Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Treatment Protocols for COVID-19’ Category

Setting The Price for Remdesivir @Gilead Sciences – The first medicine shown to work against Covid-19, it does not save lives

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

UPDATED ON 6/29/2020

Gilead’s long-awaited remdesivir price is $3,120, in line with watchdog estimates

Will Gilead be able to make a profit out of remdeisivr at the current price? It looks like it.

At the $2,340 government purchase price, Gilead could collect revenue of about $2.3 billion from selling around 1.5 million remdeisivr treatment course in 2020, RBC Capital analyst Brian Abrahams wrote in a Monday note to clients. Gilead expects to spend about $1 billion developing and distributing remdesivir this year alone. That would imply around $1.3 billion in profit.

However, Abrahams figured there wouldn’t be much room for growth left afterward “given the likelihood of ultimate development of a vaccine (or herd immunity), the likelihood other therapies will produce similar or greater benefits perhaps with more convenient administration.”

Right now, Gilead’s planning to test an inhaled formulation of the drug for potential use in patients with earlier stages of the disease. It’s also exploring combinations with anti-inflammatory agents, including Roche’s Actemra and Eli Lilly’s Olumiant, both FDA-approved arthritis treatments.

During a Monday interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” O’Day pointed to those second wave of clinical development investments as part of Gilead’s “dual responsibility” alongside access.

In the developing world, Gilead has penned nine deals with generic makers to offer remdesivir at low cost. For example, India’s Cipla and Hetero Labs have launched generic versions in their home country at around $70 per vial.

Remdesivir gets a price

After a long wait, Gilead Sciences has set a price for remdesivir, the first medicine shown to work against Covid-19. Now the debate over whether that price is fair can begin.

For all governments in the developed world, including the U.S. government’s Medicaid program and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Gilead will charge $2,340 for a five-day course. U.S. insurers will pay 33% more, or $3,120. Countries in the developing world will get the drug at greatly reduced prices through generic manufacturers to which Gilead has licensed production.

There has been speculation about the price for months, with the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review offering up arguments for a price anywhere between $10 and $5,080, and some Wall Street analysts making their own estimates.

“We spent a lot of time and considerable care and discussion about how to approach the pricing of this medicine,” Gilead CEO Daniel O’Day told STAT. “At this price it’s significantly below the value it brings to patients and to society. There is no doubt of that in my mind.”

SOURCE

From: STAT | The Readout <damian.garde@statnews.com>

Reply-To: STAT | The Readout <damian.garde@statnews.com>

Date: Monday, June 29, 2020 at 7:18 AM

To: Aviva Lev-Ari <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>

Subject: Gilead announces remdesivir price, novel antibiotics get $1 billion, & patients die in gene therapy trial

 

Gilead announces long-awaited price for Covid-19 drug remdesivir

Read Full Post »

The Castleman Disease Research Network publishes Phase 1 Results of Drug Repurposing Database for COVID-19

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD.

 

From CNN at https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/27/health/coronavirus-treatment-fajgenbaum-drug-review-scn-wellness/index.html

Updated 8:17 AM ET, Sat June 27, 2020

(CNN)Every morning, Dr. David Fajgenbaum takes three life-saving pills. He wakes up his 21-month-old daughter Amelia to help feed her. He usually grabs some Greek yogurt to eat quickly before sitting down in his home office. Then he spends most of the next 14 hours leading dozens of fellow researchers and volunteers in a systematic review of all the drugs that physicians and researchers have used so far to treat Covid-19. His team has already pored over more than 8,000 papers on how to treat coronavirus patients.

The 35-year-old associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine leads the school’s Center for Cytokine Storm Treatment & Laboratory. For the last few years, he has dedicated his life to studying Castleman disease, a rare condition that nearly claimed his life. Against epic odds, he found a drug that saved his own life six years ago, by creating a collaborative method for organizing medical research that could be applicable to thousands of human diseases. But after seeing how the same types of flares of immune-signaling cells, called cytokine storms, kill both Castleman and Covid-19 patients alike, his lab has devoted nearly all of its resources to aiding doctors fighting the pandemic.

A global repository for Covid-19 treatment data

Researchers working with his lab have reviewed published data on more than 150 drugs doctors around the world have to treat nearly 50,000 patients diagnosed with Covid-19. They’ve made their analysis public in a database called the Covid-19 Registry of Off-label & New Agents (or CORONA for short).
It’s a central repository of all available data in scientific journals on all the therapies used so far to curb the pandemic. This information can help doctors treat patients and tell researchers how to build clinical trials.The team’s process resembles that of the coordination Fajgenbaum used as a medical student to discover that he could repurpose Sirolimus, an immunosuppressant drug approved for kidney transplant patients, to prevent his body from producing deadly flares of immune-signaling cells called cytokines.The 13 members of Fajgenbaum’s lab recruited dozens of other scientific colleagues to join their coronavirus effort. And what this group is finding has ramifications for scientists globally.
This effort by Dr. Fajgenbaum’s lab and the resultant collaborative effort shows the power and speed at which a coordinated open science effort can achieve goals. Below is the description of the phased efforts planned and completed from the CORONA website.

CORONA (COvid19 Registry of Off-label & New Agents)

Drug Repurposing for COVID-19

Our overarching vision:  A world where data on all treatments that have been used against COVID19 are maintained in a central repository and analyzed so that physicians currently treating COVID19 patients know what treatments are most likely to help their patients and so that clinical trials can be appropriately prioritized.

 

Phase 1: COMPLETED

Our team reviewed 2500+ papers & extracted data on over 9,000 COVID19 patients. We found 115 repurposed drugs that have been used to treat COVID19 patients and analyzed data on which ones seem most promising for clinical trials. This data is open source and can be used by physicians to treat patients and prioritize drugs for trials. The CDCN will keep this database updated as a resource for this global fight. Repurposed drugs give us the best chance to help COVID19 as quickly as possible! As disease hunters who have identified and repurposed drugs for Castleman disease, we’re applying our ChasingMyCure approach to COVID19.

Read our systematic literature review published in Infectious Diseases and Therapy at the following link: Treatments Administered to the First 9152 Reported Cases of COVID-19: A Systematic Review

From Fajgenbaum, D.C., Khor, J.S., Gorzewski, A. et al. Treatments Administered to the First 9152 Reported Cases of COVID-19: A Systematic Review. Infect Dis Ther (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-020-00303-8

The following is the Abstract and link to the metastudy.  This study was a systematic review of literature with strict inclusion criteria.  Data was curated from these published studies and a total of 9152 patients were evaluated for treatment regimens for COVID19 complications and clinical response was curated for therapies in these curated studies.  Main insights from this study were as follows:

Key Summary Points

Why carry out this study?
  • Data on drugs that have been used to treat COVID-19 worldwide are currently spread throughout disparate publications.
  • We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify drugs that have been tried in COVID-19 patients and to explore clinically meaningful response time.
What was learned from the study?
  • We identified 115 uniquely referenced treatments administered to COVID-19 patients. Antivirals were the most frequently administered class; combination lopinavir/ritonavir was the most frequently used treatment.
  • This study presents the latest status of off-label and experimental treatments for COVID-19. Studies such as this are important for all diseases, especially those that do not currently have definitive evidence from randomized controlled trials or approved therapies.

Treatments Administered to the First 9152 Reported Cases of COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Abstract

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2/2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has created a global pandemic with no approved treatments or vaccines. Many treatments have already been administered to COVID-19 patients but have not been systematically evaluated. We performed a systematic literature review to identify all treatments reported to be administered to COVID-19 patients and to assess time to clinically meaningful response for treatments with sufficient data. We searched PubMed, BioRxiv, MedRxiv, and ChinaXiv for articles reporting treatments for COVID-19 patients published between 1 December 2019 and 27 March 2020. Data were analyzed descriptively. Of the 2706 articles identified, 155 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 9152 patients. The cohort was 45.4% female and 98.3% hospitalized, and mean (SD) age was 44.4 years (SD 21.0). The most frequently administered drug classes were antivirals, antibiotics, and corticosteroids, and of the 115 reported drugs, the most frequently administered was combination lopinavir/ritonavir, which was associated with a time to clinically meaningful response (complete symptom resolution or hospital discharge) of 11.7 (1.09) days. There were insufficient data to compare across treatments. Many treatments have been administered to the first 9152 reported cases of COVID-19. These data serve as the basis for an open-source registry of all reported treatments given to COVID-19 patients at www.CDCN.org/CORONA. Further work is needed to prioritize drugs for investigation in well-controlled clinical trials and treatment protocols.

Read the Press Release from PennMedicine at the following link: PennMedicine Press Release

Phase 2: Continue to update CORONA

Our team continues to work diligently to maintain an updated listing of all treatments reported to be used in COVID19 patients from papers in PubMed. We are also re-analyzing publicly available COVID19 single cell transcriptomic data alongside our iMCD data to search for novel insights and therapeutic targets.

You can visit the following link to access a database viewer built and managed by Matt Chadsey, owner of Nonlinear Ventures.

If you are a physician treating COVID19 patients, please visit the FDA’s CURE ID app to report de-identified information about drugs you’ve used to treat COVID19 in just a couple minutes.

For more information on COVID19 on this Open Access Journal please see our Coronavirus Portal at

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

Read Full Post »

Corticosteroid, Dexamethasone Improves Survival in COVID-19: Deaths reduction by 1/3 in ventilated patients and by 1/5 in other patients receiving oxygen only

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN – bold face and color fonts added

 

UPDATED on 6/28/2020

https://public.tableau.com/profile/matt.chadsey#!/vizhome/Corona_15895153725490/TreatmentSummary

Corona – COVID19 Treatment Registry

Viz Author: Matt Chadsey

CORONA is the COVID19 Registry of Off-Label & New Agents. A project of the Center for Cytokine Storm Treatment & Laboratory (CSTL) and the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network (CDCN).

10,553 Views  4

Inspiration:

Originally Published:

May 15, 2020

Last Updated:

Jun 27, 2020

Workbook Details:

11 Sheets

Metadata:

https://public.tableau.com/profile/matt.chadsey#!/vizhome/Corona_15895153725490/TreatmentSummary

SOURCE

The Castleman Disease Research Network publishes Phase 1 Results of Drug Repurposing Database for COVID-19

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD.

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2020/06/27/the-castleman-disease-research-network-publishes-phase-1-results-of-drug-repurposing-database-for-covid-19/

Paul Sax
@PaulSaxMD

If you’re wondering whether to use dexamethasone for patients presenting with COVID19 who need oxygen as we await the publication of the RECOVERY trial, here’s one opinion (mine): Yes. Latest post: blogs.jwatch.org/hiv-id-observa

Dexamethasone Improves Survival in COVID-19 – Why This Should Be Practice-Changing Even Before the…
When the news broke last week that the dexamethasone component of the RECOVERY randomized clinical trial was halted because those receiving the drug were significantly more likely to survive, I…
blogs.jwatch.org
8
104
239

Paul Sax
@PaulSaxMD

The favorable dexamethasone data for covid19 will likely amplify the already apparent increased risk for aspergillosis among these critically ill people. Plenty of work for experts like

and others.

Image

Paul Sax
@PaulSaxMD
– Very welcome news, dex is cheap, widely available! – Demonstrates the power of RCTs vs obs studies, which were conflicting – How will the numerous ongoing studies of immunomodulators be modified? – Rx guidelines — act now or wait for more info?
Low-cost dexamethasone reduces death by up to one third in hospitalised patients with severe…
Statement from the Chief Investigators of the Randomised Evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY (RECOVERY) Trial on dexamethasone, 16 June 2020
recoverytrial.net

Note my last point, about “guidelines”. These committees have a responsibility to get what they recommend right, and might be slower than clinicians to recommend an intervention with limited information — even if it is potentially life-saving.

But my assumption was that clinical practice would change quickly, awaiting the updating of guidelines. After all, this is what we’ve been waiting for — data from a randomized trial demonstrating a clear benefit. Even better, it’s a readily available, inexpensive strategy — a course of corticosteroids — familiar to us all.

I confess the responses to my post, and comments elsewhere, surprised me. Lots of skepticism. Wow.

The comments fell into several interrelated categories:

Let’s wait for the study to be peer-reviewed and published in an established medical journal before changing clinical practice.

Really? Even when the sickest patients — those requiring oxygen or ventilatory support — were more likely to survive?

(Yes, I keep italicizing that endpoint. Emphasis, you know.)

For the record, here are the results:

Dexamethasone reduced deaths by

  • one-third in ventilated patients (rate ratio 0.65 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.88]; p=0.0003) and by
  • one fifth in other patients receiving oxygen only (0.80 [0.67 to 0.96]; p=0.0021).

When a study stops because of a survival benefit for a life-threatening disease, take note. It’s because continuing the study as originally designed is unethical — those randomized to receive “usual care” would be deprived of a potentially life-saving treatment.

The steering committee has a responsibility of ensuring the safety of trial participants. And remember, they have access to all the study data, even if we don’t. Credit: NIAID

It’s critical that this information be made available as soon as possible. Patients are being treated today who might benefit, and writing papers and subsequent peer review take time — typically weeks, even with the “warp speed” of COVID-19.

To quote one of the investigators: “Dexamethasone is inexpensive, on the shelf, and can be used immediately to save lives worldwide.”

Well said.

Why are we getting critical information via press release? I’m inherently distrustful. A press release doesn’t represent actual data.

It’s reasonable to be skeptical of clinical trial press releases, especially when issued by private pharmaceutical companies with multi-million dollar marketing divisions.

These notoriously exaggerate the importance of study results, especially when focused on surrogate markers of disease that may or may not predict clinical outcome.

But consider — this isn’t a press release by a giant company, citing a minor change in an inflammatory cytokine or quality-of-life metric in an open-label study. It’s a respected clinical trials group, funded by the government of Great Britain, and they are reporting a survival benefit from their clinical trial.

To their credit, they early on started doing randomized trials of various COVID-19 interventions while the rest of the globe practiced the therapeutic equivalent of throwing drugs against the wall hoping some of them would stick.

  • Lopinavir-ritonavir!
  • Interferons!
  • Oseltamivir!
  • Hydroxychloroquine!
  • Azithromycin!
  • Ivermectin!

And it’s not just antimicrobials — virtually every immunomodulator under the sun, some extremely expensive, has found its way to off-label use for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

  • Tocilizumab!
  • Sarilumab!
  • Anakinra!
  • Ruxolitinib!
  • Eculizumab!
  • Any-other-mab! And more …

Yes, it’s hard to keep up — see Table 1 in this recent review for all the various anti-inflammatory approaches tried off-label, with many of these now under study.

If we’re using some of these unproven therapies — and many of us have — why not dexamethasone, which in the RECOVERY trial improved survival?

Here we go again! Haven’t we been burned already multiple times with research on COVID-19, only later to have this information questioned, or retracted?

Quite reasonable to be cautious in this very fast-moving area.

But the infamous research that has “burned” us involved much weaker levels of evidence — little more than anecdotal observations at one extreme and observational studies with likely falsified data at the other.

None has been a randomized clinical trial with a survival benefit.

(Have I noted that result enough times already? Nah.)

I need more details about the study. What were the primary endpoints? The specifics of the intervention? What were the patient characteristics of those enrolled? Did some subgroups benefit more than others? What were the toxicities? 

All very reasonable questions! But good news — we have the full protocol available for review. This can answer some of these queries, including the endpoints and description of the exact interventions studied.

https://blogs.jwatch.org/hiv-id-observations/index.php/dexamethasone-improves-survival-in-covid-19-why-this-should-be-practice-changing-even-before-the-paper-is-published/2020/06/21/?query=C19

 

RRFERENCES

Statement from the Chief Investigators of the Randomised Evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY (RECOVERY) Trial on dexamethasone, 16 June 2020

https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/low-cost-dexamethasone-reduces-death-by-up-to-one-third-in-hospitalised-patients-with-severe-respiratory-complications-of-covid-19

SOURCE

https://blogs.jwatch.org/hiv-id-observations/index.php/dexamethasone-improves-survival-in-covid-19-why-this-should-be-practice-changing-even-before-the-paper-is-published/2020/06/21/?query=C19

Other Related Studies

Countermeasures to COVID-19: Are immunomodulators rational treatment options — a critical review of the evidence 

Open Forum Infectious Diseases, ofaa219, https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa219
Published:
05 June 2020

Article history

Abstract

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is associated with higher concentrations of pro-inflammatory cytokines which leads to lung damage, respiratory failure, and resultant increased mortality. Immunomodulatory therapy has the potential to inhibit cytokines and quell the immune dysregulation. Controversial data found improved oxygenation after treatment with tocilizumab, an IL-6 inhibitor, sparking a wave of interest and resultant clinical trials evaluating immunomodulatory therapies. The purpose of this article is to assess potential pro-inflammatory targets and review the safety and efficacy of immunomodulatory therapies in managing patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome associated with COVID-19.

Conclusions from PDF Full Article Version

SARS-CoV-2 leads to ALI and ARDS with increased mortality. Immunomodulatory therapies have the potential to inhibit cytokines, but the role of elevated cytokines with lung pathology is unclear. The overall lack of evidence and recommendations has forced practitioners to use their own judgment regarding use of immunomodulatory therapy. We are hopeful that as clinical trial data become available their role in managing patients with COVID-19 will emerge. For now, available evidence suggests these treatment options be reserved for use in critically ill COVID-19 patients enrolled in clinical trials. Due to the potential adverse effects, risks and benefits must be weighed and proper screening completed prior to use.

This content is only available as a PDF.

About the RECOVERY trial

The RECOVERY trial is a large, randomised controlled trial of possible treatments for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Over 11,500 patients have been randomised to the following treatment arms, or no additional treatment:

  • Lopinavir-Ritonavir (commonly used to treat HIV)
  • Low-dose Dexamethasone (a type of steroid, which typically used to reduce inflammation)
  • Hydroxychloroquine (which has now been stopped due to lack of efficacy)
  • Azithromycin (a commonly used antibiotic)
  • Tocilizumab (an anti-inflammatory treatment given by injection)
  • Convalescent plasma (collected from donors who have recovered from COVID-19 and contains antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus).

Overall dexamethasone reduced the 28-day mortality rate by 17% (0.83 [0.74 to 0.92]; P=0.0007) with a highly significant trend showing greatest benefit among those patients requiring ventilation (test for trend p<0.001). But it is important to recognise that we found no evidence of benefit for patients who did not require oxygen and we did not study patients outside the hospital setting. Follow-up is complete for over 94% of participants.

The RECOVERY Trial is conducted by the registered clinical trials units with the Nuffield Department of Population Health in partnership with the Nuffield Department of Medicine. The trial is supported by a grant to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation/National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and by core funding provided by NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreWellcome, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Department for International Development, Health Data Research UK, the Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, and NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Support Funding.

The RECOVERY trial involves many thousands of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and research administrators at over 175 hospitals across the whole of the UK, supported by staff at the NIHR Clinical Research Network, NHS DigiTrials, Public Health England, Public Health Scotland, Department of Health & Social Care, and the NHS in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

About Oxford University

Oxford University has been placed number 1 in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings for the third year running, and at the heart of this success is our ground-breaking research and innovation.

Read Full Post »

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 »

The Complexity of Estimation of the Economic Impact of an Outbreak | Panel Discussion | BC Woods College

Reporter: Ofer Markman, PhD

Economic Impact of an Outbreak | Panel Discussion | BC Woods College

197 views

May 21, 2020

Prominent economists, all faculty of the Boston College M.S. in Applied Economics degree program in the Woods College of Advancing Studies, presented a virtual panel discussion on the impact of the coronavirus outbreak on the health care system and the global economy. For more information about the M.S. program, visit https://on.bc.edu/MSAppliedEcon

Read Full Post »

Boston biotech tries to retrofit a drug to prevent COVID-19’s aftereffects

Reporter : Irina Robu, PhD

Antivirals are a class of medications that can be used to treat viral infections. Yet, most viral infections can be solved quickly in immunocompetent individuals. The goal of the viral therapy is to minimize symptoms and infectivity as well as cut the duration of the illness. These antiviral drugs act by arresting the viral replication cycle at various stages and they do not deactivate or destroy the microbe.

Yet, as the world scrambles to find antiviral treatments and vaccines for the novel coronavirus, some scientists are looking ahead of the problem partly because many COVID-19 survivors may have long-term lung injuries and the current medicine has little to offer.

There is limited data on how patients with COVID-19 are left with long term fibrosis or scarring of the lung. Since the novel coronavirus has already infected more than 5 million people worldwide, Pure Health company in Boston believes it might have a solution by making changes to an older drug that has helped avoid scarring in different lung tissue. The problem with the older drugs is that patients can take nine pills a day and side effects include toxicity, nausea and diarrhea.

With these questions in mind, PureTech fiddled with pirfenidone’s hydrogen atoms through a process, which gives molecules a longer half-life and more durable effect. Penciclovir is an acyclic guanine analogue that is chemically similar to acyclovir. Penciclovir is monophosphorylated by TK and subsequently by cellular kinases into active penciclovir-triphosphate, which inhibits herpes DNA polymerase activity by serving as a competitive inhibitor of deoxyguanosine triphosphate. The resulting drug, LYT-100, should be more tolerable than pirfenidone, but still keep the original medicine’s benefits for fibrosis and inflammation.

The PureTech company plans to enroll 150 patients who have respiratory problems related to COVID-19 to test their theory. The patients will get either LYT-100 or a placebo and the company plan to measure whether the drug improves lung function after up to three months of treatment. Whether LYT-100 can perform the same way as pirfenidone has done is still up for debate. Pirfenidone is presently effective in slowing down the process of fibrosis, but there is no evidence to prevent scarring.

If at all possible, doctors can determine which patients with COVID-19 can lead to fibrosis. According to PureTech, LYT-100 could minimize the horrible effects of the disease on immune systems and lungs and it can be a useful medicine to deal with the medical aftermath of COVID-19.

SOURCE

https://www3.bostonglobe.com/business/2020/06/01/boston-biotech-aims-retrofit-drug-prevent-covid-aftereffects/4bUOicQrzI6tEFPAbiuNlM/story.html

 

Read Full Post »

SAR-Cov-2 is probably a vasculotropic RNA virus affecting the blood vessels: Endothelial cell infection and endotheliitis in COVID-19

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN – Bold face and colors are my addition

From: “Dr. Larry Bernstein” <larry.bernstein@gmail.com>

Reply-To: “Dr. Larry Bernstein” <larry.bernstein@gmail.com>

Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 8:50 AM

To: Aviva Lev-Ari <aviva.lev-ari@comcast.net>

Subject: Re: Coronavirus May Be a Vascular Disease, Which Explains Everything | Elemental

“I don’t think the conclusion is fully validated. I would want to see autopsy reports, like that found in China. It can be done safely, and the tools could be discarded.”

Larry

UPDATED on 3/1/2021

COVID Clot Prevention Evidence Beginning to Bud

— Randomized prophylaxis trials have struggled, but some now near initial read-out

Three adaptive platform partner trials — ACTIV-4, REMAP-CAP, and ATTACC — just halted therapeutic anticoagulation for prophylactic use in ICU patients after interim data showed futility in seeking a reduction in need for organ support and possible safety concern.

“It is terrific gain of knowledge to have results from randomized trials, even if they have to be stopped early,” said Stephan Moll, MD, a hematologist-oncologist involved in setting the prophylaxis protocols for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “This is refreshing news after all the retrospective, limited data of the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

ACTIV-4, REMAP-CAP, and ATTACC data are “urgently” undergoing additional analyses to be made available as soon as possible, according to trial leadership. Non-ICU subgroups, and a range of other treatment arms in those trials, are also ongoing.

SOURCE

UPDATED on 6/29/2020

Another duality and paradox in the Treatment of COVID-19 Patients in ICUs was expressed by Mike Yoffe, MD, PhD, David H. Koch Professor of Biology and Biological Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Yaffe has a joint appointment in Acute Care Surgery, Trauma, and Surgical Critical Care, and in Surgical Oncology @BIDMC

on 6/29 at SOLUTIONS with/in/sight at Koch Institute @MIT

How Are Cancer Researchers Fighting COVID-19? (Part II)” Jun 29, 2020 11:30 AM EST

Mike Yoffe, MD, PhD 

In COVID-19 patients: two life threatening conditions are seen in ICUs:

  • Blood Clotting – Hypercoagulability or Thrombophilia
  • Cytokine Storm – immuno-inflammatory response
  • The coexistence of 1 and 2 – HINDERS the ability to use effectively tPA as an anti-clotting agent while the cytokine storm is present.

Mike Yoffe’s related domain of expertise:

Signaling pathways and networks that control cytokine responses and inflammation

Misregulation of cytokine feedback loops, along with inappropriate activation of the blood clotting cascade causes dysregulation of cell signaling pathways in innate immune cells (neutrophils and macrophages), resulting in tissue damage and multiple organ failure following trauma or sepsis. Our research is focused on understanding the role of the p38-MK2 pathway in cytokine control and innate immune function, and on cross-talk between cytokines, clotting factors, and neutrophil NADPH oxidase-derived ROS in tissue damage, coagulopathy, and inflammation, using biochemistry, cell biology, and mouse knock-out/knock-in models.  We recently discovered a particularly important link between abnormal blood clotting and the complement pathway cytokine C5a which causes excessive production of extracellular ROS and organ damage by neutrophils after traumatic injury.

SOURCE

https://www.bidmc.org/research/research-by-department/surgery/acute-care-surgery-trauma-and-surgical-critical-care/michael-b-yaffe

 

SAR-Cov-2 is probably a vasculotropic RNA virus affecting the blood vessels: Endothelial cell infection and endotheliitis in COVID-19

Mandeep Mehra, MD, medical director of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center.

“All these Covid-associated complications were a mystery. We see blood clotting, we see kidney damage, we see inflammation of the heart, we see stroke, we see encephalitis [swelling of the brain],” says William Li, MD, president of the Angiogenesis Foundation. “A whole myriad of seemingly unconnected phenomena that you do not normally see with SARS or H1N1 or, frankly, most infectious diseases.”

“If you start to put all of the data together that’s emerging, it turns out that this virus is probably a vasculotropic virus, meaning that it affects the [blood vessels],”

Mehra explains. “Then it starts to infect endothelial cell after endothelial cell, creates a local immune response, and inflames the endothelium.”

Benhur Lee, MD, a professor of microbiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai:

“In SARS1, the protein that’s required to cleave it is likely present only in the lung environment, so that’s where it can replicate. To my knowledge, it doesn’t really go systemic,” Lee says. “[SARS-CoV-2] is cleaved by a protein called furin, and that’s a big danger because furin is present in all our cells, it’s ubiquitous.”

Sanjum Sethi, MD, MPH, an interventional cardiologist at Columbia University Irving Medical Center:

“The endothelial cell layer is in part responsible for [clot] regulation, it inhibits clot formation through a variety of ways, If that’s disrupted, you could see why that may potentially promote clot formation.” Damage to endothelial cells causes inflammation in the blood vessels, and that can cause any plaque that’s accumulated to rupture, causing a heart attack. “Inflammation and endothelial dysfunction promote plaque rupture. Endothelial dysfunction is linked towards worse heart outcomes, in particular myocardial infarction or heart attack.”

https://elemental.medium.com/coronavirus-may-be-a-blood-vessel-disease-which-explains-everything-2c4032481ab2

Endothelial cell dysfunction: pre-existing conditions like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, and heart disease are at a higher risk for severe complications from a virus that’s supposed to just infect the lungs. Why ventilation often isn’t enough to help many Covid-19 patients breathe better. Moving air into the lungs, which ventilators help with, is only one part of the equation. The exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood is just as important to provide the rest of the body with oxygen, and that process relies on functioning blood vessels in the lungs.

William Li, MD, president of the Angiogenesis Foundation:

“If you have blood clots within the blood vessels that are required for complete oxygen exchange, even if you’re moving air in and out of the airways, [if] the circulation is blocked, the full benefits of mechanical ventilatory support are somewhat thwarted,” “We were observing virus particles filling up the endothelial cell like filling up a gumball machine. The endothelial cell swells and the cell membrane starts to break down, and now you have a layer of injured endothelium.” “Endothelial cells connect the entire circulation [system], 60,000 miles worth of blood vessels throughout our body,” says Li. “Is this one way that Covid-19 can impact the brain, the heart, the Covid toe? Does SARS-CoV-2 traffic itself through the endothelial cells or get into the bloodstream this way? We don’t know the answer to that.”

https://elemental.medium.com/coronavirus-may-be-a-blood-vessel-disease-which-explains-everything-2c4032481ab2

If Covid-19 is a vascular disease, the best antiviral therapy might not be antiviral therapy

“I suspect from what we see and what our preliminary data show is that this virus has an additional risk factor for blood clots, but I can’t prove that yet,” Sethi says. An alternative theory is that the blood clotting and symptoms in other organs are caused by inflammation in the body due to an over-reactive immune response — the so-called cytokine storm

SARS-CoV-2 virus can infect the endothelial cells that line the inside of blood vessels. Endothelial cells protect the cardiovascular system, and they release proteins that influence everything from blood clotting to the immune response. In the paper, the scientists showed damage to endothelial cells in the lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, and intestines in people with Covid-19.

Treatment Protocol for COVID-19

The good news is that if Covid-19 is a vascular disease, there are existing drugs that can help protect against endothelial cell damage. In another New England Journal of Medicine paper that looked at nearly 9,000 people with Covid-19, Mehra showed that the use of statins and ACE inhibitors were linked to higher rates of survival. Statins reduce the risk of heart attacks not only by lowering cholesterol or preventing plaque, they also stabilize existing plaque, meaning they’re less likely to rupture if someone is on the drugs.

“It turns out that both statins and ACE inhibitors are extremely protective on vascular dysfunction,” Mehra says. “Most of their benefit in the continuum of cardiovascular illness — be it high blood pressure, be it stroke, be it heart attack, be it arrhythmia, be it heart failure — in any situation the mechanism by which they protect the cardiovascular system starts with their ability to stabilize the endothelial cells.”

  • The best therapy might actually be a drug that stabilizes the vascular endothelial.

Endothelial cell infection and endotheliitis in COVID-19

Cardiovascular complications are rapidly emerging as a key threat in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in addition to respiratory disease. The mechanisms underlying the disproportionate effect of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection on patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, however, remain incompletely understood.
SARS-CoV-2 infects the host using the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is expressed in several organs, including the lung, heart, kidney, and intestine. ACE2 receptors are also expressed by endothelial cells.
Whether vascular derangements in COVID-19 are due to endothelial cell involvement by the virus is currently unknown. Intriguingly, SARS-CoV-2 can directly infect engineered human blood vessel organoids in vitro.
Here we demonstrate endothelial cell involvement across vascular beds of different organs in a series of patients with COVID-19 (further case details are provided in the appendix).
Patient 1 was a male renal transplant recipient, aged 71 years, with coronary artery disease and arterial hypertension. The patient’s condition deteriorated following COVID-19 diagnosis, and he required mechanical ventilation. Multisystem organ failure occurred, and the patient died on day 8.

Post-mortem analysis of the transplanted kidney by electron microscopy revealed viral inclusion structures in endothelial cells (figure A, B). In histological analyses, we found an accumulation of inflammatory cells associated with endothelium, as well as apoptotic bodies, in the heart, the small bowel (figure C) and lung (figure D). An accumulation of mononuclear cells was found in the lung, and most small lung vessels appeared congested.

See Figures in https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30937-5/fulltext

Findings
We found evidence of direct viral infection of the endothelial cell and diffuse endothelial inflammation. Although the virus uses ACE2 receptor expressed by pneumocytes in the epithelial alveolar lining to infect the host, thereby causing lung injury, the ACE2 receptor is also widely expressed on endothelial cells, which traverse multiple organs.
Recruitment of immune cells, either by direct viral infection of the endothelium or immune-mediated, can result in widespread endothelial dysfunction associated with apoptosis (figure D).
The vascular endothelium is an active paracrine, endocrine, and autocrine organ that is indispensable for the regulation of vascular tone and the maintenance of vascular homoeostasis.
Endothelial dysfunction is a principal determinant of microvascular dysfunction by shifting the vascular equilibrium towards more vasoconstriction with subsequent organ ischaemia, inflammation with associated tissue oedema, and a pro-coagulant state.
Our findings show the presence of viral elements within endothelial cells and an accumulation of inflammatory cells, with evidence of endothelial and inflammatory cell death. These findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection facilitates the induction of endotheliitis in several organs as a direct consequence of viral involvement (as noted with presence of viral bodies) and of the host inflammatory response. In addition, induction of apoptosis and pyroptosis might have an important role in endothelial cell injury in patients with COVID-19.
COVID-19-endotheliitis could explain the systemic impaired microcirculatory function in different vascular beds and their clinical sequelae in patients with COVID-19. This hypothesis provides a rationale for therapies to stabilise the endothelium while tackling viral replication, particularly with anti-inflammatory anti-cytokine drugs, ACE inhibitors, and statins., , , ,
This strategy could be particularly relevant for vulnerable patients with pre-existing endothelial dysfunction, which is associated with male sex, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and established cardiovascular disease, all of which are associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19.

References

    • Zhou F
    • Yu T
    • Du R
    • et al.
    Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study.

    Lancet.2020; 3951054-1062

    • Horton R
  1. Offline: COVID-19—bewilderment and candour.

    Lancet.2020; 3951178

    • Ferrario CM
    • Jessup J
    • Chappell MC
    • et al.
  2. Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and angiotensin II receptor blockers on cardiac angiotensin-converting enzyme 2.

    Circulation.2005; 1112605-2610

    • Monteil V KH
    • Prado P
    • Hagelkrüys A
    • et al.
  3. Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 infections in engineered human tissues using clinical-grade soluble human ACE2.

    Cell.2020; (published online in press.)

    • Flammer AJ
    • Anderson T
    • Celermajer DS
    • et al.
  4. The assessment of endothelial function: from research into clinical practice.

    Circulation.2012; 126753-767

    • Bonetti PO
    • Lerman LO
    • Lerman A
  5. Endothelial dysfunction – a marker of atherosclerotic risk.

    Arterioscl Throm Vas.2003; 23168-175

    • Anderson TJ
    • Meredith IT
    • Yeung AC
    • Frei B
    • Selwyn AP
    • Ganz P
  6. The effect of cholesterol-lowering and antioxidant therapy on endothelium-dependent coronary vasomotion.

    N Engl J Med.1995; 332488-493

    • Taddei S
    • Virdis A
    • Ghiadoni L
    • Mattei P
    • Salvetti A
  7. Effects of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition on endothelium-dependent vasodilatation in essential hypertensive patients.

    J Hypertens.1998; 16447-456

    • Flammer AJ
    • Sudano I
    • Hermann F
    • et al.
  8. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition improves vascular function in rheumatoid arthritis.

    Circulation.2008; 1172262-2269

    • Hurlimann D
    • Forster A
    • Noll G
    • et al.
  9. Anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha treatment improves endothelial function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

    Circulation.2002; 1062184-2187

    • Feldmann M
    • Maini RN
    • Woody JN
    • et al.
  10. Trials of anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy for COVID-19 are urgently needed.

    Lancet.2020; (published online April 9.)

Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19

List of authors.

  • Mandeep R. Mehra, M.D.,
  • Sapan S. Desai, M.D., Ph.D.,
  • SreyRam Kuy, M.D., M.H.S.,
  • Timothy D. Henry, M.D.,
  • and Amit N. Patel, M.D.

Metrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may disproportionately affect people with cardiovascular disease. Concern has been aroused regarding a potential harmful effect of angiotensin-converting–enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in this clinical context.

METHODS

Using an observational database from 169 hospitals in Asia, Europe, and North America, we evaluated the relationship of cardiovascular disease and drug therapy with in-hospital death among hospitalized patients with Covid-19 who were admitted between December 20, 2019, and March 15, 2020, and were recorded in the Surgical Outcomes Collaborative registry as having either died in the hospital or survived to discharge as of March 28, 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed previous observations suggesting that underlying cardiovascular disease is associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death among patients hospitalized with Covid-19. Our results did not confirm previous concerns regarding a potential harmful association of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with in-hospital death in this clinical context. (Funded by the William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.)

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has spread around the globe, there has been growing recognition that persons with underlying increased cardiovascular risk may be disproportionately affected.1-3 Several studies of case series have noted cardiac arrhythmias, cardiomyopathy, and cardiac arrest as terminal events in patients with Covid-19.1-4 Higher incidences of cardiac arrhythmias, acute coronary syndromes, and heart failure–related events have also been reported during seasonal influenza outbreaks, which suggests that acute respiratory infections may result in activation of coagulation pathways, proinflammatory effects, and endothelial cell dysfunction.5 In addition, however, concern has been expressed that medical therapy for cardiovascular disease might specifically contribute to the severity of illness in patients with Covid-19.6,7

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of Covid-19, has been shown to establish itself in the host through the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as its cellular receptor.8 ACE2 is a membrane-bound monocarboxypeptidase found ubiquitously in humans and expressed predominantly in heart, intestine, kidney, and pulmonary alveolar (type II) cells.7,9 Entry of SARS-CoV-2 into human cells is facilitated by the interaction of a receptor-binding domain in its viral spike glycoprotein ectodomain with the ACE2 receptor.10

ACE2 is counterregulatory to the activity of angiotensin II generated through ACE1 and is protective against detrimental activation of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system. Angiotensin II is catalyzed by ACE2 to angiotensin-(1–7), which exerts vasodilatory, antiinflammatory, antifibrotic, and antigrowth effects.11 It has been suggested that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) may increase the expression of ACE2, which has been shown in the heart in rats,12 and thereby may confer a predisposition to more severe infection and adverse outcomes during Covid-19.6,7 Others have suggested that ACE inhibitors may counter the antiinflammatory effects of ACE2. However, in vitro studies have not shown direct inhibitory activity of ACE inhibitors against ACE2 function.9,13

Despite these uncertainties, some have recommended cessation of treatment with ACE inhibitors and ARBs in patients with Covid-19.6 However, several scientific societies, including the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Council on Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology, have urged that these important medications should not be discontinued in the absence of clear clinical evidence of harm.14,15 We therefore undertook a study to investigate the relationship between underlying cardiovascular disease and Covid-19 outcomes and to evaluate the association between cardiovascular drug therapy and mortality in this illness.

Discussion

Our investigation confirms previous reports of the independent relationship of older age, underlying cardiovascular disease (coronary artery disease, heart failure, and cardiac arrhythmias), current smoking, and COPD with death in Covid-19. Our results also suggest that women are proportionately more likely than men to survive the infection. Neither harmful nor beneficial associations were noted for antiplatelet therapy, beta-blockers, or hypoglycemic therapy. It is important to note that we were not able to confirm previous concerns regarding a potential harmful association of either ACE inhibitors or ARBs with in-hospital mortality in this clinical context.

In viral infections such as influenza, older age is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and death.5 In the 2003 epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS, caused by SARS-CoV-1 infection), sex differences in the risk of death similar to those we observed were noted.17 Women have stronger innate and adaptive immunity and greater resistance to viral infections than men.18 In animal models of SARS-CoV-1 infection, higher susceptibility of male mice to SARS-CoV-1 and greater accumulation of macrophages and neutrophils in the lungs have been described.19 Ovariectomy or the use of estrogen-receptor antagonists increased mortality from SARS-CoV-1 infection in female animals. Furthermore, the difference in risk between the sexes increased with advancing age.19 These findings may support the observation in our investigation that suggested an association between survival and female sex, independent of older age.

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a mild disease in most people, but in some the disease progresses to a severe respiratory illness characterized by a hyperinflammatory syndrome, multiorgan dysfunction, and death.20 In the lung, the viral spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 interacts with cell-surface ACE2, and the virus is internalized by endocytosis. The endocytic event up-regulates the activity of ADAM metallopeptidase domain 17 (ADAM17), which cleaves ACE2 from the cell membrane, resulting in a loss of ACE2-mediated protection against the effects of activation of the tissue renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system while mediating the release of proinflammatory cytokines into the circulation.21 The stress of critical illness and inflammation may unite in destabilizing preexisting cardiovascular illness. Vascular endothelial cell dysfunction, inflammation-associated myocardial depression, stress cardiomyopathy, direct viral infection of the heart and its vessels, or the host response may cause or worsen heart failure, demand-related ischemia, and arrhythmias.22 These factors may underlie the observed associations between cardiovascular disease and death in Covid-19.

In our analyses, use of either ACE inhibitors or statins was associated with better survival among patients with Covid-19. However, these associations should be considered with extreme caution. Because our study was not a randomized, controlled trial, we cannot exclude the possibility of confounding. In addition, we examined relationships between many variables and in-hospital death, and no primary hypothesis was prespecified; these factors increased the probability of chance associations being found. Therefore, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred. These data also offer no information concerning the potential effect of initiation of ACE inhibitor or statin therapy in patients with Covid-19 who do not have an appropriate indication for these medications. Randomized clinical trials evaluating the role of ACE inhibitors and statins will be necessary before any conclusion can be reached regarding a potential benefit of these agents in patients with Covid-19.

In this multinational observational study involving patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we confirmed previous observations suggesting that underlying cardiovascular disease is independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death. We were not able to confirm previous concerns regarding a potential harmful association of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with in-hospital mortality in this clinical context.

Supported by the William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The development and maintenance of the Surgical Outcomes Collaborative database was funded by Surgisphere.

This article was published on May 1, 2020, and updated on May 8, 2020, at NEJM.org.

Author Affiliations

From Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston (M.R.M.); Surgisphere, Chicago (S.S.D.); Baylor College of Medicine and Department of Veterans Affairs, Houston (S.K.); Christ Hospital, Cincinnati (T.D.H.); the Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (A.N.P.); and HCA Research Institute, Nashville (A.N.P.).

References

1. Ruan Q, Yang K, Wang W, Jiang L, Song J. Clinical predictors of mortality due to COVID-19 based on an analysis of data of 150 patients from Wuhan, China. Intensive Care Med 2020 March 3 (Epub ahead of print).

2. Shi S, Qin M, Shen B, et al. Association of cardiac injury with mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. JAMA Cardiol 2020 March 25 (Epub ahead of print).

3. Guo T, Fan Y, Chen M, et al. Cardiovascular implications of fatal outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiol 2020 March 27 (Epub ahead of print).

4. Arentz M, Yim E, Klaff L, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of 21 critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Washington State. JAMA 2020 March 19 (Epub ahead of print).

5. Nguyen JL, Yang W, Ito K, Matte TD, Shaman J, Kinney PL. Seasonal influenza infections and cardiovascular disease mortality. JAMA Cardiol 2016;1:274-81.

6. Fang L, Karakiulakis G, Roth M. Are patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus at increased risk for COVID-19 infection? Lancet Respir Med 2020;8(4): e21.

7. Nicin L, Abplanalp WT, Mellentin H, et al. Cell type-specific expression of the putative SARS-CoV-2 receptor ACE2 in human hearts. Eur Heart J 2020 April 15 (Epub ahead of print).

8. Hoffmann M, Kleine-Weber H, Schroeder S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and is blocked by a clinically proven protease inhibitor. Cell 2020;181(2):271.e8-280.e8.

9. Rice GI, Thomas DA, Grant PJ, Turner AJ, Hooper NM. Evaluation of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), its homologue ACE2 and neprilysin in angiotensin peptide metabolism. Biochem J 2004;383: 45-51.

10. Walls AC, Park YJ, Tortorici MA, Wall A, McGuire AT, Veesler D. Structure, function, and antigenicity of the SARSCoV-2 spike glycoprotein. Cell 2020; 181(2):281.e6-292.e6.

11. Li XC, Zhang J, Zhuo JL. The vasoprotective axes of the renin-angiotensin system: physiological relevance and therapeutic implications in cardiovascular, hypertensive and kidney diseases. Pharmacol Res 2017;125:21-38.

12. Ferrario CM, Jessup J, Chappell MC, et al. Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and angiotensin II receptor blockers on cardiac angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. Circulation 2005;111: 2605-10.

13. Patel AB, Verma A. COVID-19 and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers: what is the evidence? JAMA 2020 March 24 (Epub ahead of print).

14. American College of Cardiology. HFSA/ACC/AHA statement addresses concerns re: using RAAS antagonists in COVID-19. March 17, 2020 (https://www .acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/ 2020/03/17/08/59/hfsa-acc-aha-statement -addresses-concerns-re-using-raas -antagonists-in-covid-19).

15. European Society of Cardiology. Position statement of the ESC Council on Hypertension on ACE-inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. March 13, 2020 (https://www.escardio.org/Councils/ Council-on-Hypertension-(CHT)/News/ position-statement-of-the-esc-council-on -hypertension-on-ace-inhibitors-and-ang).

16. World Health Organization. Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) when COVID-19 disease is suspected: interim guidance. March 13, 2020 (https://www.who.int/docs/default -source/coronaviruse/clinical -management-of-novel-cov.pdf).

17. Karlberg J, Chong DSY, Lai WYY. Do men have a higher case fatality rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome than women do? Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:229- 31. The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org on June 1, 2020. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. 8 n engl j med nejm.org The new england journal o f medicine

18. Klein SL, Flanagan KL. Sex differences in immune responses. Nat Rev Immunol 2016;16:626-38.

19. Channappanavar R, Fett C, Mack M, Ten Eyck PP, Meyerholz DK, Perlman S. Sex-based differences in susceptibility to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection. J Immunol 2017;198: 4046-53.

20. Siddiqi HK, Mehra MR. COVID-19 illness in native and immunosuppressed states: a clinical-therapeutic staging proposal. J Heart Lung Transplant 2020;39:405-7.

21. Wang K, Gheblawi M, Oudit GY. Angiotensin converting enzyme 2: a double edged sword. Circulation 2020 March 26 (Epub ahead of print).

22. Mehra MR, Ruschitzka F. COVID-19 illness and heart failure: a missing link? JACC Heart Fail (in press). Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society

Read Full Post »

COVID-19: Novel Treatment Protocols using Approved drugs vs Standard of Care vs Vaccine and Antiviral new drug discovery and development – An LPBI Group Response and An LPBI Group & Affiliates Response

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

On 5/26/2020 LPBI organized a Symposium on New Therapeutics for COVID-19

AGENDA included presentations by:

  • Dr. Raphael Nir, PhD, CSO, SBH, Sciences, Inc. – Drug Concept to mitigate Cytokine Storm in COVID-19 – ATTACHMENT
  • Dr. Ajay Gupta, MD, Professor & Entrepreneur – Rhinitis drug approved in Japan – REPURPOSED for COVID-19 and Application for FDA Approval
  • Dr. Yigal Blum, PhD, ex-SRI Int’l VP and Entrepreneur –  AMORPHOUS CALCIUM CARBONATE (ACC) TREATMENT FOR COVID-19
  • Dr. Orna Harel, PhD, Managing Partner, Agbiopro – Representation for – Prof. Saul Yedgar on the concept and state of preclinical efforts for COVID-19 drug development 
  • Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN – The Potential of REVIVAL of Drug Discovery Initiative and Explorations of Joint Ventures with Biotech companies – An Interim Phase toward POST Coronavirus Pandemic Exit

DISCUSSION – Where and What is the INTERFACE between what our External Relations attempt to accomplish and the Capabilities of LPBI Group’s Team

In the concluding remarks, Dr. Lev-Ari discussed the importance of TREATMENT PROTOCOLS vs. one Therapeutics at a time vs. Combination Drug therapies.

Dr. Lev-Ari pointed the Symposium attendees to the following two points:

1.  The State of Science been endorsed by LPBI Group

RNA from the SARS-CoV-2 virus taking over the cells it infects: Virulence – Pathogen’s ability to infect a Resistant Host: The Imbalance between Controlling Virus Replication versus Activation of the Adaptive Immune Response
Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN – I added colors and bold face
https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2020/05/23/rna-from-the-sars-cov-2-virus-taking-over-the-cells-it-infects-virulence-pathogens-ability-to-infect-a-resistant-host-the-imbalance-between-controlling-virus-replication-versus-activation-of-the/

2.  LPBI Group’s Position for Treatment Protocol(s)

In continuation to 5/26/2020 Symposium on New Therapeutics for COVID-19, we will follow up with an AGENDA for 6/16/2020 

Part I: Therapeutics for COVID-19

  • Prof. Saul Yedgar – Holder of US Patents on Rhinitis, anti-inflatation and other indications – 40 minutes
  • Dr. Ajay Gupta, MD – Rhinitis drug approved in Japan – FDA Application for Approval of Repurpusing to COVID-19 in the US – 40 minutes
  • Discussion – 20 minutes

 

On 5/29/2020 Dr. Lev-Ari read the article, COVID-19 Critical Care

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Despite the fact that many critical care specialists are using treatment protocols that differ from standard of care, information about natural therapeutics in particular are still being suppressed by the media and is not received by critical care physicians
  • Five critical care physicians have formed the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC). The group has developed a highly effective treatment protocol known as MATH+
  • Of the more than 100 hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with the MATH+ protocol as of mid-April, only two died. Both were in their 80s and had advanced chronic medical conditions
  • The protocols call for the use of intravenous methylprednisolone, vitamin C and subcutaneous heparin within six hours of admission into the hospital, along with high-flow nasal oxygen. Optional additions include thiamine, zinc and vitamin D
  • COVID-19 kills by triggering hyperinflammation, hypercoagulation and hypoxia. The MATH+ protocol addresses these three core pathological processes

COVID-19 Early Intervention Protocol

According to Kory, the FLCCCs MATH+ protocol has been delivered to the White House on four occasions, yet no interest has been shown. Worse, he says they continue to be stonewalled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute for Health. Why?

Isn’t saving lives, right now, and by any means possible, more important than pushing for a vaccine? If the MATH+ protocol works with near-100% effectiveness, a vaccine may not even be necessary. The MATH+ protocol gets its name from:

Intravenous Methylprednisolone

High-dose intravenous Ascorbic acid

Plus optional treatments Thiamine, zinc and vitamin D

Full dose low molecular weight Heparin

Kory’s testimony transcript reviews and summarizes the MATH+ protocol, and explains why the timing of the treatment is so important. As explained by Kory, there are two distinct yet overlapping phases of COVID-19 infection.

  1. Phase 1 is the viral replication phase. Typically, patients will only experience mild symptoms, if any, during this phase. At this time, it’s important to focus on antiviral therapies.
  2. In Phase 2, the hyperinflammatory immune response sets in, which can result in organ failures (lungs, brain, heart and kidneys). The MATH+ protocol is designed to treat this active phase, but it needs to be administered early enough.

The MATH+ Protocol

The MATH+ protocol7 calls for the use of three medicines, all of which need to be started within six hours of hospital admission:

  • Intravenous methylprednisolone, to suppress the immune system and prevent organ damage from cytokine storms — For mild hypoxia, 40 milligrams (mg) daily until off oxygen; moderate to severe illness, 80 mg bolus followed by 20 mg per day for seven days. On Day 8, switch to oral prednisone and taper down over the next six days.
  • Intravenous ascorbic acid (vitamin C), to control inflammation and prevent the development of leaky blood vessels in the lungs — 3 grams/100 ml every six hours for up to seven days.
  • Subcutaneous heparin (enoxaparin), to thin the blood and prevent blood clots — For mild to moderate illness, 40 mg to 60 mg daily until discharged.

Optional additions include thiamine, zinc and vitamin D. In addition to these medications, the protocol calls for high-flow nasal oxygen to avoid mechanical ventilation, “which itself damages the lungs and is associated with a mortality rate approaching nearly 90% in some centers,” Kory notes.8

Together, this approach addresses the three core pathological processes seen in COVID-19, namely hyperinflammation, hypercoagulability of the blood, and hypoxia (shortness of breath due to low oxygenation).

COVID-19 Should Not Be Treated as ARDS

In the video, Dr. Paul Marik points out that it’s crucial for doctors to treat each patient as an individual case, as COVID-19 is not conventional acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

If the patient is assumed to have ARDS and placed on a ventilator, you’re likely going to damage their lungs. Indeed, research has now shown that patients placed on mechanical ventilation have far higher mortality rates than patients who are not ventilated. While not discussed here, some doctors are also incorporating hyperbaric oxygen treatment in lieu of ventilation, with great success.

The reason for this is because the primary problem is inflammation, not fluid in the lungs. So, Marik says, they need anti-inflammatory drugs. “It’s not the virus that is hurting the host, it’s the acute inflammatory dysregulated response,” he says. “That’s why you need to use vitamin C and steroids.” He points out that steroids play a crucial role, as it creates synergy with vitamin C.

COVID-19 patients also have a hypercoagulation problem, so they need anticoagulants. In addition to using the proper medication, they must also be treated early. “You have to intervene early and aggressively to prevent them from deteriorating,” Marik says.

Methylprednisolone May Be a Crucial Component

Kory expresses concerns over the fact that health organizations around the world are warning doctors against the use of corticosteroids, calling this a “tragic error”9 as “COVID-19 is a steroid-responsive disease.”10 In his testimony, he points out:11

“Sorin Draghici, CEO of Advaita Bioinformatics, just reported12 that their incredibly sophisticated Artificial Intelligence platform called iPathwayGuide, using cultured human cell lines infected with COVID-19, is able to map all the human genes which are activated by this virus …

Note almost all the activated genes are those that express triggers of inflammation. With this knowledge of the specific COVID inflammatory gene activation combined with knowledge of the gene suppression activity of all known medicines they were able to match the most effective drug for COVID-19 human gene suppression, and that drug is methylprednisolone.

This must be recognized, as the ability of other corticosteroids to control inflammation in COVID-19 was much less impactful. This is, we believe, an absolutely critical and historic finding. Many centers are using similar but less effective agents such as dexamethasone or prednisone.”

As noted by Kory in his senate testimony, Marik, chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, is a member of the FLCCC.13 You may recall that Marik was the one who in 2017 announced he had developed an extraordinarily effective treatment against sepsis.

Marik’s sepsis protocol also calls for intravenous vitamin C and a steroid, in this case hydrocortisone, along with thiamine. I for one am not surprised that the two protocols are so similar, seeing how sepsis is also a major cause of death in severe COVID-19 cases.

Safe and Effective Treatments Must Not Be Ignored

As noted by Marik in the video, COVID-19 is not regular ARDS and should not be treated as such. What kills people with COVID-19 is the inflammation, and steroids in combination with vitamin C work synergistically together to control and regulate that inflammation. The heparin, meanwhile, addresses the hypercoagulation that causes blood clots, which is a unique feature of COVID-19. As for the “lack of studies” supporting their protocol, FLCCC notes:14

“A number of official guidelines, such as those of the WHO and several other U.S. agencies, recommend limiting treatment for … critically ill patients to ‘supportive care only’ — and to allow the therapies described here to be studied in randomized controlled trials where half of the patients would receive placebo and where the results would come in months or years.

Our physicians agree that while a randomized controlled trial (RCT), under normal circumstances, might be considered, the early provisions of MATH+, which must be given within hours of critical illness, would inevitably be delayed by such a study design, rendering the validity of the RCT questionable.

Furthermore, while the results of an RCT would not be available for months or more, well-designed observational studies of the protocol could yield timely feedback during this pandemic, to improve the treatment process much more quickly.”

I believe this information needs to be shared far and wide, if we are to prevent more people from dying unnecessarily. More and more, as doctors are starting to speak openly about their clinical findings, we’re seeing that there are quite a few different ways to tackle this illness without novel antivirals or vaccines, using older, inexpensive and readily available medications that are already known to be safe.

References

SOURCE

https://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/archive/2020/05/28/lab-escape-theory-of-sarscov2-origin-gaining-scientific-support.aspx

 

A Response by LPBI Group and a Potential Response by LPBI Group and its Affiliates

 

LPBI Group’s Components in Novel Treatment Protocol Definition

 

  • Forthcoming by Stephen J. Williams, PhD – Immuno-theraphy boosting Protocol

based on

T cells found in COVID-19 patients ‘bode well’ for long-term immunity | Science | AAAS
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/t-cells-found-covid-19-patients-bode-well-long-term-immunity

 

  • Forthcoming by Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN and Stephen J. Williams, PhD – Nitric Oxide Inhaler OR Bystolic® (nebivolol) www.bystolicpro.com
  • Two alternatives per stage of COVID-19 infections: Severe or Moderate

based on

 

  • LPBI Group’s Affiliates:

If you wish your Therapeutic solution to be included in the NEW DEFINITION of Treatment Protocol(s), then propose your component for inclusion in the Novel Treatment Protocol to be discussed on June 16, 2020

LPBI Group’s Affiliates Components in the Novel Treatment Protocol(s) Definition

  • Prof. Saul Yedgar – Holder of US Patents on Rhinitis, anti-inflammation and other indications – 40 minutes
  • Dr. Ajay Gupta, MD – Rhinitis drug approved in Japan – FDA Application for Approval of Repurposing to COVID-19 in the US – 40 minutes
  • Dr. Raphael Nir, PhD, CSO, SBH, Sciences, Inc. – Drug Concept to mitigate Cytokine Storm in COVID-19 
  • Dr. Yigal Blum, PhD, ex-SRI Int’l VP and Entrepreneur –  AMORPHOUS CALCIUM CARBONATE (ACC) TREATMENT FOR COVID-19

References on Nitric Oxide on PharmaceuticalIntellige.com – Open Access Online Scientific Journal include 299 articles

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/?s=Nitric+Oxide

Of note

 

Included in the 299 articles

  • Transposon-mediated Gene Therapy improves Pulmonary Hemodynamics and attenuates Right Ventricular Hypertrophy: eNOS gene therapy reduces Pulmonary vascular remodeling and Arterial wall hyperplasia

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/05/31/transposon-mediated-gene-therapy-improves-pulmonary-hemodynamics-and-attenuates-right-ventricular-hypertrophy-enos-gene-therapy-reduces-pulmonary-vascular-remodeling-and-arterial-wall-hyperplasia/

 

Author and Curator of an Investigator Initiated Study: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/04/endothelin-receptors-in-cardiovascular-diseases-the-role-of-enos-stimulation/

 

  • Inhibition of ET-1, ETA and ETA-ETB, Induction of NO production,  stimulation of eNOS and Treatment Regime with PPAR-gamma agonists (TZD): cEPCs Endogenous Augmentation for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction – A Bibliography

Curator of an Investigator Initiated Study: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/04/inhibition-of-et-1-eta-and-eta-etb-induction-of-no-production-and-stimulation-of-enos-and-treatment-regime-with-ppar-gamma-agonists-tzd-cepcs-endogenous-augmentation-for-cardiovascular-risk-reduc/

 

  • Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) and the Role of Agent Alternatives in endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase (eNOS) Activation and Nitric Oxide Production

Curator and Investigator Initiated Study: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/07/19/cardiovascular-disease-cvd-and-the-role-of-agent-alternatives-in-endothelial-nitric-oxide-synthase-enos-activation-and-nitric-oxide-production/

 

Read Full Post »

A Series of Recently Published Papers Report the Development of SARS-CoV2 Neutralizing Antibodies and Passive Immunity toward COVID19

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

 

Passive Immunity and Treatment of Infectious Diseases

The ability of one person to pass on immunity to another person (passive immunity) is one of the chief methods we develop immunity to many antigens.  For instance, maternal antibodies are passed to the offspring in the neonatal setting as well as in a mother’s milk during breast feeding.  In the clinical setting this is achieved by transferring antibodies from one patient who has been exposed to an antigen (like a virus) to the another individual.   However, the process of purifying the most efficacious antibody as well as its mass production is limiting due to its complexity and cost and can be prohibitively long delay during a pandemic outbreak, when therapies are few and needed immediately.  Regardless, the benefits of developing neutralizing antibodies to confer passive immunity versus development of a vaccine are evident, as the former takes considerable less time than development of a safe and effective vaccine.  For a good review on the development and use of neutralizing antibodies and the use of passive immunity to treat infectious diseases please read the following review:

Margaret A. Keller1,* and E. Richard Stiehm. Passive Immunity in Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Diseases. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000 Oct; 13(4): 602–614. doi: 10.1128/cmr.13.4.602-614.2000

ABSTRACT

Antibodies have been used for over a century in the prevention and treatment of infectious disease. They are used most commonly for the prevention of measles, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, tetanus, varicella, rabies, and vaccinia. Although their use in the treatment of bacterial infection has largely been supplanted by antibiotics, antibodies remain a critical component of the treatment of diptheria, tetanus, and botulism. High-dose intravenous immunoglobulin can be used to treat certain viral infections in immunocompromised patients (e.g., cytomegalovirus, parvovirus B19, and enterovirus infections). Antibodies may also be of value in toxic shock syndrome, Ebola virus, and refractory staphylococcal infections. Palivizumab, the first monoclonal antibody licensed (in 1998) for an infectious disease, can prevent respiratory syncytial virus infection in high-risk infants. The development and use of additional monoclonal antibodies to key epitopes of microbial pathogens may further define protective humoral responses and lead to new approaches for the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases.

TABLE 1

Summary of the efficacy of antibody in the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases

Infection
Bacterial infections
 Respiratory infections (streptococcus, Streptococcus pneumoniaeNeisseria meningitisHaemophilus influenzae)
 Diphtheria
 Pertussis
 Tetanus
 Other clostridial infections
  C. botulinum
  C. difficile
 Staphylococcal infections
  Toxic shock syndrome
  Antibiotic resistance
  S. epidermidis in newborns
 Invasive streptococcal disease (toxic shock syndrome)
 High-risk newborns
 Shock, intensive care, and trauma
Pseudomonas infection
  Cystic Fibrosis
  Burns
Viral diseases
 Hepatitis A
 Hepatitis B
 Hepatitis C
 HIV infection
 RSV infection
 Herpesvirus infections
  CMV
  EBV
  HSV
  VZV
 Parvovirus infection
 Enterovirus infection
  In newborns
 Ebola
 Rabies
 Measles
 Rubella
 Mumps
 Tick-borne encephalitis
 Vaccinia

Go to:

A Great Explanation of Active versus Passive Immunity by Dr. John Campbell, one of the pioneers in the field of immunology:Antibodies have been used for over a century in the prevention and treatment of infectious disease. They are used most commonly for the prevention of measles, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, tetanus, varicella, rabies, and vaccinia. Although their use in the treatment of bacterial infection has largely been supplanted by antibiotics, antibodies remain a critical component of the treatment of diptheria, tetanus, and botulism. High-dose intravenous immunoglobulin can be used to treat certain viral infections in immunocompromised patients (e.g., cytomegalovirus, parvovirus B19, and enterovirus infections). Antibodies may also be of value in toxic shock syndrome, Ebola virus, and refractory staphylococcal infections. Palivizumab, the first monoclonal antibody licensed (in 1998) for an infectious disease, can prevent respiratory syncytial virus infection in high-risk infants. The development and use of additional monoclonal antibodies to key epitopes of microbial pathogens may further define protective humoral responses and lead to new approaches for the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases.

 

However, developing successful neutralizing antibodies can still be difficult but with the latest monoclonal antibody technology, as highlighted by the following papers, this process has made much more efficient.  In addition, it is not feasable to isolate antibodies from the plasma of covalescent patients in a scale that is needed for a worldwide outbreak.

A good explanation of the need can be found is Dr. Irina Robu’s post Race to develop antibody drugs for COVID-19 where:

When fighting off foreign invaders, our bodies make antibodies precisely produced for the task. The reason vaccines offer such long-lasting protection is they train the immune system to identify a pathogen, so immune cells remember and are ready to attack the virus when it appears. Monoclonal antibodies for coronavirus would take the place of the ones our bodies might produce to fight the disease. The manufactured antibodies would be infused into the body to either tamp down an existing infection, or to protect someone who has been exposed to the virus. However, these drugs are synthetic versions of the convalescent plasma treatments that rely on antibodies from people who have recovered from infection. But the engineered versions are easier to scale because they’re manufactured in rats, rather than from plasma donors.

The following papers represent the latest published work on development of therapeutic and prophylactic neutralizing antibodies to the coronavirus SARS-CoV2

1.  Cross-neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 by a human monoclonal SARS-CoV antibody.

Pinto, D., Park, Y., Beltramello, M. et al. Cross-neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 by a human monoclonal SARS-CoV antibody. Nature (2020).                                                                            https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2349-y

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 is a newly emerged coronavirus responsible for the current COVID-19 pandemic that has resulted in more than 3.7 million infections and 260,000 deaths as of 6 May 20201,2. Vaccine and therapeutic discovery efforts are paramount to curb the pandemic spread of this zoonotic virus. The SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) glycoprotein promotes entry into host cells and is the main target of neutralizing antibodies. Here we describe multiple monoclonal antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2 S identified from memory B cells of an individual who was infected with SARS-CoV in 2003. One antibody, named S309, potently neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV pseudoviruses as well as authentic SARS-CoV-2 by engaging the S receptor-binding domain. Using cryo-electron microscopy and binding assays, we show that S309 recognizes a glycan-containing epitope that is conserved within the sarbecovirus subgenus, without competing with receptor attachment. Antibody cocktails including S309 along with other antibodies identified here further enhanced SARS-CoV-2 neutralization and may limit the emergence of neutralization-escape mutants. These results pave the way for using S309- and S309-containing antibody cocktails for prophylaxis in individuals at high risk of exposure or as a post-exposure therapy to limit or treat severe disease.

 

2.  Potent neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 identified by high-throughput single-cell sequencing of convalescent patients’ B cells

Yunlong Cao et al.  Potent neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 identified by high-throughput single-cell sequencing of convalescent patients’ B cells. Cell (2020).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.025

Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic urgently needs therapeutic and prophylactic interventions. Here we report the rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies by high-throughput single-cell RNA and VDJ sequencing of antigen-enriched B cells from 60 convalescent patients. From 8,558 antigen-binding IgG1+ clonotypes, 14 potent neutralizing antibodies were identified with the most potent one, BD-368-2, exhibiting an IC50 of 1.2 ng/mL and 15 ng/mL against pseudotyped and authentic SARS-CoV-2, respectively. BD-368-2 also displayed strong therapeutic and prophylactic efficacy in SARS-CoV-2-infected hACE2-transgenic mice. Additionally, the 3.8Å Cryo-EM structure of a neutralizing antibody in complex with the spike-ectodomain trimer revealed the antibody’s epitope overlaps with the ACE2 binding site. Moreover, we demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies could be directly selected based on similarities of their predicted CDR3H structures to those of SARS-CoV neutralizing antibodies. Altogether, we showed that human neutralizing antibodies could be efficiently discovered by high-throughput single B-cell sequencing in response to pandemic infectious diseases.

3. A human monoclonal antibody blocking SARS-CoV-2 infection

Wang, C., Li, W., Drabek, D. et al. A human monoclonal antibody blocking SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nat Commun 11, 2251 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16256-y

Abstract

The emergence of the novel human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China has caused a worldwide epidemic of respiratory disease (COVID-19). Vaccines and targeted therapeutics for treatment of this disease are currently lacking. Here we report a human monoclonal antibody that neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 (and SARS-CoV) in cell culture. This cross-neutralizing antibody targets a communal epitope on these viruses and may offer potential for prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

Extra References on Development of Neutralizing antibodies for COVID19 {Sars-CoV2} published this year (2020)  [1-4]

  1. Fan P, Chi X, Liu G, Zhang G, Chen Z, Liu Y, Fang T, Li J, Banadyga L, He S et al: Potent neutralizing monoclonal antibodies against Ebola virus isolated from vaccinated donors. mAbs 2020, 12(1):1742457.
  2. Dussupt V, Sankhala RS, Gromowski GD, Donofrio G, De La Barrera RA, Larocca RA, Zaky W, Mendez-Rivera L, Choe M, Davidson E et al: Potent Zika and dengue cross-neutralizing antibodies induced by Zika vaccination in a dengue-experienced donor. Nature medicine 2020, 26(2):228-235.
  3. Young CL, Lyons AC, Hsu WW, Vanlandingham DL, Park SL, Bilyeu AN, Ayers VB, Hettenbach SM, Zelenka AM, Cool KR et al: Protection of swine by potent neutralizing anti-Japanese encephalitis virus monoclonal antibodies derived from vaccination. Antiviral research 2020, 174:104675.
  4. Sautto GA, Kirchenbaum GA, Abreu RB, Ecker JW, Pierce SR, Kleanthous H, Ross TM: A Computationally Optimized Broadly Reactive Antigen Subtype-Specific Influenza Vaccine Strategy Elicits Unique Potent Broadly Neutralizing Antibodies against Hemagglutinin. J Immunol 2020, 204(2):375-385.

 

For More Articles on COVID-19 Please see Our Coronavirus Portal on this Open Access Scientific Journal at:

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

and the following Articles on  Immunity at

Race to develop antibody drugs for COVID-19
Bispecific and Trispecific Engagers: NK-T Cells and Cancer Therapy
Issues Need to be Resolved With ImmunoModulatory Therapies: NK cells, mAbs, and adoptive T cells
Antibody-bound Viral Antigens

Read Full Post »

Race to develop antibody drugs for COVID-19

Reporter: Irina Robu, PhD

Even at the record pace vaccines are moving, the first vaccine for COVID-19 might not be available until next year. And even if it is available, it will take longer for enough people within the population to be vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity and curb the spread. Companies such as Regeneron, Eli Lily, Amgen and Vir Biotechnology are leading the race to produce therapies that could give patients infected with COVID-19 short term protection. However, several experts believe that developing antibody drugs are vital.
At this time, Gilead’s antiviral drug remdesivir, which seems to help hasten recovery from COVID-19, but not entirely. There is no guarantee that these injectable biologic drugs won’t solve the pandemic. Yet, many believe that in combination with mass testing and tracing measures, these injectable biologic drugs could be a critical tool for keeping the disease in check.

When fighting off foreign invaders, our bodies make antibodies precisely produced for the task. The reason vaccines offer such long-lasting protection is they train the immune system to identify a pathogen, so immune cells remember and are ready to attack the virus when it appears. Monoclonal antibodies for coronavirus would take the place of the ones our bodies might produce to fight the disease. The manufactured antibodies would be infused into the body to either tamp down an existing infection, or to protect someone who has been exposed to the virus.

However, these drugs are synthetic versions of the convalescent plasma treatments that rely on antibodies from people who have recovered from infection. But the engineered versions are easier to scale because they’re manufactured in rats, rather than from plasma donors.

Yet, what brands antibodies unique in comparison to vaccines or antiviral drugs is their potential to both treat and protect against viral infections and could work as a short-term preventative for healthcare workers who are at high risk of contracting COVID-19 or as a treatment for people who are already sick. But it is up to creators to figure out exactly when is the best time is to interfere with an antibody drug. More persuasively, antibodies will deliver the greatest value for the people at the highest risk like healthcare workers or people who are old or immuno-compromised.

Over the years of research, it is shown that some vaccines are only effective in a part of population. But making a vaccine takes time, and they don’t kick in immediately. So, proving the monoclonal antibodies can treat patients with COVID-19 disease can be much faster and easier than showing a preventive benefit. As with vaccines, antibodies would have to succeed in much longer tests to fully show they can prevent infections. Vaccine aside, the only treatments granted emergency use by the FDA thus far are the antiviral remdesivir and the generic malaria pill hydroxychloroquine.

Regeneron, Amgen, Vir and Eli Lilly are each using different methods to screen for and develop their antibodies. The initial experiments may lead to different type of products where one type of antibody versus a cocktail of two or three. The antibodies are designed to mimic the ones our bodies make versus those that are modified in some way to improve their properties. Modifying an antibody could help it last longer, but make it look more foreign to the immune system, which could lead to potential problems.
What makes antibodies unique compared to vaccines or antiviral drugs is their potential to both treat and protect against viral infections. The idea is that an antibody drug will bind to the “spike” protein SARS-CoV-2 uses to crack open cells, and prevent the virus from entering. The fastest path to success for an antibody is possible through a drug that has to be given intravenously in a hospital or clinic, rather than through an auto-injector a patient could self-administer.

SOURCE

https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/coronavirus-antibody-drug-trials/577778

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »