Healthcare analytics, AI solutions for biological big data, providing an AI platform for the biotech, life sciences, medical and pharmaceutical industries, as well as for related technological approaches, i.e., curation and text analysis with machine learning and other activities related to AI applications to these industries.
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
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar; 21(3): 335–337. Published online 2020 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30096-6
PMCID: PMC7159000
The National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease and the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China collaborated to establish a prospective cohort to monitor COVID-19 cases in China. As on Jan31, 20202007 cases have been collected and analyzed with confirmed COVID-19 infection in these cohorts.
Results: 18 or 1% of COVID-19 cases had a history of cancer (the overall average cancer incidence in the overall China population is 0.29%) {2015 statistics}. It appeared that cancer patients had an observable higher risk of COVID related complications upon hospitalization. However, this was a higher risk compared with the general population. There was no comparison between cancer patients not diagnosed with COVID-19 and an assessment of their risk of infection. Interestingly those who were also cancer survivors showed an increased incidence of COVID related severe complications compared to the no cancer group.
Although this study could have compared the risk within a cancer group, the authors still felt the results warranted precautions when dealing with cancer patients and issued recommendations including:
Postponing of adjuvant chemotherapy or elective surgery for stable cancer should be considered
Stronger personal protection for cancer patients
More intensive surveillance or treatment should be considered when patients with cancer are infected, especially in older patients
Further studies will need to address the risk added by specific types of chemotherapy: cytolytic versus immunotherapy e.g.
Preparedness for COVID-19 in the oncology community in Africa
Africa has a heterogeneity of cultures, economies and disease patterns however fortunately it is one of the last countries to be hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, which allows some time for preparation by the African nations. The authors note that with Africa’s previous experiences with epidemics, namely ebola and cholera, Africa should be prepared for this pandemic.
However, as a result of poor economic discipline, weak health systems, and poor health-seeking behaviors across the continent, outcomes could be dismal. Poverty, low health literacy rates, and cultural practices that negatively affect cancer outcomes will result in poor assimilation of COVID-19 containment strategies in Africa.”
In general African oncologists are following COVID-19 guidelines from other high-income countries, but as this writer acknowledges in previous posts, there was a significant lag from first cases in the United States to the concrete formulation of guidelines for both oncologists and patients with regard to this pandemic. African oncologist are delaying the start of adjuvant therapies and switching more to oral therapies and rethink palliative care.
However the authors still have many more questions than answers, however even among countries that have dealt with this pandemic before Africa (like Italy and US), oncologists across the globe still have not been able to answer questions like: what if my patient develops a fever, what do I do during a period of neutropenia, to their satisfaction or the satisfaction of the patient. These are questions even oncologists who are dealing in COVID hotspots are still trying to answer including what constitutes a necessary surgical procedure? As I have highlighted in recent posts, oncologists in New York have all but shut down all surgical procedures and relying on liquid biopsies taken in the at-home setting. But does Africa have this capability of access to at home liquid biopsy procedures?
In addition, as I had just highlighted in a recent posting, there exists extreme cancer health disparities across the African continent, as well as the COVID responses. In West Africa, COVID-19 protocols are defined at individual institutions. This is more like the American system where even NCI designated centers were left to fashion some of their own guidelines initially, although individual oncologists had banded together to do impromptu meetings to discuss best practices. However this is fine for big institutions, but as in the US, there is a large rural population on the African continent with geographical barriers to these big centers. Elective procedures have been cancelled and small number of patients are seen by day. This remote strategy actually may be well suited for African versus more developed nations, as highlighted in a post I did about mobile health app use in oncology, as this telemedicine strategy is rather new among US oncologists (reference my posts with the Town Hall meetings).
The situation is more complicated in South Africa where they are dealing with an HIV epidemic, where about 8 million are infected with HIV. Oncology services here are still expecting to run at full capacity as the local hospitals deal with the first signs of the COVID outbreak. In Sudan, despite low COVID numbers, cancer centers have developed contingency plans. and are deferring new referrals except for emergency cases. Training sessions for staff have been developed.
For more articles in this online open access journal on Cancer and COVID-19 please see our
AAAS Science Podcast: Why some diseases are seasonal and some are not: Coronaviruses and more
Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD
The following podcast from the American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) discusses the seasonality of some viruses while other viruses are able to manifest themselves in different seasons over the globe.
Each sheet in the workbook is separated by current COVID-19 vaccine trials, currents COVID-19 trials with the IL6R (interleukin 6 receptor) antagonist tocilizumab, and all COVID related trials. The Excel spreadsheet also contains links to more information about the trials.
As of April 15, 2020 the number of listed trials are as follows:
clinicaltrials.gov search terms
Number of results
Number of completed trials
Number of trials currently recruiting
COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2
410
5 completed
5 withdrawn
192
1st row terms + vaccine
28
0
15
1st row terms + tocilizumab
16
0
10
1st row terms + hydroxychloroquine
61
1
22
A few highlights of the COVID related trials on clinicaltrials.gov
This is an open label, randomized, controlled, pilot clinical study in patients with COVID-19, to obtain preliminary biologic, physiologic, and clinical data in patients with COVID-19 treated with rhACE2 or control patients, to help determine whether a subsequent Phase 2B trial is warranted.
Condition or disease
Intervention/treatment
Phase
COVID-19
Drug: Recombinant human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (rhACE2)
Not Applicable
Detailed Description:
This is a small pilot study investigating whether there is any efficacy signal that warrants a larger Phase 2B trial, or any harm that suggests that such a trial should not be done. It is not expected to produce statistically significant results in the major endpoints. The investigators will examine all of the biologic, physiological, and clinical data to determine whether a Phase 2B trial is warranted.
Primary efficacy analysis will be carried only on patients receiving at least 4 doses of active drug. Safety analysis will be carried out on all patients receiving at least one dose of active drug.
It is planned to enroll more than or equal to 24 subjects with COVID-19. It is expected to have at least 12 evaluable patients in each group.
Experimental group: 0.4 mg/kg rhACE2 IV BID and standard of care Control group: standard of care
Intervention duration: up to 7 days of therapy
No planned interim analysis.
Study was withdrawn before participants were enrolled.
Gut dysbiosis co-exists in patients with coronavirus pneumonia. Some of these patients would develop secondary bacterial infections and antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). The recent study on using washed microbiota transplantation (WMT) as rescue therapy in critically ill patients with AAD demonstrated the important clinical benefits and safety of WMT. This clinical trial aims to evaluate the outcome of WMT combining with standard therapy for patients with 2019-novel coronavirus pneumonia, especially for those patients with dysbiosis-related conditions.
Detailed Description:
An ongoing outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus was reported in Wuhan, China. 2019-nCoV has caused a cluster of pneumonia cases, and posed continuing epidemic threat to China and even global health. Unfortunately, there is currently no specific effective treatment for the viral infection and the related serious complications. It is in urgent need to find a new specific effective treatment for the 2019-nCoV infection. According to Declaration of Helsinki and International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans, the desperately ill patients with 2019-nCov infection during disease outbreaks have a moral right to try unvalidated medical interventions (UMIs) and that it is therefore unethical to restrict access to UMIs to the clinical trial context.
There is a vital link between the intestinal tract and respiratory tract, which was exemplified by intestinal complications during respiratory disease and vice versa. Some of these patients can develop secondary bacterial infections and antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). The recent study on using washed microbiota transplantation (WMT) as rescue therapy in critically ill patients with AAD demonstrated the important clinical benefits and safety of WMT. Additionally, the recent animal study provided direct evidence supporting that antibiotics could decrease gut microbiota and the lung stromal interferon signature and facilitate early influenza virus replication in lung epithelia. Importantly, the above antibiotics caused negative effects can be reversed by fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) which suggested that FMT might be able to induce a significant improvement in the respiratory virus infection. Another evidence is that the microbiota could confer protection against certain virus infection such as influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus by priming the immune response to viral evasion. The above results suggested that FMT might be a new therapeutic option for the treatment of virus-related pneumonia. The methodology of FMT recently was coined as WMT, which is dependent on the automatic facilities and washing process in a laboratory room. Patients underwent WMT with the decreased rate of adverse events and unchanged clinical efficacy in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. This clinical trial aims to evaluate the outcome of WMT combining with standard therapy for patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia, especially for those patients with dysbiosis-related conditions.
Responsible Party:
Faming Zhang, Director of Medical Center for Digestive Diseases, The Second Hospital of Nanjing Medical University
The 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia outbroken in Wuhan, China, which spread quickly to 26 countries worldwide and presented a serious threat to public health. It is mainly characterized by fever, dry cough, shortness of breath and breathing difficulties. Some patients may develop into rapid and deadly respiratory system injury with overwhelming inflammation in the lung. Currently, there is no effective treatment in clinical practice. The present clinical trial is to explore the safety and efficacy of Human Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells (UC-MSCs) therapy for novel coronavirus pneumonia patients.
Detailed Description:
Since late December 2019, human pneumonia cases infected by a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) were firstly identified in Wuhan, China. As the virus is contagious and of great epidemic, more and more cases have found in other areas of China and abroad. Up to February 24, a total of 77, 779 confirmed cases were reported in China. At present, there is no effective treatment for patients identified with novel coronavirus pneumonia. Therefore, it’s urgent to explore more active therapeutic methods to cure the patients.
Recently, some clinical researches about the 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia published in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine suggested that massive inflammatory cell infiltration and inflammatory cytokines secretion were found in patients’ lungs, alveolar epithelial cells and capillary endothelial cells were damaged, causing acute lung injury. It seems that the key to cure the pneumonia is to inhibit the inflammatory response, resulting to reduce the damage of alveolar epithelial cells and endothelial cells and repair the function of the lung.
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are widely used in basic research and clinical application. They are proved to migrate to damaged tissues, exert anti-inflammatory and immunoregulatory functions, promote the regeneration of damaged tissues and inhibit tissue fibrosis. Studies have shown that MSCs can significantly reduce acute lung injury in mice caused by H9N2 and H5N1 viruses by reducing the levels of proinflammatory cytokines and the recruitment of inflammatory cells into the lungs. Compared with MSCs from other sources, human umbilical cord-derived MSCs (UC-MSCs) have been widely applied to various diseases due to their convenient collection, no ethical controversy, low immunogenicity, and rapid proliferation rate. In our recent research, we confirmed that UC-MSCs can significantly reduce inflammatory cell infiltration and inflammatory factors expression in lung tissue, and significantly protect lung tissue from endotoxin (LPS) -induced acute lung injury in mice.
The purpose of this clinical study is to investigate safety and efficiency of UC-MSCs in treating pneumonia patients infected by 2019-nCoV. The investigators planned to recruit 48 patients aged from 18 to 75 years old and had no severe underlying diseases. In the cell treatment group, 24 patients received 0.5*10E6 UC-MSCs /kg body weight intravenously treatment 4 times every other day besides conventional treatment. In the control group, other 24 patients received conventional treatment plus 4 times of placebo intravenously. The lung CT, blood biochemical examination, lymphocyte subsets, inflammatory factors, 28-days mortality, etc will be evaluated within 24h and 1, 2, 4, 8 weeks after UC-MSCs treatment.
Sponsor:
Puren Hospital Affiliated to Wuhan University of Science and Technology
Collaborator:
Wuhan Hamilton Bio-technology Co., Ltd
Study was withdrawn before participants were enrolled.
There are currently no clinical studies reporting clinical characteristics difference between the hypertension patients with and without ACEI treatment when suffered with novel coronavirus infection in China
Detailed Description:
At present, the outbreak of the new coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infection in Wuhan and Hubei provinces has attracted great attention from the medical community across the country. Both 2019-nCoV and SARS viruses are coronaviruses, and they have a large homology.
Published laboratory studies have suggested that SARS virus infection and its lung injury are related to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in lung tissue. And ACE and ACE2 in the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) are vital central links to maintain hemodynamic stability and normal heart and kidney function in vivo.
A large amount of evidence-based medical evidence shows that ACE inhibitors are the basic therapeutic drugs for maintaining hypertension, reducing the risk of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and renal adverse events, improving quality of life, and prolonging life in patients with hypertension. Recent experimental studies suggest that treatment with ACE inhibitors can significantly reduce pulmonary inflammation and cytokine release caused by coronavirus infection.
ACEI treatment
hypertension patients with ACEI treatment when suffered with novel coronavirus infection in China
Control
hypertension patients without ACEI treatment when suffered with novel coronavirus infection in China
Locations
China
The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University Chongqing, China
Sponsors and Collaborators Chongqing Medical University
Responsible PI:
Dongying Zhang, Associate Professor, Chongqing Medical University
Withdrawn (Similar projects have been registered, and it needs to be withdrawn.)
INFORMATION FOR TRANSPLANT PROFESSIONALS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REGARDING 2019 NOVEL CORONAVIRUS
The recent outbreak of a novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China and the finding of infection in many other countries including the United States has led to questions among transplant programs, Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) and patients. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) strives to provide up-to-date information to answer these questions and to provide guidance as needed. Accordingly, the OPTN Ad Hoc Donor Transmission Advisory Committee (DTAC), American Society of Transplantation (AST) and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS), after careful review of information available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), offers information to transplant programs and OPOs in light of these concerns. Please visit theOPTN website for more information.
The American Society of Transplantation recently conducted a Town Hall on guidances for transplant patients with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. A video recording of the Town Hall is given below
Description of the Town Hall by the AST: A number of transplant organizations from around the world have partnered to develop this educational webinar for the organ donation and transplantation communities. Our goal is to share experiences to date and respond to your questions about the impact of COVID-19 on organ donation and transplantation.
Because transplant recipients take immunosuppressive drugs, they are at higher risk of infection from viruses such as cold or flu. To limit the possibility of being exposed to the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, transplant patients should follow the CDC’s tips to avoid catching or spreading germs, and contact their health care provider if they develop cold or flu-like symptoms. By being informed and taking your own personal precautions, you can help reduce your risk of coming in contact with the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. You can find more information and resources for kidney patients by visiting our special coronavirus webpage at KidneyFund.org/coronavirus. We’ll update the page with important information for kidney patients and their caregivers as the coronavirus crisis continues to unfold.
Executive Director Christine Mitchell discusses the importance of institutions talking through the implications of their decisions with the New Yorker.
By Isaac Chotiner
Center Executive Director Christine Mitchell spoke with the New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner about the decisions that may need to be made on limiting movement and, potentially, rationing supplies and hospital space.
“So, in the debate about allocating resources in a pandemic, we have to work with our colleagues around what kind of space is going to be made available—which means that other people and other services have to be dislocated—what kind of supplies we’re going to have, whether we’re going to reuse them, how we will reallocate staff, whether we can have staff who are not specialists take care of patients because we have way more patients than the number of specialized staff,” says Mitchell.
Note: The following is taken from the Interview in the New Yorker.
As the novel coronavirus, covid-19, spreads across the globe, governments have been taking increasingly severe measures to limit the virus’s infection rate. China, where it originated, has instituted quarantines in areas with a large number of cases, and Italy—which is now facing perhaps the most serious threat outside of China—is entirely under quarantine. In the United States, the National Guard has been deployed to manage a “containment area” in New Rochelle, New York, where one of the country’s largest clusters has emerged. As the number of cases rises, we will soon face decisions on limiting movement and, potentially, rationing supplies and hospital space. These issues will be decided at the highest level by politicians, but they are often influenced by medical ethicists, who advise governments and other institutions about the way to handle medical emergencies.
One of those ethicists, with whom I recently spoke by phone, is Christine Mitchell, the executive director at the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School. Mitchell, who has master’s degrees in nursing and philosophical and religious ethics, has been a clinical ethicist for thirty years. She founded the ethics program at Boston Children’s Hospital, and has served on national and international medical-ethics commissions. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed what ethicists tend to focus on during a health crisis, how existing health-care access affects crisis response, and the importance of institutions talking through the ethical implications of their decisions.
What coronavirus-related issue has most occupied your mental space over the past weeks?
The New Yorker’s coronavirus news coverage and analysis are free for all readers.
One of the things I think about but that we don’t often have an opportunity to talk about, when we are mostly focussing on what clinicians are doing and trying to prepare for, is the more general ways this affects our society. People get sick out there in the real world, and then they come to our hospitals, but, when they are sick, a whole bunch of them don’t have health insurance, or are afraid to come to a hospital, or they don’t have coverage for sick time or taking a day off when their child is sick, so they send their child to school. So these all have very significant influences on our ability to manage population health and community transmission that aren’t things that nurses and physicians and people who work in acute-care hospitals and clinics can really affect. They are elements of the way our society is structured and has failed to meet the needs of our general population, and they influence our ability to manage a crisis like this.
Is there anything specifically about a pandemic or something like coronavirus that makes these issues especially acute?
If a person doesn’t have health insurance and doesn’t come to be tested or treated, and if they don’t have sick-time coverage and can’t leave work, so they teach at a school, or they work at a restaurant, or do events that have large numbers of people, these are all ways in which the spread of a virus like this has to be managed—and yet can’t be managed effectively because of our social-welfare policies, not just our health-care resources.
Just to take a step back, and I want to get back to coronavirus stuff, but what got you interested in medical ethics?
What got me interested were the actual kinds of problems that came up when I was taking care of patients, starting as early as when I was in nursing school and was taking care of a patient who, as a teen-ager, had a terminal kind of cancer that his parents didn’t want him to know about, and which the health-care team had decided to defer to the parents. And yet I was spending every day taking care of him, and he was really puzzled about why he was so sick and whether he was going to get better, and so forth. And so of course I was faced with this question of, What do I do if he asks me? Which, of course, he did.
And this question about what you should tell an adolescent and whether the deference should be to his parents’ judgment about what’s best for him, which we would ordinarily respect, and the moral demands of the relationship that you have with a patient, was one of the cases that reminded me that there’s a lot more to being a nurse or a health-care provider than just knowing how to give cancer chemotherapy and change a bed, or change a dressing, or whatever. That a lot of it is in the relationship you have with a patient and the kinds of ethical choices they and their families are facing. They need your information, but also your help as they think things through. That’s the kind of thing that got me interested in it. There are a whole host of those kinds of cases, but they’re more individual cases.
As I began to work in a hospital as an ethicist, I began to worry about the broader organizational issues, like emergency preparedness. Some years ago, here in Boston, I had a joint appointment running the ethics program at Children’s Hospital and doing clinical ethics at Harvard Medical School. We pulled together a group, with the Department of Public Health and the emergency-preparedness clinicians in the Harvard-affiliated hospitals, to look at what the response within the state of Massachusetts should be to big, major disasters or rolling pandemics, and worked on some guidelines together.
When you looked at the response of our government, in a place like Washington State or in New York City, what things, from a medical-ethics perspective, are you noticing that are either good or maybe not so good?
To be candid and, probably, to use language that’s too sharp for publication, I’m appalled. We didn’t get ourselves ready. We’ve had outbreaks—sars in 2003, H1N1 in 2009, Ebola in 2013, Zika in 2016. We’ve known, and the general population in some ways has known. They even have movies like “Contagion” that did a great job of sharing publicly what this is like, although it is fictional, and that we were going to have these kinds of infectious diseases in a global community that we have to be prepared to handle. And we didn’t get ourselves as ready, in most cases, as we should have. There have been all these cuts to the C.D.C. budget, and the person who was the Ebola czar no longer exists in the new Administration.
And it’s not just this Administration. But the thing about this Administration that perhaps worries me the most is a fundamental lack of respect for science and the facts. Managing the crisis from a public-relations perspective and an economic, Dow Jones perspective are important, but they shouldn’t be fudging the facts. And that’s the piece that makes me feel most concerned—and not just as an ethicist. And then, of course, I want to see public education and information that’s forthright and helps people get the treatment that they need. But the disrespect for the public, and not providing honest information, is . . . yeah, that’s pretty disconcerting.
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.
The mistrust or misunderstanding of science in the United States
Lack of communication and connection between patients and those involved in the healthcare industry
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)
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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
I reviewed the cited paperhttps://t.co/E4Iw7GpVh6 an open-label, non=randomized study The endpoint was viral PCR (mostly + or -, many ND) by nasopharyngeal swab. 6 of the 36 people were asymptomatic. 6 with pneumonia (LRTI) 6 people received "H + A" pic.twitter.com/KBjR1QcZRV
Eric – a huge issue here is they only report data on 20 of the 26 patients, and of the 6 – all deteriorated! Six hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were lost in follow-up: they worsened and weee sent to the ICU! They need to do last observation carried forward for those.
— Christopher Cannon, M.D. 🇺🇦 (@cpcannon) March 21, 2020
OMG, do you realize none of the patients in the treatment arm were definitive positives to start with? They were all in the "gray zone". JFC, this study was worse than I thought when I skimmed it the first time!
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 realizeCRITIQUE 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
cancer patient undergoing/or about to start chemotherapy
Patients taking immunosuppressive drugs: organ transplant recipients, patients with autoimmune diseases, multiple sclerosis patients
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
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.
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.
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
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
2012pharmaceutical
sjwilliamspa