01], and higher chances of needing invasive mechanical ventilation (Fig. 1A). We also conducted survival analysis on occurrence of any severe condition which included death, ICU admission, having severe symptoms, and utilization of invasive mechanical ventilation (see cumulative incidence curves in Fig. 1B). In general, patients with cancer deteriorated more rapidly than those without cancer. These observations are consistent with logistic regression results (Supplementary Fig. S1), after adjusting for age, sex, smoking, and comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). According to our multivariate logistic regression results, patients with cancer still had an excess OR of 2.17 (P = 0.06) for death (Supplementary Fig. S1A), 1.99 (P < 0.01) for experiencing any severe symptoms (Supplementary Fig. S1B), 3.13 (P < 0.01) for ICU admission (Supplementary Fig. S1C), and 2.71 (P = 0.04) for utilization of invasive mechanical ventilation (Supplementary Fig. S1D; Supplementary Table S1). The consistency of observed ORs between the multivariate regression model and unadjusted calculation reassures the association between cancer and severe events even in the presence of other factors such as age differences.

Figure 1.

Severe conditions in patients with and without cancer, and patients with different types, stages, and treatments of cancer. Severe conditions include death, ICU admission, having severe/critical symptoms, and usage of invasive mechanical ventilation. Incidence and survival analysis of severe conditions among COVID-19 patients with cancer and without cancer (A and B), among patients with different types of cancer (C and D), among patients with metastatic and nonmetastatic cancers (E and F), among patients with lung cancer, other cancers than lung with lung metastasis, and other cancers than lung without lung metastasis (G and H), and patients receiving different types of cancer treatments (I and J). P values indicate differences between cancer subgroups versus patients without cancer. For ACEGI, *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01. OR, 95% CI, and P values between different subgroups are listed in Supplementary Table S2. For BDFHJ, HR, 95% CI, and P values are listed in Supplementary Table S3.

Cancer Types

Information regarding potential risks of severe conditions in SARS-CoV-2 associated with each type of cancer was calculated. We compared different conditions among cancer types (Table 2). Lung cancer was the most frequent cancer type [22 (20.95%) of 105 patients], followed by gastrointestinal cancer [13 (12.38%) of 105 patients], breast cancer [11 (10.48%) of 105 patients], thyroid cancer [11 (10.48%) of 105 patients], and hematologic cancer [9 (8.57%) of 105 patients]. As shown in Fig. 1C and D and Supplementary Table S2, patients with hematologic cancer including leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma have a relatively high death rate [3 (33.33%) of 9 patients], high ICU admission rate [4 (44.44%) of 9 patients], high risks of severe/critical symptoms [6 (66.67%) of 9 patients], and high chance of utilization of invasive mechanical ventilation [2 (22.22%) of 9 patients]. Patients with lung cancer had the second-highest risk levels, with death rate [4 (18.18%) of 22 patients], ICU admission rate [6 (27.27%) of 22 patients], risks of severe/critical symptoms [11 (50.00%) of 22 patients], and the chance of utilization of invasive mechanical ventilation [4 (18.18%) of 22 patients; Table 2].

Table 2.

Severe events in 105 patients with cancer for each type of cancer

Cancer Stage

We found that patients with metastatic cancer (stage IV) had even higher risks of death [OR, 5.58; 95% CI (1.71–18.23); P = 0.01], ICU admission [OR, 6.59; 95% CI (2.32–18.72); P < 0.01], having severe conditions [OR, 5.97; 95% CI (2.24–15.91); P < 0.01], and use of invasive mechanical ventilation [OR, 55.42; 95% CI (13.21–232.47); P < 0.01]. In contrast, patients with nonmetastatic cancer did not demonstrate statistically significant differences compared with patients without cancer, with all P > 0.05 (Fig. 1E and F; Supplementary Tables S2 and S3). In addition, when compared with patients without cancer, patients with lung cancer or other cancers with lung metastasis also showed higher risks of death, ICU admission rates, higher critical symptoms, and use of invasive mechanical ventilation, with all P values below 0.01, but other cancers without lung metastasis had no statistically significant differences (all P values > 0.05; Fig. 1G and H; Supplementary Table S3) when compared with patients without cancer.

Cancer Treatments

Among the 105 COVID-19 patients with cancer in our study, 13 (12.26%) had radiotherapy, 17 (14.15%) received chemotherapy, 8 (7.62%) received surgery, 4 (3.81%) had targeted therapy, and 6 (5.71%) had immunotherapy within 40 days before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. All of the targeted therapeutic drugs were EGFR–tyrosine kinase inhibitors for treatment of lung cancer, and all of the immunotherapy drugs were PD-1 inhibitors for the treatment of lung cancer. A patient with cancer may have more than one type of therapy. Our observation suggested that patients who received immunotherapy tended to have high rates of death [2 (33.33%) of 6 patients] and high chances of developing critical symptoms [4 (66.67%) of 6 patients]. Patients who received surgery demonstrated higher rates of death [2 (25.00%) of 8 patients], higher chances of ICU admission [3 (37.50%) of 8 patients], higher chances of having severe or critical symptoms [5 (62.50%) of 8 patients], and higher use of invasive ventilation [2 (25.00%) of 8 patients] than other treatments excluding immunotherapy. However, patients with cancer who received radiotherapy did not show statistically significant differences in having any severe events when compared with patients without cancer, with all P values > 0.10 (Fig. 1I and J). Clinical details on the cancer diagnoses and cancer treatments are summarized in Supplementary Table S4.

Timeline of Severe Events

To evaluate the time-dependent evolution of the disease, we conducted the timeline of different events for COVID-19 patients with cancer (Fig. 2A) and COVID-19 patients without cancer (Fig. 2B) with death and other severe events marked in the figure. COVID-19 patients with cancer had a mean length of stay of 27.01 days (SD 9.52) and patients without cancer had a mean length of stay of 17.75 days (SD 8.64); the difference is significant (Wilcoxon test, P < 0.01). To better clarify the contributing factors that might influence outcomes, we also included logistic regression of COVID-19 patients with cancer adjusted by immunosuppression levels in Supplementary Table S5. However, no significant association between immunosuppression and severe outcomes was observed from the analysis (with all P > 0.05).

Figure 2.

Timeline of events for COVID-19 patients. A, Timeline of events in COVID-19 patients with cancer. B, Timeline of events in COVID-19 patients without cancer. For visualization purposes, patients without timeline information are excluded and only 105 COVID-19 patients without cancer are shown.

Discussion

The findings in this study suggest that patients with cancer infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to have more severe outcomes when compared with patients without cancer. Patients with hematologic cancer, lung cancer, and cancers in metastatic stages demonstrated higher rates of severe events compared with patients without cancer. In addition, patients who underwent cancer surgery showed higher death rates and higher chances of having critical symptoms.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has spread rapidly globally; thus, many countries have not been ready to handle the large volume of people affected by this outbreak due to a lack of knowledge about how this coronavirus affects the general population. To date, reports on the general population infected with SARS-CoV-2 suggest elderly males have a higher incidence and death rate (7, 8). Limited information is known about the outcome of patients with cancer who contract this highly communicable disease. Cancer is among the top causes of death. Asia, Europe, and North America have the highest incidence of cancer in the world (9), and at the moment of the writing of this study the SARS-CoV-2 virus is mainly spreading in these three areas (referred from https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0226-Covid-19-spread.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/world/coronavirusnews.html). Although COVID-19 patients with cancer may share some epidemiologic features with the general population with this disease, they may also have additional clinical characteristics. Therefore, we conducted this study on patients with cancer with coexisting COVID-19 disease to evaluate the potential effect of COVID-19 on patients with cancer.

On the basis of our analysis, COVID-19 patients with cancer tend to have more severe outcomes when compared with the noncancer population. Although COVID-19 is reported to have a relatively low death rate of 2% to 3% in the general population (10), patients with cancer and COVID-19 not only have a nearly 3-fold increase in the death rate than that of COVID-19 patients without cancer, but also tend to have much higher severity of their illness. Altogether, these findings suggest that patients with cancer are a much more vulnerable population in the current COVID-19 outbreak. Our findings are consistent with those presented in a previous study based on 18 patients with cancer (4). Because of the limited number of patients with cancer in the previous study, the authors concluded that among patients with cancer, age is the only risk factor for the severity of the illness. On the basis of our data on 105 patients with cancer, we have discovered additional risk factors, including cancer types, cancer stage, and cancer treatments, which may contribute to the severity of the disease among patients with cancer.

Our data demonstrate that the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients is significantly affected by the types of tumors. From our analysis, patients with hematologic cancer have the highest severity and death rates among all patients with cancer, and lung cancer follows second. Patients with hematologic cancer in our study include patients with leukemia, myeloma, and lymphoma, who have a more compromised immune system than patients with solid tumors (11). These patients all had a rapidly deteriorating clinical course once infected with COVID-19. Because malignant or dysfunctional plasma cells, lymphocytes, or white blood cells in general in hematologic malignancies have decreased immunologic function (12–14), this could be the main reason why patients with hematologic cancer have very high severity and death rates. All patients with hematologic cancer are prone to the complications of serious infection (12–14), which can exacerbate the condition which could have worsened in patients with COVID-19. In our study, 55.56% of patients with hematologic cancer had severe immunosuppression, which may be the main reason for deteriorated outcomes. Although the small sample size limits representativity of the observation, we believe our finding can serve as an informative starting point for further investigation when a larger cohort from a wide range of healthcare providers becomes available. Among solid tumors, lung cancer is the highest risk category disease in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (Fig. 1C). Decreased lung function and severe infection in patients with lung cancer could contribute to the worse outcome in this subpopulation (15, 16).

In our analysis, we classified the SARS-CoV-2 infection–related high risk factors based on death, severe or critical illness, ICU admission, and the utilization of invasive mechanical ventilation. Using these parameters, we detected a multi-fold increase in risk in the cancer population, in contrast to the noncancer population. If there were primary or metastatic tumors in the lungs, patients were more prone to a deteriorated course in a short time. Intriguingly, when patients with cancer had only early-stage disease without metastasis, we did not observe any difference between the cancer and noncancer population in terms of COVID-19–related death rate or severity (Fig. 1E). The stage of cancer diagnosis seemed to play a significant role in the severity and death rate of COVID-19.

Patients with cancer received a wide range of treatments, and we also found that different types of treatments had different influences on severity and death when these patients contracted COVID-19. Recently, immunotherapy has assumed a very important role in treating tumors, which aids in treatment of cancer by blocking the immune escape of cancer cells. But in our study, in contrast to patients with cancer with other treatments, patients with immunotherapy had the highest death rate and the highest severity of illness, a very puzzling finding. According to pathologic studies on the patients with COVID-19, there were desquamation of pneumocytes and hyaline membrane formation, implying that these patients had acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS; ref. 17). ARDS induced by cytokine storm is reported to be the main reason for death of SARS-CoV-2–infected patients (18). It is possible that in this setting, immunotherapy induces the release of a large amount of cytokines, which can be toxic to normal cells, including lung epithelial cells (19–21), and therefore lead to a more severe illness. However, in this study the number of patients with immunotherapy was too small; further research with a large case population needs to be conducted in the future.

In addition, COVID-19 patients with cancer who are under active treatment or not under active treatment do not show differences in their outcomes, and there is a significant difference between COVID-19 patients with cancer but not with active treatment and patients without cancer (Supplementary Table S2). These results indicate that COVID-19 patients with both active treatment and just cancer history have a higher risk of developing severe events than noncancer COVID-19 patients. The possible reasons could be due to some known cancer-related complications, for example, anemia, hypoproteinaemia, or dyspnea in early phase of COVID-19 (22). We considered that cancer had a lifetime effect on patients and that cancer survivors always need routine follow-up after primary resection. Therefore, in clinical COVID-19 patient management, equivalent attention needs to be paid to those with cancer whether they are under active therapeutics or not during the outbreak of COVID-19.

This study has several limitations. Although the cohort of COVID-19 patients with cancer is one of the largest in Hubei province, China, the epicenter of the initial outbreak, a larger cohort from the whole country or even from multiple countries will be more representative. Large-scale national and international research collaboration will be necessary to achieve this. At the initial stage of the outbreak, data collection and research activities were not a priority of the hospitals. Therefore, it was not possible to record and collect some data that are potentially informative for our analysis in a timely manner. In addition, due to the urgency of clinical treatment, medical data used in this study were largely disconnected from the patients’ historical electronic medical records, which are mostly stored with a different healthcare provider than the medical center providing COVID-19 care. This left us with limited information about each patient.

Our study is the midsize cohort study on this topic and will provide much-needed information on risk factors of this population. We hope that our findings will help countries better protect patients with cancer affected by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Study Design and Patients

We conducted a multicenter study focusing on the clinical characteristics of confirmed cases of COVID-19 patients with cancer in 14 hospitals in Hubei province, China; all of the 14 hospitals served as government-designated hospitals for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2–infected patients without cancer matched by the same hospital and hospitalization time were randomly selected as our control group. In addition, as age is one of the major predictors of severity of respiratory diseases like COVID-19 (4), we excluded from our analysis 117 younger COVID-19 patients without cancer so that median ages of patients with cancer (median = 64.0, IRQ = 14.00) and patients without cancers (median = 63.5, IQR = 14.00) would be comparable.

End Points and Assessments

There were four primary outcomes analyzed in this study: death, admission into the ICU, development of severe or critical symptoms, and utilization of invasive mechanical ventilation. The clinical definition of severe/critical symptoms follows the 5th edition of the 2019Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Diagnostic Criteria published by the National Health Commission in China, including septic shock, ARDS, acute kidney injury, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and rhabdomyolysis.

Case Fatality Rate of Cancer Patients with COVID-19 in a New York Hospital System

Source:

Vikas MehtaSanjay GoelRafi KabarritiDaniel ColeMendel GoldfingerAna Acuna-VillaordunaKith PradhanRaja ThotaStan ReissmanJoseph A. SparanoBenjamin A. GartrellRichard V. SmithNitin OhriMadhur GargAndrew D. RacineShalom KalnickiRoman Perez-SolerBalazs Halmos and Amit Verma. Case Fatality Rate of Cancer Patients with COVID-19 in a New York Hospital System

Abstract

Patients with cancer are presumed to be at increased risk from COVID-19 infection–related fatality due to underlying malignancy, treatment-related immunosuppression, or increased comorbidities. A total of 218 COVID-19–positive patients from March 18, 2020, to April 8, 2020, with a malignant diagnosis were identified. A total of 61 (28%) patients with cancer died from COVID-19 with a case fatality rate (CFR) of 37% (20/54) for hematologic malignancies and 25% (41/164) for solid malignancies. Six of 11 (55%) patients with lung cancer died from COVID-19 disease. Increased mortality was significantly associated with older age, multiple comorbidities, need for ICU support, and elevated levels of D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase, and lactate in multivariate analysis. Age-adjusted CFRs in patients with cancer compared with noncancer patients at our institution and New York City reported a significant increase in case fatality for patients with cancer. These data suggest the need for proactive strategies to reduce likelihood of infection and improve early identification in this vulnerable patient population.

Significance: COVID-19 in patients with cancer is associated with a significantly increased risk of case fatality, suggesting the need for proactive strategies to reduce likelihood of infection and improve early identification in this vulnerable patient population.

Introduction

The novel coronavirus COVID-19, or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has spread rapidly throughout the world since its emergence in December 2019 (1). The virus has infected approximately 2.9 million people in more than 200 countries with more than 200,000 deaths at the time of writing (2). Most recently, the United States has become the epicenter of this pandemic, reporting an estimated 956,000 cases of COVID-19 infection, with the largest concentration in New York City (NYC) and its surrounding areas (approximately >203,000 cases or 35% of all U.S. infections; ref. 3).

Early data suggests that 14% to 19% of infected patients will develop significant sequelae with acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock, and/or multiorgan failure (1, 4, 5), and approximately 1% to 4% will die from the disease (2). Recent meta-analyses have demonstrated an almost 6-fold increase in the odds of mortality for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a 2.5-fold increase for those with diabetes, possibly due to the underlying pulmonary and immune dysfunction (6, 7). Given these findings, patients with cancer would ostensibly be at a higher risk of developing and succumbing to COVID-19 due to immunosuppression, increased coexisting medical conditions, and, in cases of lung malignancy, underlying pulmonary compromise. Patients with hematologic cancer, or those who are receiving active chemotherapy or immunotherapy, may be particularly susceptible because of increased immunosuppression and/or dysfunction.

According the NCI, there were approximately 15.5 million cancer survivors and an estimated 1,762,450 new cases of cancer diagnosed in the United States in 2019 (8). Early case series from China and Italy have suggested that patients with malignancy are more susceptible to severe infection and mortality from COVID-19 (9–12), a phenomenon that has been noted in other pandemics (13). Many of these descriptive studies have included small patient cohorts and have lacked cancer site–specific mortality data or information regarding active cancer treatment. As New York has emerged as the current epicenter of the pandemic, we sought to investigate the risk posed by COVID-19 to our cancer population with more granular data regarding cancer type and active treatment, and identify factors that placed patients with cancer at highest risk of fatality from COVID-19.

Results

Outcomes of 218 Cancer Patients with COVID-19 Show High Overall Mortality with Tumor-Specific Patterns

A total of 218 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were treated in Montefiore Health System (New York, NY) from March 18, 2020, to April 8, 2020. These included 164 (75%) patients with solid tumors and 54 (25%) with hematologic malignancies. This cohort included 127 (58%) males and 91 (42%) females. The cohort was predominantly composed of adult patients (215/218, 98.6%) with a median age of 69 years (range 10–92 years).

Sixty-one (28%) patients expired as a result of COVID-19disease at the time of analysis (Table 1). The mortality was 25% among all patients with solid tumors and was seen to occur at higher rates in patients with lung cancers (55%), gastrointestinal (GI) cancers [colorectal (38%), pancreatic (67%), upper GI (38%)], and gynecologic malignancies (38%). Genitourinary (15%) and breast (14%) cancers were associated with relatively lower mortality with COVID-19 infection.

Table 1.

Outcomes in patients with cancer and COVID-19

Hematologic malignancies were associated with higher rate of mortality with COVID-19 (37%). Myeloid malignancies [myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS)/acute myeloid leukemia (AML)/myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN)] showed a trend for higher mortality compared with lymphoid neoplasms [non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)/chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL)/acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)/multiple myeloma (MM)/Hodgkin lymphoma; Table 1]. Rates of ICU admission and ventilator use were slightly higher for hematologic malignancies than solid tumors (26% vs. 19% and 11% vs. 10%, respectively), but this did not achieve statistical significance.

Disease Characteristics of Cancer Patients with COVID-19 Demonstrate the Effect of Age, Comorbidities, and Laboratory Biomarkers on Mortality

Analysis of patient characteristics with mortality did not show any gender bias (Table 2). Older age was significantly associated with increased mortality, with median age of deceased cohort at 76 years when compared with 66 years for the nondeceased group (P = 0.0006; Cochran-Armitage test). No significant associations between race and mortality were seen.

Table 2.

Disease characteristics of patients with cancer with COVID-19 and association with mortality

COVID-19 disease severity, as evident from patients who needed ICU care and ventilator support, was significantly associated with increased mortality. Interestingly, active disease (<1 year) and advanced metastatic disease showed a trend for increased mortality, but the association did not achieve statistical significance (P = 0.09 and 0.06, respectively). Active chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment were not associated with increased case fatality. Very few patients in this cohort were on immunotherapy, and this did not show any associations with mortality.

Analysis of comorbidities demonstrated increased risk of dying from COVID-19 in patients with cancer with concomitant heart disease [hypertension (HTN), coronary artery disease (CAD), and congestive heart failure (CHF)] and chronic lung disease (Table 2). Diabetes and chronic kidney disease were not associated with increased mortality in univariate analysis (Table 2).

We also analyzed laboratory values obtained prior to diagnosis of COVID-19 and during the time of nadir after COVID-19 positivity in our cancer cohort. Relative anemia pre–COVID-19 was associated with increased mortality, whereas pre-COVID platelet and lymphocyte counts were not (Table 3).Post–COVID-19 infection, lower hemoglobin levels, higher total white blood cell (WBC) counts, and higher absolute neutrophil counts were associated with increased mortality (Table 3). Analysis of other serologic biomarkers demonstrated that elevated D-dimer, lactate, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in patients were significantly correlated with dying (Table 3).

Table 3.

Laboratory values of cancer patients with COVID-19 and association with mortality

Next, we conducted multivariate analyses and used variables that showed a significant association with mortality in univariate analysis (P < 0.05 in univariate was seen with age, ICU admission, hypertension, chronic lung disease, CAD, CHF, baseline hemoglobin, nadir hemoglobin, WBC counts, D-dimer, lactate, and LDH). Gender was forced in the model and we used a composite score of comorbidities from the sum of indicators for diabetes mellitus (DM), HTN, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, CAD, and CHF capped at a maximum of 3. In the multivariate model (Supplementary Table S1), we observed that older age [age < 65; OR, 0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.07–0.6], higher composite comorbidity score (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.02–2.33), ICU admission (OR, 4.83; 95% CI, 1.46–17.15), and elevated inflammatory markers (D-dimer, lactate, and LDH) were significantly associated with mortality after multivariate comparison in patients with cancer and COVID-19.

Interaction with the Healthcare Environment was a Prominent Source of Exposure for Patients with Cancer

A detailed analysis of deceased patients (N = 61; Supplementary Table S2) demonstrated that many were either nursing-home or shelter (n = 22) residents, and/or admitted as an inpatient or presented to the emergency room within the 30 days prior to their COVID-19 positive test (21/61). Altogether, 37/61 (61%) of the deceased cohort were exposed to the healthcare environment at the outset of the COVID-19 epidemic. Few of the patients in the cohort were on active oncologic therapy. The vast majority had a poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS; 51/61 with an ECOG PS of 2 or higher) and carried multiple comorbidities.

Patients with Cancer Demonstrate a Markedly Increased COVID-19 Mortality Rate Compared with Noncancer and All NYC COVID-19 Patients

An age- and sex-matched cohort of 1,090 patients at a 5:1 ratio of noncancer to cancer COVID-19 patients from the same time period and from the same hospital system was also obtained after propensity matching and used as control to estimate the increased risk posed to our cancer population (Table 4). We observed case fatality rates (CFR) were elevated in all age cohorts in patients with cancer and achieved statistical significance in the age groups 45–64 and in patients older than 75 years of age.

Table 4.

Comparison of cancer and COVID-19 mortality with all NYC cases (official NYC numbers up to 5 p.m., April 12, 2020) and a control group from the same healthcare facility

To also compare our CFRs with a larger dataset from the greater NYC region, we obtained official case numbers from New York State (current up to April 12, 2020; ref. 3). In all cohorts, the percentage of deceased patients was found to rise sharply with increasing age (Table 4). Strikingly, CFRs in cancer patients with COVID-19 were significantly, many-fold higher in all age groups when compared with all NYC cases (Table 4).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first large report of COVID-19 CFRs among patients with cancer in the United States. The overall case fatality among COVID-19–infected patients with cancer in an academic center located within the current epicenter of the global pandemic exceeded 25%. In addition, striking tumor-specific discrepancies were seen, with marked increased susceptibility for those with hematologic malignancies and lung cancer. CFRs were 2 to 3 times the age-specific percentages seen in our noncancer population and the greater NYC area for all COVID-19 patients.

Our results seem to mirror the typical prognosis of the various cancer types. Among the most common malignancies within the U.S. population (lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal), there was 55% mortality among patients with lung cancer, 14% for breast cancer, 20% for prostate cancer, and 38% for colorectal cancer. This pattern reflects the overall known lethality of these cancers. The percent annual mortality (ratio of annual deaths/new diagnosis) is 59.3% for lung cancer, 15.2% for breast cancer, 17.4% for prostate cancer, and 36% for colorectal cancer (8). This suggests that COVID-19 infection amplifies the risk of death regardless of the cancer type.

Patients with hematologic malignancies demonstrate a higher mortality than those with solid tumors. These patients tend to be treated with more myelosuppressive therapy, and are often severely immunocompromised because of underlying disease. There is accumulating evidence that one major mechanism of injury may be a cytokine-storm syndrome secondary to hyperinflammation, which results in pulmonary damage. Patients with hematologic malignancy may potentially be more susceptible to cytokine-mediated inflammation due to perturbations in myeloid and lymphocyte cell compartments (14).

Many of the predictive risk factors for mortality in our cancer cohort were similar to published data among all COVID-19 patients. A recent meta-analysis highlighted the association of chronic diseases including hypertension (OR, 2.29), diabetes (OR, 2.47), COPD (OR, 5.97), cardiovascular disease (OR, 2.93), and cerebrovascular disease (OR, 3.89) with a risk for developing severe COVID-19 infection among all patients (15). In our cancer patient dataset, a large proportion of patients had at least one of these concurrent risk factors. In a univariate model, we observed significant associations of death from COVID-19 infection in patients with hypertension, chronic lung disease, coronary heart disease, and congestive heart failure. Serologic predictors in our dataset predictive for mortality included anemia at time of infection, and elevated LDH, D-dimer, and lactic acid, which correlate with available data from all COVID-19 patients.

Rapidly accumulating reports suggest that age and race may play a role in the severity of COVID-19 infection. In our cancer cohort, the median age of the patients succumbing to COVID-19 was 76 years, which was 10 years older than patients who have remained alive. The CDC has reported a disproportionate number of African Americans are affected by COVID-19 in the United States, accounting for 33% of all hospitalized patients while constituting only 13% of the U.S. population (15). However, the racial breakdown of our patients was proportional to the Bronx population as a whole, and race was not a significant predictor of mortality in our univariate or multivariate models. Our data might argue that the increased mortality noted in the larger NYC populations might also likely be driven by socioeconomic and health disparities in addition to underlying biological factors. Overall mortality with COVID-19 has been higher in the Bronx, which is a socioeconomically disadvantaged community with a mean per capita income of $19,721 (16, 17). Our patients with cancer were predominantly from the Bronx and potentially had increased mortality in part due to socioeconomic factors and comorbidities. Even after accounting for the increased mortality seen in COVID-19 in the Bronx, the many-fold magnitude increase in death rates within our cancer cohort can potentially be attributed to the vulnerability of oncology patients. This was evident in the comparison with a control group from the same hospital system that demonstrated a significant association of cancer with mortality in patients between 45 and 64 years of age and older than 75 years of age.

Interaction with the healthcare environment prior to widespread knowledge of the epidemic within NYC was a prominent source of exposure for our patients with cancer. Many of those who succumbed to COVID-19 infection were older and frail with significant impairment of pulmonary and/or immunologic function. These findings could be utilized to risk-stratify patients with cancer during this pandemic, or in future viral airborne outbreaks, and inform mitigation practices for high-risk individuals. These strategies could include early and aggressive social distancing, resource allocation toward more outpatient-based care and telemedicine, testing of asymptomatic high-risk patients, and institution of strict infection-control measures. Indeed, such strategies were implemented early in the pandemic at our center, possibly explaining the relatively low number of infected patients on active therapy.

There were several limitations to our study. Data regarding do not resuscitate or intubate orders were not included in the analysis and could have significantly affected the decision-making and mortality surrounding these patients. Although an attempt was made to control for those receiving active cancer treatment or with additional comorbidities, we could not fully account for the patients’ preexisting health conditions prior to COVID-19 infection. Differential treatment paradigms for COVID-19 infection and sequelae were not controlled for in our analysis. Because of the limited follow-up, the full clinical course of these patients may not be included. Future comparative studies to noncancer patients will be needed to fully ascertain the risk posed to oncology patients. Finally, though our data does include those who were tested and discharged within our health system, we cannot fully account for those who were tested in nonaffiliated outpatient settings, which may potentially bias our study to more severe cases. We also acknowledge that the mortality rate is highly dependent on the breadth of testing, and therefore understand that more widespread detection of viral infection would likely alter the results.

Our data suggest significant risk posed to patients with cancer infected with COVID-19, with an observed significant increase in mortality. The highest susceptibility appears to be in hematologic or lung malignancies, suggesting that proactive strategies to reduce likelihood of infection and improve early identification of COVID-19 positivity in the cancer patient population are clearly warranted. Overall, we hope and expect that our data from the current epicenter of the COVID-19 epidemic will help inform other healthcare systems, patients with cancer, and the public about the particular vulnerability of patients with cancer to this disease.

For more Articles on COVID-19 please see our Coronavirus Portal at

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

Read Full Post »

Crowdsourcing Difficult-to-Collect Epidemiological Data in Pandemics: Lessons from Ebola to the current COVID-19 Pandemic

 

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

 

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, epidemiological data from the origin of the Sars-Cov2 outbreak, notably from the Wuhan region in China, was sparse.  In fact, official individual patient data rarely become available early on in an outbreak, when that data is needed most. Epidemiological data was just emerging from China as countries like Italy, Spain, and the United States started to experience a rapid emergence of the outbreak in their respective countries.  China, made of 31 geographical provinces, is a vast and complex country, with both large urban and rural areas.

 

 

 

As a result of this geographical diversity and differences in healthcare coverage across the country, epidemiological data can be challenging.  For instance, cancer incidence data for regions and whole country is difficult to calculate as there are not many regional cancer data collection efforts, contrasted with the cancer statistics collected in the United States, which is meticulously collected by cancer registries in each region, state and municipality.  Therefore, countries like China must depend on hospital record data and autopsy reports in order to back-extrapolate cancer incidence data.  This is the case in some developed countries like Italy where cancer registry is administered by a local government and may not be as extensive (for example in the Napoli region of Italy).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Population density China by province. Source https://www.unicef.cn/en/figure-13-population-density-province-2017

 

 

 

Epidemiologists, in areas in which data collection may be challenging, are relying on alternate means of data collection such as using devices connected to the internet-of-things such as mobile devices, or in some cases, social media is becoming useful to obtain health related data.  Such as effort to acquire pharmacovigilance data, patient engagement, and oral chemotherapeutic adherence using the social media site Twitter has been discussed in earlier posts: (see below)

Twitter is Becoming a Powerful Tool in Science and Medicine at https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/11/06/twitter-is-becoming-a-powerful-tool-in-science-and-medicine/

 

 

 

 

 

Now epidemiologists are finding crowd-sourced data from social media and social networks becoming useful in collecting COVID-19 related data in those countries where health data collection efforts may be sub-optimal.  In a recent paper in The Lancet Digital Health [1], authors Kaiyuan Sun, Jenny Chen, and Cecile Viboud present data from the COVID-19 outbreak in China using information collected over social network sites as well as public news outlets and find strong correlations with later-released government statistics, showing the usefulness in such social and crowd-sourcing strategies to collect pertinent time-sensitive data.  In particular, the authors aim was to investigate this strategy of data collection to reduce the time delays between infection and detection, isolation and reporting of cases.

The paper is summarized below:

Kaiyuan Sun, PhD Jenny Chen, BScn Cécile Viboud, PhD . (2020).  Early epidemiological analysis of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak based on crowdsourced data: a population-level observational study.  The Lancet: Digital Health; Volume 2, Issue 4, E201-E208.

Summary

Background

As the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) progresses, epidemiological data are needed to guide situational awareness and intervention strategies. Here we describe efforts to compile and disseminate epidemiological information on COVID-19 from news media and social networks.

Methods

In this population-level observational study, we searched DXY.cn, a health-care-oriented social network that is currently streaming news reports on COVID-19 from local and national Chinese health agencies. We compiled a list of individual patients with COVID-19 and daily province-level case counts between Jan 13 and Jan 31, 2020, in China. We also compiled a list of internationally exported cases of COVID-19 from global news media sources (Kyodo News, The Straits Times, and CNN), national governments, and health authorities. We assessed trends in the epidemiology of COVID-19 and studied the outbreak progression across China, assessing delays between symptom onset, seeking care at a hospital or clinic, and reporting, before and after Jan 18, 2020, as awareness of the outbreak increased. All data were made publicly available in real time.

Findings

We collected data for 507 patients with COVID-19 reported between Jan 13 and Jan 31, 2020, including 364 from mainland China and 143 from outside of China. 281 (55%) patients were male and the median age was 46 years (IQR 35–60). Few patients (13 [3%]) were younger than 15 years and the age profile of Chinese patients adjusted for baseline demographics confirmed a deficit of infections among children. Across the analysed period, delays between symptom onset and seeking care at a hospital or clinic were longer in Hubei province than in other provinces in mainland China and internationally. In mainland China, these delays decreased from 5 days before Jan 18, 2020, to 2 days thereafter until Jan 31, 2020 (p=0·0009). Although our sample captures only 507 (5·2%) of 9826 patients with COVID-19 reported by official sources during the analysed period, our data align with an official report published by Chinese authorities on Jan 28, 2020.

Interpretation

News reports and social media can help reconstruct the progression of an outbreak and provide detailed patient-level data in the context of a health emergency. The availability of a central physician-oriented social network facilitated the compilation of publicly available COVID-19 data in China. As the outbreak progresses, social media and news reports will probably capture a diminishing fraction of COVID-19 cases globally due to reporting fatigue and overwhelmed health-care systems. In the early stages of an outbreak, availability of public datasets is important to encourage analytical efforts by independent teams and provide robust evidence to guide interventions.

A Few notes on Methodology:

  • The authors used crowd-sourced reports from DXY.cn, a social network for Chinese physicians, health-care professionals, pharmacies and health-care facilities. This online platform provides real time coverage of the COVID-19 outbreak in China
  • More data was curated from news media, television and includes time-stamped information on COVID-19 cases
  • These reports are publicly available, de-identified patient data
  • No patient consent was needed and no ethics approval was required
  • Data was collected between January 20, 2020 and January 31,2020
  • Sex, age, province of identification, travel history, dates of symptom development was collected
  • Additional data was collected for other international sites of the pandemic including Cambodia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, Russia, Singapore, UK, and USA
  • All patients in database had laboratory confirmation of infection

 

Results

  • 507 patient data was collected with 153 visited and 152 resident of Wuhan
  • Reported cases were skewed toward males however the overall population curve is skewed toward males in China
  • Most cases (26%) were from Beijing (urban area) while an equal amount were from rural areas combined (Shaanzi and Yunnan)
  • Age distribution of COVID cases were skewed toward older age groups with median age of 45 HOWEVER there were surprisingly a statistically high amount of cases less than 5 years of age
  • Outbreak progression based on the crowd-sourced patient line was consistent with the data published by the China Center for Disease Control
  • Median reporting delay in the authors crowd-sourcing data was 5 days
  • Crowd-sourced data was able to detect apparent rapid growth of newly reported cases during the collection period in several provinces outside of Hubei province, which is consistent with local government data

The following graphs show age distribution for China in 2017 and predicted for 2050.

projected age distribution China 2050. Source https://chinapower.csis.org/aging-problem/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The authors have previously used this curation of news methodology to analyze the Ebola outbreak[2].

A further use of the crowd-sourced database was availability of travel histories for patients returning from Wuhan and onset of symptoms, allowing for estimation of incubation periods.

The following published literature has also used these datasets:

Backer JA, Klinkenberg D, Wallinga J: Incubation period of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infections among travellers from Wuhan, China, 20-28 January 2020. Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin 2020, 25(5).

Lauer SA, Grantz KH, Bi Q, Jones FK, Zheng Q, Meredith HR, Azman AS, Reich NG, Lessler J: The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application. Annals of internal medicine 2020, 172(9):577-582.

Li Q, Guan X, Wu P, Wang X, Zhou L, Tong Y, Ren R, Leung KSM, Lau EHY, Wong JY et al: Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia. The New England journal of medicine 2020, 382(13):1199-1207.

Dataset is available on the Laboratory for the Modeling of Biological and Socio-technical systems website of Northeastern University at https://www.mobs-lab.org/.

References

  1. Sun K, Chen J, Viboud C: Early epidemiological analysis of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak based on crowdsourced data: a population-level observational study. The Lancet Digital health 2020, 2(4):e201-e208.
  2. Cleaton JM, Viboud C, Simonsen L, Hurtado AM, Chowell G: Characterizing Ebola Transmission Patterns Based on Internet News Reports. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2016, 62(1):24-31.

Read Full Post »

Powerful AI Tools Being Developed for the COVID-19 Fight

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

 

Source: https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2020/04/ai-powered-technologies-accelerate-discovery-covid-19/

IBM Releases Novel AI-Powered Technologies to Help Health and Research Community Accelerate the Discovery of Medical Insights and Treatments for COVID-19

April 3, 2020 | Written by: 

IBM Research has been actively developing new cloud and AI-powered technologies that can help researchers across a variety of scientific disciplines accelerate the process of discovery. As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolds, we continue to ask how these technologies and our scientific knowledge can help in the global battle against coronavirus.

Today, we are making available multiple novel, free resources from across IBM to help healthcare researchers, doctors and scientists around the world accelerate COVID-19 drug discovery: from gathering insights, to applying the latest virus genomic information and identifying potential targets for treatments, to creating new drug molecule candidates.

Though some of the resources are still in exploratory stages, IBM is making them available to qualifying researchers at no charge to aid the international scientific investigation of COVID-19.

Today’s announcement follows our recent leadership in launching the U.S. COVID-19 High Performance Computing Consortium, which is harnessing massive computing power in the effort to help confront the coronavirus.

Streamlining the Search for Information

Healthcare agencies and governments around the world have quickly amassed medical and other relevant data about the pandemic. And, there are already vast troves of medical research that could prove relevant to COVID-19. Yet, as with any large volume of disparate data sources, it is difficult to efficiently aggregate and analyze that data in ways that can yield scientific insights.

To help researchers access structured and unstructured data quickly, we are offering a cloud-based AI research resource that has been trained on a corpus of thousands of scientific papers contained in the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19), prepared by the White House and a coalition of research groups, and licensed databases from the DrugBankClinicaltrials.gov and GenBank. This tool uses our advanced AI and allows researchers to pose specific queries to the collections of papers and to extract critical COVID-19 knowledge quickly. Please note, access to this resource will be granted only to qualified researchers. To learn more and request access, please click here.

Aiding the Hunt for Treatments

The traditional drug discovery pipeline relies on a library of compounds that are screened, improved, and tested to determine safety and efficacy. In dealing with new pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2, there is the potential to enhance the compound libraries with additional novel compounds. To help address this need, IBM Research has recently created a new, AI-generative framework which can rapidly identify novel peptides, proteins, drug candidates and materials.

We have applied this AI technology against three COVID-19 targets to identify 3,000 new small molecules as potential COVID-19 therapeutic candidates. IBM is releasing these molecules under an open license, and researchers can study them via a new interactive molecular explorer tool to understand their characteristics and relationship to COVID-19 and identify candidates that might have desirable properties to be further pursued in drug development.

To streamline efforts to identify new treatments for COVID-19, we are also making the IBM Functional Genomics Platform available for free for the duration of the pandemic. Built to discover the molecular features in viral and bacterial genomes, this cloud-based repository and research tool includes genes, proteins and other molecular targets from sequenced viral and bacterial organisms in one place with connections pre-computed to help accelerate discovery of molecular targets required for drug design, test development and treatment.

Select IBM collaborators from government agencies, academic institutions and other organizations already use this platform for bacterial genomic study. And now, those working on COVID-19 can request the IBM Functional Genomics Platform interface to explore the genomic features of the virus. Access to the IBM Functional Genomics Platform will be prioritized for those conducting COVID-19 research. To learn more and request access, please click here.

Drug and Disease Information

Clinicians and healthcare professionals on the frontlines of care will also have free access to hundreds of pieces of evidence-based, curated COVID-19 and infectious disease content from IBM Micromedex and EBSCO DynaMed. Using these two rich decision support solutions, users will have access to drug and disease information in a single and comprehensive search. Clinicians can also provide patients with consumer-friendly patient education handouts with relevant, actionable medical information. IBM Micromedex is one of the largest online reference databases for medication information and is used by more than 4,500 hospitals and health systems worldwide. EBSCO DynaMed provides peer-reviewed clinical content, including systematic literature reviews in 28 specialties for comprehensive disease topics, health conditions and abnormal findings, to highly focused topics on evaluation, differential diagnosis and management.

The scientific community is working hard to make important new discoveries relevant to the treatment of COVID-19, and we’re hopeful that releasing these novel tools will help accelerate this global effort. This work also outlines our long-term vision for the future of accelerated discovery, where multi-disciplinary scientists and clinicians work together to rapidly and effectively create next generation therapeutics, aided by novel AI-powered technologies.

Learn more about IBM’s response to COVID-19: IBM.com/COVID19.

Source: https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2020/04/ai-powered-technologies-accelerate-discovery-covid-19/

DiA Imaging Analysis Receives Grant to Accelerate Global Access to its AI Ultrasound Solutions in the Fight Against COVID-19

Source: https://www.grantnews.com/news-articles/?rkey=20200512UN05506&filter=12337

Grant will allow company to accelerate access to its AI solutions and use of ultrasound in COVID-19 emergency settings

TEL AVIV, IsraelMay 12, 2020 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ — DiA Imaging Analysis, a leading provider of AI based ultrasound analysis solutions, today announced that it has received a government grant from the Israel Innovation Authority (IIA) to develop solutions for ultrasound imaging analysis of COVID-19 patients using Artificial Intelligence (AI).Using ultrasound in point of care emergency settings has gained momentum since the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. In these settings, which include makeshift hospital COVID-19 departments and triage “tents,” portable ultrasound offers clinicians diagnostic decision support, with the added advantage of being easier to disinfect and eliminating the need to transport patients from one room to another.However, analyzing ultrasound images is a process that it is still mostly done visually, leading to a growing market need for automated solutions and decision support.As the leading provider of AI solutions for ultrasound analysis and backed by Connecticut Innovations, DiA makes ultrasound analysis smarter and accessible to both new and expert ultrasound users with various levels of experience. The company’s flagship LVivo Cardio Toolbox for AI-based cardiac ultrasound analysis enables clinicians to automatically generate objective clinical analysis, with increased accuracy and efficiency to support decisions about patient treatment and care.

The IIA grant provides a budget of millions NIS to increase access to DiA’s solutions for users in Israel and globally, and accelerate R&D with a focus on new AI solutions for COVID-19 patient management. DiA solutions are vendor-neutral and platform agnostic, as well as powered to run in low processing, mobile environments like handheld ultrasound.Recent data highlights the importance of looking at the heart during the progression of COVID-19, with one study citing 20% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 showing signs of heart damage and increased mortality rates in those patients. DiA’s LVivo cardiac analysis solutions automatically generate objective, quantified cardiac ultrasound results to enable point-of-care clinicians to assess cardiac function on the spot, near patients’ bedside.

According to Dr. Ami Applebaum, the Chairman of the Board of the IIA, “The purpose of IIA’s call was to bring solutions to global markets for fighting COVID-19, with an emphasis on relevancy, fast time to market and collaborations promising continuity of the Israeli economy. DiA meets these requirements with AI innovation for ultrasound.”DiA has received several FDA/CE clearances and established distribution partnerships with industry leading companies including GE Healthcare, IBM Watson and Konica Minolta, currently serving thousands of end users worldwide.”We see growing use of ultrasound in point of care settings, and an urgent need for automated, objective solutions that provide decision support in real time,” said Hila Goldman-Aslan, CEO and Co-founder of DiA Imaging Analysis, “Our AI solutions meet this need by immediately helping clinicians on the frontlines to quickly and easily assess COVID-19 patients’ hearts to help guide care delivery.”

About DiA Imaging Analysis:
DiA Imaging Analysis provides advanced AI-based ultrasound analysis technology that makes ultrasound accessible to all. DiA’s automated tools deliver fast and accurate clinical indications to support the decision-making process and offer better patient care. DiA’s AI-based technology uses advanced pattern recognition and machine-learning algorithms to automatically imitate the way the human eye detects image borders and identifies motion. Using DiA’s tools provides automated and objective AI tools, helps reduce variability among users, and increases efficiency. It allows clinicians with various levels of experience to quickly and easily analyze ultrasound images.

For additional information, please visit http://www.dia-analysis.com.

Read Full Post »

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

via Special COVID-19 Christopher Magazine

 

Special COVID-19 Christopher Magazine

Article ID #277: Special COVID-19 Christopher Magazine. Published on 5/10/2020

WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman

Christopher-cover

Antonio Giordano, MD, PhD. explains what COVID is and how to contain the infection, pointing also to what will require attention next.

Please see this special release at http://online.fliphtml5.com/qlnw/zgau/#p=1

 

Read Full Post »

Live Notes, Real Time Conference Coverage 2020 AACR Virtual Meeting April 28, 2020 Session on NCI Activities: COVID-19 and Cancer Research 5:20 PM

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

NCI Activities: COVID-19 and Cancer Research

Dinah S. Singer. NCI-DCB, Bethesda, MD @theNCI

  • at the NCI they are pivoting some of their clinical trials to address COVID related issues like trials on tocilizumab and producing longitudinal cohorts of cancer patients and COVID for further analysis and studies
  • vaccine and antibody efforts at NCI and they are asking all their cancer centers (Cancer COVID Consortium) collecting data
  • Moonshot is collecting metadata but now COVID data from cellular therapy patients
  • they are about to publish new grants related to COVID and adding option to investigators to use current funds to do COVID related options
  • she says if at home take the time to think, write manuscripts, analyze data BE A REVIEWER FOR JOURNALS,
  • SSMMART project from Moonshot is still active
  • so far NCI and NIH grant process is ongoing although the peer review process is slower
  • they have extended deadlines with NO justification required (extend 90 days)
  • also allowing flexibility on use of grant money and allowing more early investigator rules and lax on those rules
  • non competitive renewals (type 5) will allow restructuring of project; contact program administrator
  • she and NCI heard rumors of institutions shutting down cancer research she is stressing to them not to do that
  • non refundable travel costs may be charged to the grant
  • NCI contemplating on extending the early investigator time
  • for more information go to NIH and NCI COVID-19 pages which have more guidances updated regularly

Follow on Twitter at:

@pharma_BI

@AACR

@CureCancerNow

@pharmanews

@BiotechWorld

@theNCI

#AACR20

Read Full Post »

e-Proceedings 2020 World Medical Innovation Forum – COVID-19, AI and the Future of Medicine, Featuring Harvard and Industry Leader Insights – MGH & BWH, Virtual Event: Monday, May 11, 8:15 a.m. – 5:15 p.m. ET

 

Featuring Clinical, Scientific, Tech, AI and Venture Experts

https://worldmedicalinnovation.org/

7:50NOW PLAYING

2020 WMIF | Welcome

34 views1 hour ago

5:31NOW PLAYING

2020 WMIF | Disruptive Dozen #1

122 views1 day ago

3:27NOW PLAYING

3:56NOW PLAYING

2020 WMIF | Disruptive Dozen #4

57 views2 days ago

SOURCE

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCauKpbsS_hUqQaPp8EVGYOg

 

THIS IS THE EVENT I COVERED on 5/11/2020  BY INVITATION AS MEDIA for Mass General Brigham

 

From: “Coburn, Christopher Mark” <CMCOBURN@PARTNERS.ORG>

Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 6:48 AM

To: “Coburn, Christopher Mark” <CMCOBURN@PARTNERS.ORG>

Subject: REGISTRANT RECAP | World Medical Innovation Forum  

 

Dear World Forum Attendee, 

On behalf of Mass General Brigham CEO Anne Klibanski MD and Forum co-Chairs Gregg Meyer MD and Ravi Thadhani MD, many thanks for being among the nearly 11,000 registrants representing 93 countries, 46 states and 3200 organizations yesterday. A community was established around many pressing topics that  will continue long into the future. We hope you have a chance to examine the attached survey results. There are several revealing items that should be the basis for ongoing discussion. We expect to be in touch regularly during the year. Among the plans is a “First Look” video series highlighting top Mass General Brigham Harvard faculty as well as emerging Harvard investigators.  As promised, we  wanted to also share visual Forum session summaries.  You will be able to access the recordings on the Forum’s YouTube page . The first set will go up this morning

We hope you will join us for the 2021 Forum!  

Thanks again, Chris

 

Mass General Brigham (formerly Partners Healthcare) is pleased to invite media to attend the World Medical Innovation Forum (WMIF) virtual event on Monday, May 11. Our day-long interactive web event features expert discussions of COVID-related infectious disease innovation and the pandemic’s impact on transforming medicine, plus insights on how care may be radically transformed post-COVID. The agenda features nearly 70 executive speakers from the healthcare industry, venture, start-ups, consumer health and the front lines of COVID care, including many of our Harvard Medical School-affiliated researchers and clinicians. The event replaces our annual in-person conference, which we plan to resume in 2021.

 

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN, Editor-in Chief, Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group, Boston will cover the event in Real Time as MEDIA for our Coronavirus Portal

CORONAVIRUS, SARS-CoV-2 PORTAL @LPBI

http://lnkd.in/ePwTDxm

Launched on 3/14/2020

8:15 – 8:25 AM
Opening Remarks

Dr. Klibanski will welcome participants to the 2020 World Medical Innovation Forum, a global — and this year, virtual — gathering of more than 5,000 senior health care leaders. This annual event was established to respond to the intensifying transformation of health care and its impact on innovation. The Forum is rooted in the belief that no matter the magnitude of that change, the center of health care needs to be a shared, fundamental commitment to collaborative innovation – industry and academia working together to improve patient lives. No collaborative endeavor is more pressing than responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction:
Scott Sperling, Co-President, Thomas H. Lee Partners; Chairman of the Board of Directors, Mass General Brigham

  • Introducing Anne Klibanski – Leadership at its best for breakthroughs in the entire system when return to normalcy

Anne Klibanski, MD, President & CEO, Mass General Brigham

  • Collaborative innovation between Industry and Hospitals and Government
  • Expediting innovations: Prophylactic, Diagnostics, research and care delivery
  • COVID caregivers contribution to this battle, patient experience and outcome

Add Panel to Calendar

8:25 – 8:50 AM
Care in the Next 18 Months – Routine, Elective, Remote

Hospital chief executives reflect on how health care will evolve over the next 18 months in the face of COVID-19. What will routine health care look like? What about elective surgeries and other interventions? And will care-at-a-distance continue to be an essential component? Simply put, how will we provide manage, and pay for health care in a world forever changed by COVID-19?

Moderator:
Gregg Meyer, MD, Chief Clinical Officer, Mass General Brigham; Interim President, NWH; Professor of Medicine, HMS

John Fernandez,  President, Mass Eye and Ear and Mass General Brigham Ambulatory Care

  • Out patients decrease in volume now social distancing enabled by using parking lot as waiting rooms
  • Pre visit and post visit websites will become places of touch – patients accessing via website

Elizabeth Nabel, MD, President, Brigham Health; Professor of Medicine, HMS

  • Support to frontline care
  • Old normal will not be the new normal
  • Telehealth and digital health, work force, healthcare experience, improve access
  • lower medical expense
  • Patients were afraid
  • deferred cancer operation and treatment
  • Cath Lab less 50% occupied
  • Hospitals are safe and patients must come back for procedures
  • COVID-19 only 20% of all patients
  • ICU and OR Scheduling rethink procedure digital care delivers procedures
  • deploy workforce work across repurposed units hybrids, talent acquisition new strategy
  • COVID-19 will have distinct areas
  • BWH – Patient-Nurse-Doctor relations in healing Healthcare team became the Family of the Patients

Peter Slavin, MD, President, MGH; Professor, Health Care Policy, HMS

  • Reemerging more complicated
  • In patients and Out patient realigned with care for COVID-19
  • Telemedicine 85% of outpatients visits at MGH
  • virtual care will dominate the future of care
  • disadvantaged populations suffered more in the pandemic Communities in Chelsea and Revere household received kits social determinants of illness

Add Panel to Calendar

8:50 – 9:15 AM
COVID-19: Technology Solutions Now and in the Future

Experts leading large teams at the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak discuss how technology is shaping the pandemic response today and in the coming years. What technology categories are most important? What tools are healthcare organizations, biopharmaceutical companies, and other organizations leveraging to battle this crisis? How will those tools evolve? And, importantly, how can technology inform the medical response to future pandemics? What were the biggest technology surprises in the current response?

Moderator:
Alice Park, Senior Writer, Time

Stephane Bancel, CEO, Moderna

  • mRNA synthetic RNA of Spike protein injected to stir immune response
  • Phase II working with FDA starting Phase III early Summer
  • 15 mcg dose available in 2020
  • using own capital to invest to scale up manufacturing no help from Gov’t Grant for clinical trial not for manufacturing

Paul Biddinger, MD, Medical Director for Emergency Preparedness, MGH; Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine, HMS

  • Sharing information across the system aggregate data technologies
  • ML as Guidance in resource coordination

David Kaufman, MD, PhD, Head of Translational Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute

  • drug development, clinical operations remote monitoring
  • repurpose compounds usinf libraries
  • scalability and Global vaccine cheap and available globally
  • complexity is in coordinations – toolset  biology tool RNA mapping viral screening primaru cells and organoids
  • Outcomes: Aging and co-morbidities
  • Discovery effort using tools infrastructure maintained between pandemics

Rochelle Walensky, MDChief, Infectious Disease, Steve and Deborah Gorlin MGH Research Scholar, MGH; Professor of Medicine, HMS

  • shared photos important for Public health, using iPhone distribution Demedicalize Testic – not only at clinics but at many placed contact tracing and diagnosis in 24 hours – iPhone is invaluable GPS capability – privacy issues
  • detect patients with high risk and existing infection monitoring
  • Public Health – Thermometer given to Patients – data collected centrally any spike and pulse oximeter given to home – remote
  • Anxiety in opening the economy requires a bit of giving up on privacy
  • TeleHealth and monitoring remotely
  • Pharmacy and workplace as points to start Testing vs Order and a nurse call

Add Panel to Calendar

9:15 – 9:40 AM
Digital Health Becomes a Pillar: Tools, Payment, Data

Deployed in the crucible of the coronavirus pandemic, digital health has now become an essential pillar in the delivery of care. Why is that significant? How and why did it happen? What are the essential tools and components? How is the electronic health record and other health data contributing to this digital movement?

Are there novel use cases for telehealth that arose during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic? How can digital technologies help enable a full return to work. Thinking ahead to the fall and a possible second wave, are there things we should be doing today to ensure this technology to better detect and profile a resurgence and enhance the patient benefit.

Moderator:
David Louis, MD, Pathologist-in-Chief, MGH; Benjamin Castleman Professor of Pathology, HMS

  • DIgitsl technologies – boostong and innovating
  • upscale activity
  • risk of upscaling on Providers
  • Adaptations of innovation

Alistair Erskine, MD, Chief Digital Health Officer, Mass General Brigham

Adam Landman, MD, VP, Chief Information and Digital Innovation Officer, BH; Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine, HMS

  • COVID-19 call center across Partners, Chat bots automated screening tools, Microsoft assisted 60,000 users of chat bots triaging by screening calls of the Hotline
  • TeleHealth transformation may be lost due to reimbursement which may not be reimburse after the emergency is over Insurers to incentivize use of of TeleHealth
  • In person care: Redesign and how to provide In care for the staff and for the Patients

Brooke LeVasseur, CEO, AristaMD

  • Access problem due to care shortage of specialty care
  • technology better allocate resources
  • Industry and Hospital Institutions populations they serve
  • innovations needs a sustainable economic model for reimbursement
  • Inequity issues How Telehealth can benefit all of Society, potential for future solutions

Lee Schwamm, MD, Director, Center for TeleHealth and Exec Vice Chair, Neurology, MGH; Vice President, Virtual Care/Digital Health, Mass General Brigham; Professor, Neurology, HMS

  • Surge capabilities
  • generate insight
  • Research and Innovation needs embedding in the enterprise
  • technical gap in maintenance
  • supply chain disrupted

Add Panel to Calendar

9:40 – 9:45 AM
BREAK
9:45 – 10:05 AM
FIRESIDE CHAT
Bayer Pharma Reflections on Innovation: Creating, Collaborating, and Accelerating Discovery During and After a Pandemic

Dr. Moeller will reflect on how Bayer is weathering the organizational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. How does a global pharmaceutical company continue to drive drug development when its labs are shut down? What are the critical elements needed to keep the engines of innovation firing even in the face of a global public health crisis? How does a global r&d enterprise plan for an uncertain fall 2020 given a potential return of the virus.

Introduction:
John Fish, CEO, Suffolk; Chairman of Board Trustees, Brigham Health

  • COPD

Moderator:
Janet Wu, Bloomberg

Joerg Moeller, MD, PhD, Head of Research & Development, Pharmaceuticals Division, Bayer AG

  • led team of 9 products
  • Unprecedented is COVID-19: effect on work, travel, life
  • Anti-Malaria vs COVID-19: In China testing early chloroquine approved for RA and anti Malaria Government in China experimental and Bayer supports Clinical Trials by Bill & Melinda Foundation
  • In 8 weeks most Scientist work from home – amazed what was accomplished by 80% of Bayer working from home
  • production is kept ongoing anti-infective for Pneumonia
  • focus on most critical and keep experiment critical and push out studies run Globally – No pre-maturely study was interrupted completely
  • Great collaboration Flexibility with regulatory agencies in Europe and with FDA – levels not seen before
  • R&D in Pharma – when out different point than when we started: Opportunities- Compound libraries OPEN after the COVID Pandemic, speed of decision making, team spirit outstanding – levels not seen before
  • Partnerships: Bayer testing machines and ventilators shared, accelerate mechanisms for new drug development
  • evidence for repurposing drugs: Chloroquine
  • Solidarity – everyone are in it TOGETHER, keep that after the Pandemic is over – levels not seen before

Add Panel to Calendar

10:05 – 10:30 AM
The Patient Experience During the Pandemic

The coronavirus outbreak is not only testing health care staff and resources, it is also having an overwhelming impact on patients. This panel will focus on the approach and technologies providers are using to address the patient experience along the continuum of care.

Moderator:
Thomas Sequist, MD, Chief Patient Experience and Equity Officer, Mass General Brigham; Professor of Medicine and Health Care Policy, HMS

Anjali Kataria, CEO, Mytonomy

  • Video overcome illiteracy and provide personal engagement without the negative
  • Home health will be the shift – a human component will not go away – sensor technology in car, bathroom
  • COVID-19 accelerated user adoption of Telehealth
  • Digital technologies as an equailizer Hispanic patients consumed for information with the new technologies

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, Chief, Division of Infectious Diseases, BH; Harriet Ryan Albee Professor of Medicine, HMS

  • conserve PPE impacted Physicians ability to see Patients, Nurses meet patients vs Physicians that delivered care remotely – laying on hands was missing in the care
  • Masks will not come off but in a while, can’t allow the infection to surge and curtail hospitals from functioning, use mask for the foreseable future

 

Peter Lee, PhD, Corporate Vice President, Microsoft Research and Incubation

  • Interactive Chat bots 1 out of 500 hospitals around the Globe adopted the Chat Bot for Patient Intake
  • Scaling telemetry with feedback loop
  • iPad at bedside, platform orchestration, new workflows for COVID-19 patients in the backend guiding Patients in the Process was new infrastructure was in the front line
  • preparing for a game change in Medicine: Patients demanding new experience
  • Historical context for physicians contribution to care and bridge the digital divide

Jag Singh, MD, PhD, Cardiologist & Founding Director, Resynchronization and Advanced Cardiac Therapeutics Program, MGH; Professor of Medicine, HMS

  • Isolation is unbearable
  • Predictive analytics
  • no going back to before Pandemic
  • COVID-19 only severe go to hospital
  • Human contact enhanced interaction with families and Docs

Add Panel to Calendar

10:30 – 10:55 AM
The Role of AI and Big Data in Fighting COVID-19 and the Next Global Crisis – Successes and Aspirations

AI is a key weapon used to fight COVID-19. What are the biggest successes so far? Which applications show the most promise for the future? Can it help a return to work? Can AI help predict and even prevent the next global health care crisis?

Moderator:
Alice Park, Senior Writer, Time

Mike Devoy, MD, EVP, Medical Affairs & Pharmacovigilance and CMO, Bayer AG

  • AI allows speeding up Genome of Spike Proteins sequencing
  • Partnership with Academia help focus effort
  • openness and willingness to collaborate and take risk in Therapeutics

Karen DeSalvo, MD,  Chief Health Officer, Google Health

  • Partnership with Apple on Contact Tracing System – BLE – only for Health applications
  • Public Health as driver as consumer Privacy preserving
  • Individual level data collection for AI applications, privacy giving up for public good
  • Trust component – in sharing data

Keith Dreyer, DO, PhD, Chief Data Science Officer, Mass General Brigham; Vice Chairman, Radiology, MGH; Associate Professor, Radiology, HMS

  • COVID allowed data on contact tracing
  • AI in image capturing for Public health – target Imaging use data to be equivalent to Human Testing at Home va in ER 1 in 10, 000 vs all populations
  • Data to AI application SW providers are stewards Open source , no conflict of interest and no discussion on profits
  • Each country will have own lessens

Add Panel to Calendar

10:55 – 11:20 AM
Designing for Infection Prevention: Innovation and Investment in Personal Protective Equipment and Facility Design

As with many pathogens, prevention is the best defense against SARS-CoV2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Panelists will discuss the insights, design strategies, technologies, and practices that are emerging to guard against infection and how those innovations are being applied to protect health care providers and their patients.
Based on what was learned during the spring of 2020, are there specific changes that will lessen morbidity and mortality in a potential a second wave?

Moderator:
Erica Shenoy, MD, PhD, Associate Chief, Infection Control Unit, MGH; Assistant Professor, HMS

Shelly AndersonSVP, Strategic Initiatives and Partnerships, & Chief Strategy Officer, BH

  • How to establish the New normal
  • Surveillence for new sources of infection
  • Operations under uncertainty
  • learned to be effective with data monitoring, training, facility adaptation to new roles
  • Investments in new materials to stabilize the supply chain: Additional suppliers,
  • Extend internal supply work with R&D on alternative materials

Michele Holcomb, PhD, EVP, Strategy and Corporate Development, Cardinal Health

  • Optimize toward lower cost vs availability of supply
  • Diverting supply chain to manufacturing not in PPE business

 

Guillermo Tearney, MD, PhD, Remondi Family Endowed MGH Research Institute Chair, Mike and Sue Hazard MGH Research Scholar, MGH; Professor, Pathology, HMS

  • 3D Printing innovations for filtration capacity of particles, respirators decontaminated, prevention of patient transmission
  • Negative pressure applied on materials as second line of protection beyond PPE
  • CPAP to be used
  • weaning from Ventilators to CPAP
  • Environment to be protected from air born pathogens

Teresa Wilson, Director/Architect, Colliers Project Leaders

  • Physical Design of the facility and rooms – use design to minimize Hospital infections principals of location of clean vs dirty functions
  • room kept cleaned, how long it takes to clean, where is the sink, hands free, modular construction plug & play design of rooms functions

Add Panel to Calendar

11:20 – 11:25 AM
BREAK
11:25 – 11:45 AM
FIRESIDE CHAT
Preparing for Fall 2020 and Beyond: Production, Innovation, Optimization

How does a global medical technology and life sciences company respond to the health challenges posed by COVID-19? Mr. Murphy will reflect on how his organization is working to meet the unprecedented demand for life-saving medical equipment for diagnosing, treating, and managing coronavirus patients. How does a large manufacturer make adjustments to FDA regulated products and supply chains in time to help lessen the impact of a second wave of COVID-19 infections.

Introduction:
Jonathan Kraft, President, The Kraft Group; Chair, Mass General Hospital Board of Trustees

  • 90 countries around the Globe – collaborative innovations partnership with GE Health – all assets around the World
  • Academic with GE Health AI, Diagnostics, data set for ML for Health care

Moderator:
Timothy Ferris, MD, CEO, MGPO; Professor, HMS

Kieran Murphy, CEO, GE Healthcare

  • Partnership GE Health & MGH
  • COVID-19 Innovations and Customers needs: Ventilators and
  • ICU Cloud application with Microsoft to save PPE and Labor, monitor several ICU rooms at once by technology
  • Quadruple the production and enter new contracts, crisis exposed weaknesses in supply chain of many products
  • Shortage of PPE was not expected, flexibility and trusted relations with GE Health Suppliers
  • CT in a BOX – 42 Slices in a container – no exposure to radiation in prefabricated rooms in field hospital requiring no contact with clinicians and rapid response
  • Command control center with John Hopkins University
  • Manufacturing facilities in China communicate the situation of the business and the customers needs buyers in the Health care industry
  • Future for Biotech industry: Modular systems deploy rapidly, test vaccine, SPEED is everything productivity & Speed
  • Productivity will increase collaboration and speed like partnership with FORD and MIcrosoft

Add Panel to Calendar

11:45 AM – 12:10 PM
Big Tech and Digital Health

Tech giants are dedicating their vast resources to aid in the global response to the coronavirus. This panel will highlight how the big data and computational power of major tech companies is being deployed to help contain the current pandemic through new technologies and services, enable return to work, and how it could help prevent future ones.

Moderator:
Natasha Singer, Reporter, New York Times

Amanda Goltz, Principal, Business Development, Alexa Health & Wellness, Amazon

Michael Mina, MD, PhD, Associate Medical Director, Molecular Virology, BH; Assistant Professor, Epidemiology, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Harvard Chan School

  • Limitations on Viral Testing
  • Shortage of Swabs for testing
  • Tech giant: Amazon, Walmart – global reach in supply chain
  • new collaborations formed on super charge
  • Antigen test for home administration consumerization of the Testing
  • Walmart can be positioned for blood tests
  • Not only Physicians can order tests
  • Microsoft and Amazon can help in interpretation of the Test using Alexa

Marcus Osborne, VP, Walmart Health, Walmart

Jim Weinstein, MD, SVP, Microsoft

Add Panel to Calendar

12:10 – 12:35 PM
LUNCH BREAK
12:35 – 12:55PM
FIRESIDE CHAT
Insights on Pandemics and Health Care from the National Security Community

General Alexander, a renowned expert on national security as well as pandemics and health care, will reflect on how AI can help identify and predict future global disease outbreaks and enable fully reopening commerce. He will also discuss what health care systems can learn from the response to COVID-19 to ensure preparedness for the next infectious disease challenge.

Moderator:
Gregg Meyer, MD, Chief Clinical Officer, Mass General Brigham; Interim President, NWH; Professor of Medicine, HMS

General (Ret) Keith Alexander, Co-CEO, IronNet Cybersecurity

Add Panel to Calendar

12:55 – 1:20 PM
Calibrating Innovation Opportunity and Urgency: Medical and Social

The social and medical needs of patients are deeply intertwined, yet there are significant gaps in the tools and technologies being developed to help address those needs. These are especially apparent in the non-uniform impact of COVID-19. Harnessing opportunities, particularly for patients whose needs fall into the low medical complexity/high social complexity category — a group often overlooked by health care innovators.

Moderator:
Natasha Singer, Reporter, New York Times

Giles Boland, MD, Chair, Department of Radiology, BH; Philip H. Cook Professor of Radiology, HMS

  • Boston Hope: 1400 patients were treated at Boston Convention Center, 700 COVID -19 patients and 700 post acute after release from ICUs
  • Policy makers to address social determinants of Health

Amit Phadnis, Chief Digital Officer and GE Company Officer, GE Healthcare

  • Crisis will go away the innovations will stay and develop
  • Population Health to benefit from iPhone in Africa and in India mapping hotspots in populations
  • Multi channels TV, Phones and other devices – social disparities – no app to address social inequality

Krishna Yeshwant, MD, General Partner, GV; Instructor in Medicine, BH

  • communities most affected by social determinants of Health like in Chelsea in MA, a hotspot for COVID-19
  • Google Ventures – social issues are most complex invest in underprivileged

Add Panel to Calendar

1:20 – 1:45 PM
FDA Role in Managing Crisis and Anticipating the Next

The FDA and other regulatory bodies have played a key role in managing the coronavirus pandemic. How will the agency’s priorities shift in the coming months as community transmission (ideally) slows? What is the FDA’s role in return to work? What is the FDA doing to anticipate future health crises? How will these drive new tools and effect that rate of innovation?

Moderator:
Ravi Thadhani, MD, CAO, Mass General Brigham; Professor of Medicine and Faculty Dean for Academic Programs, HMS

Amy Abernethy, MD, PhD, Principal Deputy Commissioner & Acting CIO, FDA

  • Future – common tools, more efficient studies study protocols and study design evaluation
  • Learned what need to be put in place to move fast learn what is not in place
  • post pandemic regulatories lessons for being ready for the next one

Lindsey Baden, MD, Director, Clinical Research, Division of Infectious Diseases, BH; Associate Professor, HMS

  • Identify diagnostics for clinical definition of a virus unknown
  • treatment to be developed
  • Sick patients in need for treatment, researchers and clinicians need the best available FDA and the hospitals are flexible in responding
  • Spread globally like a respiratory virus
  • IRB – fast than ever before FDA and Pharma, DSMB – speed

Add Panel to Calendar

1:45– 2:05 PM
FIRESIDE CHAT
Keeping Priority on the Biggest Diseases

Biogen CEO Michel Vounatsos will discuss how Biogen is tackling some of society’s most devastating neurological and neurodegenerative disorders, and share his perspective on the impact the global COVID-19 pandemic is having on the biopharmaceutical industry.

Moderator:
Jean-François Formela, MD, Partner, Atlas Venture

  • Testing programs – lack of government cooordination

Michel Vounatsos, CEO, Biogen

  • Venture community supportive
  • to be on the safe side
  • employees tested every evenings to prevent rebound of the pandemic
  • Pandemic is acceleration progress that was only dreamt about
  • Opportunities in technologies new drugs,
  • Biogen will lead the new model
  • ALS – rare genetic expression Phase I encouraging
  • Neuro-immunology – MS phase III Parkinson drug
  • Lessons from COVID-19: Delay in clinical trials because Patients are fearing Hospital admission – Stroke patient did not go to Hospital
  • Biogen is joining the fight against COVID
  • Neuroimmunology is the strength – remain focus

 

Add Panel to Calendar

2:05 – 2:30 PM
Building the Plane While Flying: The Experience of Real-Time Innovation from the Front Line

The COVID-19 crisis has required continuous, real time innovation, impacting the way care is delivered on the front lines and across care continuum. This panel will present the perspective, innovations and experiences of care givers interacting directly with patients across the continuum of care – acute, post-acute, rehab and home care.

Moderator:
Ann Prestipino, SVP; Incident Commander, MGH; Teaching Associate, HMS

  • coming out of crisis
  • the New normal will be diferent

Theresa Gallivan, RN, Associate Chief Nurse, MGH

  • Ambulatory procedures
  • 700 nurses were deployed
  • 164 ICU beds increase of 90%
  • Health care demand will change in the future
  • focussed problem alarms from ventilators were not coordinated till biomed engineers arrives to device a solution

 

Karen Reilly, DNP, RN, Associate Chief Nursing Officer, Critical Care, Cardiovascular and Surgical Services, BH

  • Collaborate and move forward
  • Interdisciplinary team: Physical therapy help quickly
  • tech to communicate with families
  • Ready – I wish I had information to stay ahead of the curve
  • New normal ability to expand and contract

Ross Zafonte, DO, SVP, Research Education and Medical Affairs, SRN; Earle P. and Ida S. Charlton Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, HMS

  • Rehabilitation in Cambridge Spaulding Brighton
  • Off loading to rehab from other units
  • Flexibility MGH Brigham – learn to be a new organization
  • Hotspots optimal mapping
  • Right person at right challenge
  • Stay ready for catastrophies
  • Telecare and Tele rehabilitation – greater benefit on TeleHealth or not who will not benefit from Rehab

Add Panel to Calendar

2:30 – 2:55 PM
CEO Roundtable: Will the Innovation Model Remain as It Was

As we envision a post-COVID-19 world, how will the model for biomedical innovation change? What lessons have been learned? Was this pandemic a once-in-a-lifetime event or should organizations begin to weave pandemic planning into their business and operations strategies? Panelists will discuss these and other related questions.

Moderator:
Janet Wu, Bloomberg

Mike Mahoney, CEO, Boston Scientific

  • China 6% of Sales
  • Employees – 148 Counties
  • support hospitals – 57% of volume
  • Resilience for liquidity Variable cost needed be removes partially
  • How will the company come out stronger
  • Innovations by business model innovations – Remote physicians in Japan by European experts in OR
  • Next week 10% of Product management and Quality are priority to come back
  • working remotely works very well except for R&S who needs Labs

Bernd Montag, PhD, CEO, Siemens Healthineers

  • Keep present business and the emerging needs for technologies
  • Serology Test
  • Antibody Test genomic testing
  • Company is Global but Health care is local

Add Panel to Calendar

2:55 – 3:05 PM
BREAK
3:05 – 3:30 PM
Emergency and Urgent Care: How COVID-19 Vulnerabilities and Solutions Will Change the Model

How are the roles of emergency medicine and urgent care changing in light of the COVID-19 pandemic? Panelists will discuss this topic as well as how current and anticipated new technologies can aid in the delivery of community, urgent, and emergency care now and in the future.

Given a false negative at the point of care has consequences well beyond the patient being treated, does this change what can be offered in the various patient care settings?

Moderator:
Ron Walls, MD, EVP and Chief Operating Officer, BH; Neskey Family Professor of Emergency Medicine, HMS

Troyen Brennan, MD, EVP and CMO, CVS Health

  • Labs – Quest Diagnostics
  • Point of care – Tests will move to Home will replace Labs
  • Pandemic heated hard people of color and comorbidities

David Brown, MD, Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, MGH; MGH Trustees Professor of Emergency Medicine, HMS

  • Tele Urgent care
  • EMS Providers using TeleHealth
  • Scaled up capability needed administered by Governmental agency
  • new surges of some disease after Re-opening
  • Sensitivity of test for ill patient
  • Demand for Urgent Care will decline higher acuity will increase

Julie Lankiewicz, Head, Clinical Affairs & Health Economics Outcomes Research, Bose Health

  • Management of care with VRE other microbial agents
  • Vulnerable populations EKG between patients no more
  • mitigation of care – Brand new prescriptions for Anxiety and burnout
  • Digital solution to replace medications – audio content to avoid pharmacology by other methods of relaxation
  • Herd immunity  – Digital transformation

Michael VanRooyen, MD, Chairman, Department of Emergency Medicine, BH; Director, Humanitarian Initiative, Harvard University; Professor, HMS

  •  Separate Patients from Providers
  • Infection threat – Intubation – Tent for airsolize – trap air in the hood
  • manage Emergence Health OUT side of EM at Hospital
  • Rapid testing will continue to be central in Emergency Care

Add Panel to Calendar

3:30 – 3:55 PM
Accelerating Diagnostics – Maintaining the Priority: Lab, Home and Digital

COVID-19 diagnostics, a linchpin in controlling viral spread — what caused testing in the U.S. to fall so far behind and how can those missteps be prevented in the future? How do the diagnostics industry, and academic medicine, develop the tests that enable group activities including businesses sports, and community? What is the profile of diagnostic tests coming online in the coming months and into next year? What lessons can be learned to guide the global health community in future disease outbreaks? Given the biological complexity, required performance standards, and immense volume is a simple DTC assays possible on a greatly accelerated timeline.

Moderator:
Jeffrey Golden, MD, Chair, Department of Pathology, BH; Ramzi S. Cotran Professor of Pathology, HMS

James Brink, MD, Chief, Department of Radiology, MGH; Juan M. Taveras Professor of Radiology, HMS

  • social determinant of care – communities not able to social distance, multiple languages
  • Radiology: Rapid evolution of pandemic
  • MGB – Standardizations

John Iafrate, MD, PhD, Vice Chair, Academic Affairs, MGH; Professor, Pathology, HMS

  • Ability for Rapid testing was not in existence in the US
  • CDC Test deployed
  • BD and Roche diagnostics will
  • recipients and donors of antibodies

Celine Roger-Dalbert, VP Diagnostic Assays R&D – Integrated Diagnostic Solutions, BD Life Sciences

  • Telemedicine collection of samples outside the hospital
  • Testing if a patient had – serology – antibody – past exposure after day 14
  • Testing if a patient has – PCR after 10 days the virus is not infectious but it is present
  • antigen detection testing
  • molecular test

Matt Sause, President and CEO, Roche Diagnostics Corporation

  • Serology – more people become infected
  • active infection
  • Partnership between FDA and the manufactures
  • In the US scaling – infrastructure in place is a must

 

Add Panel to Calendar

3:55 – 4:15 PM
FIRESIDE CHAT
Return to Work: Understanding the Technologies and Strategies

Diagnostic testing is a linchpin of the worldwide response to the coronavirus. How does a global leader pivot to develop molecular diagnostics for a novel global pathogen? How does it scale, including managing international supply chains, to provide unprecedented levels of products and services. What are the expectations for return to work and a possible disease spike in fall 2020 or beyond. How will the diagnostics industry be permanently changed.

Moderator:
Peter Markell, EVP, Finance and Administration, CFO & Treasurer, Mass General Brigham

Marc Casper, Chairman, President and CEO, Thermo Fisher Scientific

  • Re-opening the economy requires Testing for certification of health
  • Testing bringing confidence
  • PCR – have or have not viral proteins: 5Millions a week, June 10 million tests
  • antibody testing will also become available in massive scale
  • Supply chain, more preparedness, robustness of the supply chain
  • Buying supply in China vs US based
  • stockpiling by governments not only at the Hospital level vs JIT shocks to the system
  • Work from home – productivity is good, work from home not ideal environment
  • Transportation and elevators – social distancing – impossible
  • Global change enormous Telemedicine ramp up Academic center Telemedicine will prevail
  • more resilient Health care system dialogue and communications across countries technology will play a role it will improve Health care every where

Add Panel to Calendar

4:15 – 4:40 PM
Digital Therapeutics: Current and Future Opportunities

Digital therapeutics (DTx) represents an emerging class of therapies that is poised for significant growth. Yet already, these software-driven, evidence-based tools for the prevention, management, and/or treatment of disease are already changing patients’ lives. This panel will address how existing DTx are having an early impact — in the COVID-19 pandemic and — and where current development efforts are headed in the coming years especially if there is a aggressive return of the virus in the fall 2020 or later.

Moderator:
Hadine Joffe, MD, Vice Chair for Research, Department of Psychiatry, Executive Director, Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology, BH; Paula A. Johnson Professor, Women’s Health, HMS

Priya Abani, CEO, AliveCor

  • Medical grade EKG devices
  • Telemedicine on the rise

Julia Hu, CEO, Lark Health

  • AI 24×7 counseling data streaming in data
  • TeleHealth
  • VirtualHealth Provider – working hard to scale
  • Patients @Home work at their schedule 9PM – midnight text messaging
  • 70% in employment reported stress experienced by employees

Dawn Sugarman, PhD, Assistant Psychologist, Division of Alcohol, Drugs, and Addiction, McLean; Assistant Professor, Psychiatry, HMS

  • Opioid & substance abuse
  • Treatment gap for women – gender specific Programs online gender specific  treatment

Add Panel to Calendar

4:40 – 5:05 PM
Investing During and After the Coronavirus Crisis

The investment environment in life sciences and health care overall was at record levels for most of the last decade. What will this environment look like in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic – especially over the near to mid-term? Will investor priorities and enthusiasm shift? What is the investor role in developing new coronavisurs tests, vaccines, and therapeutics?

Moderator:
Roger Kitterman, VP, Venture and Managing Partner, Partners Innovation Fund, Mass General Brigham

Jan Garfinkle, Founder & Manager Partner, Arboretum Ventures

  • Can you close a deal with out meeting management team
  • Known funds will prevail vs new funds Parma adjacencies vs medical devices
  • Telehealth is of interest GI, Cardiovascular
  • Mental health with TeleHealth

Phillip Gross, Managing Director, Adage Capital Management

  • Clinical Trial issues
  • Inflating value of Biotech because therapeutic related to COVID gives a boost
  • 90 programs in clinical trials on Vaccine

Christopher Viehbacher, Managing Partner, Gurnet Point Capital

  • Health care was great investment because prople will get sick.
  • deal making switch to zoom meeting, no site visit, banking is adapting
  • relationship with people you do not know will be very hard
  • early stage if the cloud exist
  • Medical profession: Healthcare system is hurting revenue loss new technologies
  • clinical trials will be changing like for COVID
  • Sharing data will accelerate science

Add Panel to Calendar

5:05 – 5:10 PM
Closing Remarks
Gregg Meyer, MDChief Clinical Officer, Mass General Brigham; Interim President, NWH; Professor of Medicine, HMS
Ravi Thadhani, MD, CAO, Mass General Brigham; Professor of Medicine and Faculty Dean for Academic Programs, HMS

Mass General Brigham (formerly Partners Healthcare) is pleased to invite media to attend the World Medical Innovation Forum (WMIF) virtual event on Monday, May 11. Our day-long interactive web event features expert discussions of COVID-related infectious disease innovation and the pandemic’s impact on transforming medicine, plus insights on how care may be radically transformed post-COVID. The agenda features nearly 70 executive speakers from the healthcare industry, venture, start-ups, consumer health and the front lines of COVID care, including many of our Harvard Medical School-affiliated researchers and clinicians. The event replaces our annual in-person conference, which we plan to resume in 2021.

Read Full Post »

US Responses to Coronavirus Outbreak Expose Many Flaws in Our Medical System

US Responses to Coronavirus Outbreak Expose Many Flaws in Our Medical System

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

The  coronavirus pandemic has affected almost every country in every continent however, after months of the novel advent of novel COVID-19 cases, it has become apparent that the varied clinical responses in this epidemic (and outcomes) have laid bare some of the strong and weak aspects in, both our worldwide capabilities to respond to infectious outbreaks in a global coordinated response and in individual countries’ response to their localized epidemics.

 

Some nations, like Israel, have initiated a coordinated government-private-health system wide action plan and have shown success in limiting both new cases and COVID-19 related deaths.  After the initial Wuhan China outbreak, China closed borders and the government initiated health related procedures including the building of new hospitals. As of writing today, Wuhan has experienced no new cases of COVID-19 for two straight days.

 

However, the response in the US has been perplexing and has highlighted some glaring problems that have been augmented in this crisis, in the view of this writer.    In my view, which has been formulated after social discussion with members in the field ,these issues can be centered on three major areas of deficiencies in the United States that have hindered a rapid and successful response to this current crisis and potential future crises of this nature.

 

 

  1. The mistrust or misunderstanding of science in the United States
  2. Lack of communication and connection between patients and those involved in the healthcare industry
  3. Socio-geographical inequalities within the US healthcare system

 

1. The mistrust or misunderstanding of science in the United States

 

For the past decade, anyone involved in science, whether directly as active bench scientists, regulatory scientists, scientists involved in science and health policy, or environmental scientists can attest to the constant pressure to not only defend their profession but also to defend the entire scientific process and community from an onslaught of misinformation, mistrust and anxiety toward the field of science.  This can be seen in many of the editorials in scientific publications including the journal Science and Scientific American (as shown below)

 

Stepping Away from Microscopes, Thousands Protest War on Science

Boston rally coincides with annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference and is a precursor to the March for Science in Washington, D.C.

byLauren McCauley, staff writer

Responding to the troubling suppression of science under the Trump administration, thousands of scientists, allies, and frontline communities are holding a rally in Boston’s Copley Square on Sunday.

#standupforscience Tweets

 

“Science serves the common good,” reads the call to action. “It protects the health of our communities, the safety of our families, the education of our children, the foundation of our economy and jobs, and the future we all want to live in and preserve for coming generations.”

It continues: 

But it’s under attack—both science itself, and the unalienable rights that scientists help uphold and protect. 

From the muzzling of scientists and government agencies, to the immigration ban, the deletion of scientific data, and the de-funding of public science, the erosion of our institutions of science is a dangerous direction for our country. Real people and communities bear the brunt of these actions.

The rally was planned to coincide with the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference, which draws thousands of science professionals, and is a precursor to the March for Science in Washington, D.C. and in cities around the world on April 22.

 

Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/02/19/stepping-away-microscopes-thousands-protest-war-science

https://images.app.goo.gl/UXizCsX4g5wZjVtz9

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/85438fbe-278d-11e7-928e-3624539060e8

 

 

The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) also had marches for public awareness of science and meaningful science policy at their annual conference in Washington, D.C. in 2017 (see here for free recordings of some talks including Joe Biden’s announcement of the Cancer Moonshot program) and also sponsored events such as the Rally for Medical Research.  This patient advocacy effort is led by the cancer clinicians and scientific researchers to rally public support for cancer research for the benefit of those affected by the disease.

Source: https://leadingdiscoveries.aacr.org/cancer-patients-front-and-center/

 

 

     However, some feel that scientists are being too sensitive and that science policy and science-based decision making may not be under that much of a threat in this country. Yet even as some people think that there is no actual war on science and on scientists they realize that the public is not engaged in science and may not be sympathetic to the scientific process or trust scientists’ opinions. 

 

   

From Scientific American: Is There Really a War on Science? People who oppose vaccines, GMOs and climate change evidence may be more anxious than antagonistic

 

Certainly, opponents of genetically modified crops, vaccinations that are required for children and climate science have become louder and more organized in recent times. But opponents typically live in separate camps and protest single issues, not science as a whole, said science historian and philosopher Roberta Millstein of the University of California, Davis. She spoke at a standing-room only panel session at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting, held in Washington, D.C. All the speakers advocated for a scientifically informed citizenry and public policy, and most discouraged broadly applied battle-themed rhetoric.

 

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science/

 

      In general, it appears to be a major misunderstanding by the public of the scientific process, and principles of scientific discovery, which may be the fault of miscommunication by scientists or agendas which have the goals of subverting or misdirecting public policy decisions from scientific discourse and investigation.

 

This can lead to an information vacuum, which, in this age of rapid social media communication,

can quickly perpetuate misinformation.

 

This perpetuation of misinformation was very evident in a Twitter feed discussion with Dr. Eric Topol, M.D. (cardiologist and Founder and Director of the Scripps Research Translational  Institute) on the US President’s tweet on the use of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine based on President Trump referencing a single study in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.  The Twitter thread became a sort of “scientific journal club” with input from international scientists discussing and critiquing the results in the paper.  

 

Please note that when we scientists CRITIQUE a paper it does not mean CRITICIZE it.  A critique is merely an in depth analysis of the results and conclusions with an open discussion on the paper.  This is part of the normal peer review process.

 

Below is the original Tweet by Dr. Eric Topol as well as the ensuing tweet thread

 

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1241442247133900801?s=20

 

Within the tweet thread it was discussed some of the limitations or study design flaws of the referenced paper leading the scientists in this impromptu discussion that the study could not reasonably conclude that hydroxychloroquine was not a reliable therapeutic for this coronavirus strain.

 

The lesson: The public has to realize CRITIQUE does not mean CRITICISM.

 

Scientific discourse has to occur to allow for the proper critique of results.  When this is allowed science becomes better, more robust, and we protect ourselves from maybe heading down an incorrect path, which may have major impacts on a clinical outcome, in this case.

 

 

2.  Lack of communication and connection between patients and those involved in the healthcare industry

 

In normal times, it is imperative for the patient-physician relationship to be intact in order for the physician to be able to communicate proper information to their patient during and after therapy/care.  In these critical times, this relationship and good communication skills becomes even more important.

 

Recently, I have had multiple communications, either through Twitter, Facebook, and other social media outlets with cancer patients, cancer advocacy groups, and cancer survivorship forums concerning their risks of getting infected with the coronavirus and how they should handle various aspects of their therapy, whether they were currently undergoing therapy or just about to start chemotherapy.  This made me realize that there were a huge subset of patients who were not receiving all the information and support they needed; namely patients who are immunocompromised.

 

These are patients represent

  1. cancer patient undergoing/or about to start chemotherapy
  2. Patients taking immunosuppressive drugs: organ transplant recipients, patients with autoimmune diseases, multiple sclerosis patients
  3. Patients with immunodeficiency disorders

 

These concerns prompted me to write a posting curating the guidance from National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated cancer centers to cancer patients concerning their risk to COVID19 (which can be found here).

 

Surprisingly, there were only 14 of the 51 US NCI Cancer Centers which had posted guidance (either there own or from organizations like NCI or the National Cancer Coalition Network (NCCN).  Most of the guidance to patients had stemmed from a paper written by Dr. Markham of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle Washington, the first major US city which was impacted by COVID19.

 

Also I was surprised at the reactions to this posting, with patients and oncologists enthusiastic to discuss concerns around the coronavirus problem.  This led to having additional contact with patients and oncologists who, as I was surprised, are not having these conversations with each other or are totally confused on courses of action during this pandemic.  There was a true need for each party, both patients/caregivers and physicians/oncologists to be able to communicate with each other and disseminate good information.

 

Last night there was a Tweet conversation on Twitter #OTChat sponsored by @OncologyTimes.  A few tweets are included below

https://twitter.com/OncologyTimes/status/1242611841613864960?s=20

https://twitter.com/OncologyTimes/status/1242616756658753538?s=20

https://twitter.com/OncologyTimes/status/1242615906846547978?s=20

 

The Lesson:  Rapid Communication of Vital Information in times of stress is crucial in maintaining a good patient/physician relationship and preventing Misinformation.

 

3.  Socio-geographical Inequalities in the US Healthcare System

It has become very clear that the US healthcare system is fractioned and multiple inequalities (based on race, sex, geography, socio-economic status, age) exist across the whole healthcare system.  These inequalities are exacerbated in times of stress, especially when access to care is limited.

 

An example:

 

On May 12, 2015, an Amtrak Northeast Regional train from Washington, D.C. bound for New York City derailed and wrecked on the Northeast Corridor in the Port Richmond neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Of 238 passengers and 5 crew on board, 8 were killed and over 200 injured, 11 critically. The train was traveling at 102 mph (164 km/h) in a 50 mph (80 km/h) zone of curved tracks when it derailed.[3]

Some of the passengers had to be extricated from the wrecked cars. Many of the passengers and local residents helped first responders during the rescue operation. Five local hospitals treated the injured. The derailment disrupted train service for several days. 

(Source Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Philadelphia_train_derailment)

What was not reported was the difficulties that first responders, namely paramedics had in finding an emergency room capable of taking on the massive load of patients.  In the years prior to this accident, several hospitals, due to monetary reasons, had to close their emergency rooms or reduce them in size. In addition only two in Philadelphia were capable of accepting gun shot victims (Temple University Hospital was the closest to the derailment but one of the emergency rooms which would accept gun shot victims. This was important as Temple University ER, being in North Philadelphia, is usually very busy on any given night.  The stress to the local health system revealed how one disaster could easily overburden many hospitals.

 

Over the past decade many hospitals, especially rural hospitals, have been shuttered or consolidated into bigger health systems.  The graphic below shows this

From Bloomberg: US Hospital Closings Leave Patients with Nowhere to go

 

 

https://images.app.goo.gl/JdZ6UtaG3Ra3EA3J8

 

Note the huge swath of hospital closures in the midwest, especially in rural areas.  This has become an ongoing problem as the health care system deals with rising costs.

 

Lesson:  Epidemic Stresses an already stressed out US healthcare system

 

Please see our Coronavirus Portal at

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

 

for more up-to-date scientific, clinical information as well as persona stories, videos, interviews and economic impact analyses

and @pharma_BI

Read Full Post »

Antibody found that fights MERS coronavirus

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN


An international team of researchers has found a MERS neutralizing antibody—a discovery that could perhaps lead to a treatment for people infected with the virus. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team describes the study they undertook that led to the discovery and why they believe what they found might lead to both prevention and treatment for the oftentimes deadly disease.

 

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is an ailment that causes severe respiratory problems for those infected and has a high mortality rate. It is believed to have got its start in humans after jumping from camels (who got it from bats) somewhere in the Middle East but has subsequently been found in patients in many other places. The virus does not transmit from person to person very easily, thus the source of most infections is still not clear. To date MERS has killed more than 500 people in 26 countries since it was first identified back in 2012. The most recent outbreak has been taking place in South Korea.

 

Efforts to find a means of preventing people from falling prey to the virus or combating it in those afflicted have thus far failed. In this new effort, the researchers studied the immune response of a 49 year old male patient suffering from the condition, but whose immune system finally won out. In so doing, they were able to locate the specific antibody that they believe was instrumental in saving the man’s life—known as LCA60, it binds to the virus when it encounters it, preventing the virus from binding to CD26 receptor cells.

 

The researchers tested the antibody in mice (by both injection and inhalation) and found that doing so caused a steep reduction in the number of virus cells in the lungs. Notably, they found that they got nearly the same results whether the mice were given the antibody before or after they were infected. This suggests it might be possible to inject the antibody into people at risk to help them fight off the disease and also to use it as a treatment for those that already have it.

Sourced through Scoop.it from: medicalxpress.com

See on Scoop.itCardiovascular Disease: PHARMACO-THERAPY

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts