Healthcare analytics, AI solutions for biological big data, providing an AI platform for the biotech, life sciences, medical and pharmaceutical industries, as well as for related technological approaches, i.e., curation and text analysis with machine learning and other activities related to AI applications to these industries.
The second virtual Town Hall with Leading International Oncologist, discussing the impact that the worldwide COVID-19 outbreak has on cancer care and patient care issues will be held this Saturday April 4, 2020. This Town Hall Series is led by Dr. Roy Herbst and Dr. Hossein Borghaei who will present a panel of experts to discuss issues pertaining to oncology practice as well as addressing physicians and patients concerns surrounding the risk COVID-19 presents to cancer care. Some speakers on the panel represent oncologist from France and Italy, and will give their views of the situation in these countries.
This series is being hosted in partnership with Axiom Healthcare Strategies, Inc..
The Town Hall proceedings and live notes will be made available on this site and Live Notes will be Tweeted in Real Time using the #CancerCareandCOVID19 and @pharma_BI
The goal of these town halls is to improve outcomes of cancer patients across the globe, by sharing insights and lessons learned from oncologists fighting COVID-19. Dr. Roy Herbst and Dr. Hossein Borghaei will be joined by a panel of thought leaders with expertise in a variety of solid tumors to discuss how COVID-19 has impacted patient care in oncology.
Following the session, a video, transcript, and key takeaways will be released on Monday 4/6.
Time
For Live Notes From the Last Town Hall Meeting Specifically on Lung Cancer and COVID19 please go to
INFORMATION FOR TRANSPLANT PROFESSIONALS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REGARDING 2019 NOVEL CORONAVIRUS
The recent outbreak of a novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China and the finding of infection in many other countries including the United States has led to questions among transplant programs, Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) and patients. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) strives to provide up-to-date information to answer these questions and to provide guidance as needed. Accordingly, the OPTN Ad Hoc Donor Transmission Advisory Committee (DTAC), American Society of Transplantation (AST) and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS), after careful review of information available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), offers information to transplant programs and OPOs in light of these concerns. Please visit theOPTN website for more information.
The American Society of Transplantation recently conducted a Town Hall on guidances for transplant patients with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. A video recording of the Town Hall is given below
Description of the Town Hall by the AST: A number of transplant organizations from around the world have partnered to develop this educational webinar for the organ donation and transplantation communities. Our goal is to share experiences to date and respond to your questions about the impact of COVID-19 on organ donation and transplantation.
Because transplant recipients take immunosuppressive drugs, they are at higher risk of infection from viruses such as cold or flu. To limit the possibility of being exposed to the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, transplant patients should follow the CDC’s tips to avoid catching or spreading germs, and contact their health care provider if they develop cold or flu-like symptoms. By being informed and taking your own personal precautions, you can help reduce your risk of coming in contact with the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. You can find more information and resources for kidney patients by visiting our special coronavirus webpage at KidneyFund.org/coronavirus. We’ll update the page with important information for kidney patients and their caregivers as the coronavirus crisis continues to unfold.
AACR and Dr. Margaret Foti Announce Free Virtual Annual Meeting for April 27, 28 2020 and other Free Resources
Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD
Please see the following email from Dr. Foti and the AACR on VIRTUAL MEETING to be conducted April 27 and 28, 2020.
This is truly a wonderful job by AACR. In a previous posting I had considered the need for moving international scientific meetings to an online format which would make the information available to a wider audience as well as to those who don’t have the opportunity to travel to a meeting site. At @pharma_BI we will curate and live tweet the talks in order to enhance meeting engagement, as part of the usual eConference Proceedings we do.
Again Great Job by the AACR!
Dear Colleagues,
We hope you are staying safe and well and are adjusting to the challenges of the COVID-19 global pandemic. During this crisis, we remain steadfast in supporting our members and our mission.
I am pleased to announce a number of actions that we are taking to disseminate innovative cancer science and medicine to the global cancer research community:
AACR Virtual Annual Meeting 2020: Selected Presentations. We were excited to receive more than 225 clinical trials for presentation at the Annual Meeting. Due to the time-sensitive nature of these trials—many of which are practice-changing—we are making them available to the community at the time of the original April meeting. Therefore, as per our recent announcement, the AACR will host a slate of selected sessions online featuring these cutting-edge data.
This Virtual Annual Meeting will be held on April 27 and 28, 2020, and will include more than 30 oral presentations in several clinical trial plenary sessions along with commentaries from expert discussants, as well as clinical trial poster sessions consisting of short videos providing the authors’ perspectives. The Virtual Meeting will feature a New Drugs on the Horizon session as well as nine minisymposia that will showcase a broad sample of basic and translational science. Topics will include genomics, tumor microenvironment, novel targets, drug discovery, therapeutics, immunotherapy, biomarkers, and cancer prevention. A special minisymposium titled “Advancing Cancer Research Through an International Cancer Registry” will feature use cases of data available through AACR Project GENIE.
This Virtual Meeting will be available free to everyone, although attendees will be asked to register to participate. The session and presentation titles for the Virtual Meeting, as well as a link to the registration site, will be posted to the AACR website by Monday, April 13.
Release of Abstracts. All of the abstracts scheduled for presentation in the Virtual Meeting—and any other clinical trial abstracts that are scheduled for presentation at the rescheduled meeting—will be posted online on Monday, April 27. All other abstracts that have been accepted for presentation at the rescheduled meeting will be posted online on Friday, May 15.
AACR Annual Meeting 2019: Free Webcast Presentations. The complete webcasts of the AACR Annual Meeting are typically made freely available 15 months after the conclusion of the meeting. However, we have made these webcast presentations available free effective immediately, so that you can review the most compelling science from the Annual Meeting 2019 which was held in Atlanta.
Free Access to AACR Journals. To ensure that all members of the cancer research community have access to the information they need during this challenging time, we have opened access to our nine highly esteemed journals effective today through the end of the virtual meeting. Please be sure to visit the AACR journals webpage for journal highlights, and to sign-up for eTOC alerts.
Rescheduled AACR Annual Meeting. We are planning to reschedule the Annual Meeting for late August while at the same time closely monitoring the developments surrounding COVID-19. An official announcement of the rescheduled meeting will be made in the near future.
We hope that these plans will enable you to continue your important work during this global health crisis. Thank you for all you do to accelerate progress against cancer, and thank you for your loyalty to the AACR.
Sincerely,
Margaret Foti, PhD, MD (hc)
Chief Executive Officer
American Association for Cancer Research
For more information on Virtual Meetings please see
Leading Thoracic Oncologists from the United States and Milan, Italy shared their opinions and views on treating lung cancer patients during this COVID-19 pandemic. Included in the panel is a thoracic oncologist from Milan Italy who gave special insights into the difficulties and the procedures they are using to help control the spread of infection within this high at-risk patient population and changes to current treatment strategy in light of this current virus outbreak. Please see live notes and can follow on Twitter at #LungCancerandCOVID19. Included below is the recording of the Zoom session.
UPDATED 3/29/2020
Leading Lung Cancer Oncologists from around the world are meeting and discussing concerns for lung cancer patients and oncologist during the novel coronavirus (SARS-COV2; COVID19) pandemic. The town hall “COVID-19 and the Impact on Thoracic Oncology” will be held on Zoom on Saturday March 28, 2020 at 10:00 – 11:30 AM EST. sponsored by Axiom Healthcare Strategies . You can register at
Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, Associate Professor; Chief Network Officer and Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Smilow Cancer Network
Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, Ensign Professor of Medicine (Medical Oncology) and Professor of Pharmacology; Chief of Medical Oncology, Yale Cancer Center and Smilow Cancer Hospital; Associate Cancer Center Director for Translational Research, Yale Cancer Center
Kurt Schalper, MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Pathology; Director, Translational Immuno-oncology Laboratory
Martin J. Edelman, MD, Chair, Department of Hematology/Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center
Corey J. Langer, MD , Professor of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
Hossain Borghaei, DO, MS , Chief of Thoracic Medical Oncology and Director of Lung Cancer Risk Assessment, Fox Chase Cancer Center
Marina Garassino, MD, Fondazione IRCCS Instituto Nazionale del Tumori
Kristen Ashley Marrone, MD, Thoracic Medical Oncologist. Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center
Taofeek Owonikoko, MD, PhD, MSCR, Medical Oncologist, Emory University School of Medicine
Jeffrey D. Bradley, MD, FACR, FASTRO , Emory University School of Medicine
— Hossein Borghaei, DO (@HosseinBorghaei) March 27, 2020
UPDATED 3/29/2020
Below is a collection of live Tweets from this meeting as well as some notes and comments from each of the speakers and panelists. The recording of this Town Hall will be posted on this site when available. The Town Hall was well attended with over 250 participants
Town Hall Notes
The following represent some notes taken at this Town Hall.
Dr. Owonkiko: 1-2% lethality in China; for patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer 1) limit contact between patient, physician and healthcare facility = telemedicine and oral chemo suggested 2) for immunotherapy if i.v. must monitor health carefully
Dr. Kurt Schalper: on COVID19 testing: Three types of tests each having pros and cons.
viral culture: not always practical as you need lots of specimen
ELISA: looking for circulating antibodies but not always specific for type of coronavirus
RT-PCR: most sensitive but right now not much clarity on best primers to use; he noted that there is a 15% variance in test results using different primers to different targeted COVID19 genes
Dr. Marina Garassino: The Lombardi outbreak was 1st in Italy and took them by surprise. She admits they were about one month behind in preparation where they did not have enough masks as late as January 31. It was impractical to socially distance given Italian customs in greeting each other. In addition, they had to determine which facilities would be COVID negative and COVID positive an this required access to testing. Right now they are only testing symptomatic patients and healthcare workers have to test negative multiple times. As concerning therapy with lung cancer patients, they have been delaying as much as possible the initiation of therapy. Patients that are on immunotherapy and immunosuppresive drugs are being monitored by CT scan more often during this pandemic so as instances of pneumotitis began increasing they were unsure if these patients are at increased risk of infection to COVID19 or just a bias in that they are screening more often so their risk to COVID 19 is unclear. Dr. Garissino also felt we need to move from hospital based to community based measures of prevention against COVID infection (social distancing, citizens more vigilant). She noted that usually the cancer patients are more careful with respect to preventative measures than the general populace. Healthcare workers have to test negative twice in three days if they had been in close contact with a COVID postitive patient. However her hospital is still running at 80% capacity so patients are getting treated. However there are ethical issues as to who gets treated, who gets respirators, and other ethical issues related to unfortunate rationing of care.
Dr. Anne Chiang: Scheduled visits have notably decreased. They have seen patients visits decrease from 4500 down to 2300 in two weeks but telemedicine visits or virtual visits have increased to 1000 so are replacing the on site visits. She also said they are trying to reduce or eliminate the extremely immuno-suppressive drugs from chemotherapy regimens. For example they are removing pemetrexemed from standard regimens and also considering neoadjuvant chemotherapy. As far as biopsies, liquid biopsies can be obtained in the home so more preferred as patients do not have to come in for biopsy.
Dr. Edelman: Fox Chase is somewhat unique in being an NCI center which only does oncology so they rely on neighboring Jeanes Hospital of the Temple University Health System for a lot of their outpatient and surgical and general medicine needs. Patients who will be transferred back to Fox Chase are screened for COVID19.
Brenden Stiles: Lung cancer surgeries have ground to a halt. He did only one last week. The hospital wants to conserve resources and considers lung cancer surgery to great a COVID risk. They have shut down elective surgeries and there are no clinical trials being conducted. He said that lung cancer research will be negatively impacted by the pandemic as resources are shuttled to COVID research efforts.
#lungcancerandcovid19@Annechiangmd talks on cutting pemetrexemed for tx regimen and considering more neoadjuvant tx. Also liquid biopsy can be performed in home setting
We currently have a post op lung cancer patient from another cancer center intubated in our #ICU with #COVID19 and a horrible air leak. Also had a patient w/ part solid tumor who I recommended to wait, tell me he is having surgery elsewhere.
Very thoughtful discussion about need for having prognosis and end of life discussions with lung cancer patients prior to going into hospital. Coordination with the long term treatment team, acute care team, and family are critical. #lcsm#COVID19https://t.co/7ni9YIbrsB
4) Surgery not w/o risk. Last week I only did 1 lung cancer case – on a woman w/ clear local progression on interval CT. She was healthy enough to go home pod#1 after lobectomy. However, we subsequently found out she was exposed to #COVID19. Please proceed carefully.
Executive Director Christine Mitchell discusses the importance of institutions talking through the implications of their decisions with the New Yorker.
By Isaac Chotiner
Center Executive Director Christine Mitchell spoke with the New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner about the decisions that may need to be made on limiting movement and, potentially, rationing supplies and hospital space.
“So, in the debate about allocating resources in a pandemic, we have to work with our colleagues around what kind of space is going to be made available—which means that other people and other services have to be dislocated—what kind of supplies we’re going to have, whether we’re going to reuse them, how we will reallocate staff, whether we can have staff who are not specialists take care of patients because we have way more patients than the number of specialized staff,” says Mitchell.
Note: The following is taken from the Interview in the New Yorker.
As the novel coronavirus, covid-19, spreads across the globe, governments have been taking increasingly severe measures to limit the virus’s infection rate. China, where it originated, has instituted quarantines in areas with a large number of cases, and Italy—which is now facing perhaps the most serious threat outside of China—is entirely under quarantine. In the United States, the National Guard has been deployed to manage a “containment area” in New Rochelle, New York, where one of the country’s largest clusters has emerged. As the number of cases rises, we will soon face decisions on limiting movement and, potentially, rationing supplies and hospital space. These issues will be decided at the highest level by politicians, but they are often influenced by medical ethicists, who advise governments and other institutions about the way to handle medical emergencies.
One of those ethicists, with whom I recently spoke by phone, is Christine Mitchell, the executive director at the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School. Mitchell, who has master’s degrees in nursing and philosophical and religious ethics, has been a clinical ethicist for thirty years. She founded the ethics program at Boston Children’s Hospital, and has served on national and international medical-ethics commissions. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed what ethicists tend to focus on during a health crisis, how existing health-care access affects crisis response, and the importance of institutions talking through the ethical implications of their decisions.
What coronavirus-related issue has most occupied your mental space over the past weeks?
The New Yorker’s coronavirus news coverage and analysis are free for all readers.
One of the things I think about but that we don’t often have an opportunity to talk about, when we are mostly focussing on what clinicians are doing and trying to prepare for, is the more general ways this affects our society. People get sick out there in the real world, and then they come to our hospitals, but, when they are sick, a whole bunch of them don’t have health insurance, or are afraid to come to a hospital, or they don’t have coverage for sick time or taking a day off when their child is sick, so they send their child to school. So these all have very significant influences on our ability to manage population health and community transmission that aren’t things that nurses and physicians and people who work in acute-care hospitals and clinics can really affect. They are elements of the way our society is structured and has failed to meet the needs of our general population, and they influence our ability to manage a crisis like this.
Is there anything specifically about a pandemic or something like coronavirus that makes these issues especially acute?
If a person doesn’t have health insurance and doesn’t come to be tested or treated, and if they don’t have sick-time coverage and can’t leave work, so they teach at a school, or they work at a restaurant, or do events that have large numbers of people, these are all ways in which the spread of a virus like this has to be managed—and yet can’t be managed effectively because of our social-welfare policies, not just our health-care resources.
Just to take a step back, and I want to get back to coronavirus stuff, but what got you interested in medical ethics?
What got me interested were the actual kinds of problems that came up when I was taking care of patients, starting as early as when I was in nursing school and was taking care of a patient who, as a teen-ager, had a terminal kind of cancer that his parents didn’t want him to know about, and which the health-care team had decided to defer to the parents. And yet I was spending every day taking care of him, and he was really puzzled about why he was so sick and whether he was going to get better, and so forth. And so of course I was faced with this question of, What do I do if he asks me? Which, of course, he did.
And this question about what you should tell an adolescent and whether the deference should be to his parents’ judgment about what’s best for him, which we would ordinarily respect, and the moral demands of the relationship that you have with a patient, was one of the cases that reminded me that there’s a lot more to being a nurse or a health-care provider than just knowing how to give cancer chemotherapy and change a bed, or change a dressing, or whatever. That a lot of it is in the relationship you have with a patient and the kinds of ethical choices they and their families are facing. They need your information, but also your help as they think things through. That’s the kind of thing that got me interested in it. There are a whole host of those kinds of cases, but they’re more individual cases.
As I began to work in a hospital as an ethicist, I began to worry about the broader organizational issues, like emergency preparedness. Some years ago, here in Boston, I had a joint appointment running the ethics program at Children’s Hospital and doing clinical ethics at Harvard Medical School. We pulled together a group, with the Department of Public Health and the emergency-preparedness clinicians in the Harvard-affiliated hospitals, to look at what the response within the state of Massachusetts should be to big, major disasters or rolling pandemics, and worked on some guidelines together.
When you looked at the response of our government, in a place like Washington State or in New York City, what things, from a medical-ethics perspective, are you noticing that are either good or maybe not so good?
To be candid and, probably, to use language that’s too sharp for publication, I’m appalled. We didn’t get ourselves ready. We’ve had outbreaks—sars in 2003, H1N1 in 2009, Ebola in 2013, Zika in 2016. We’ve known, and the general population in some ways has known. They even have movies like “Contagion” that did a great job of sharing publicly what this is like, although it is fictional, and that we were going to have these kinds of infectious diseases in a global community that we have to be prepared to handle. And we didn’t get ourselves as ready, in most cases, as we should have. There have been all these cuts to the C.D.C. budget, and the person who was the Ebola czar no longer exists in the new Administration.
And it’s not just this Administration. But the thing about this Administration that perhaps worries me the most is a fundamental lack of respect for science and the facts. Managing the crisis from a public-relations perspective and an economic, Dow Jones perspective are important, but they shouldn’t be fudging the facts. And that’s the piece that makes me feel most concerned—and not just as an ethicist. And then, of course, I want to see public education and information that’s forthright and helps people get the treatment that they need. But the disrespect for the public, and not providing honest information, is . . . yeah, that’s pretty disconcerting.
The coronavirus pandemic has affected almost every country in every continent however, after months of the novel advent of novel COVID-19 cases, it has become apparent that the varied clinical responses in this epidemic (and outcomes) have laid bare some of the strong and weak aspects in, both our worldwide capabilities to respond to infectious outbreaks in a global coordinated response and in individual countries’ response to their localized epidemics.
Some nations, like Israel, have initiated a coordinated government-private-health system wide action plan and have shown success in limiting both new cases and COVID-19 related deaths. After the initial Wuhan China outbreak, China closed borders and the government initiated health related procedures including the building of new hospitals. As of writing today, Wuhan has experienced no new cases of COVID-19 for two straight days.
However, the response in the US has been perplexing and has highlighted some glaring problems that have been augmented in this crisis, in the view of this writer. In my view, which has been formulated after social discussion with members in the field ,these issues can be centered on three major areas of deficiencies in the United States that have hindered a rapid and successful response to this current crisis and potential future crises of this nature.
The mistrust or misunderstanding of science in the United States
Lack of communication and connection between patients and those involved in the healthcare industry
Socio-geographical inequalities within the US healthcare system
1. The mistrust or misunderstanding of science in the United States
For the past decade, anyone involved in science, whether directly as active bench scientists, regulatory scientists, scientists involved in science and health policy, or environmental scientists can attest to the constant pressure to not only defend their profession but also to defend the entire scientific process and community from an onslaught of misinformation, mistrust and anxiety toward the field of science. This can be seen in many of the editorials in scientific publications including the journal Science and Scientific American (as shown below)
Boston rally coincides with annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference and is a precursor to the March for Science in Washington, D.C.
Responding to the troubling suppression of science under the Trump administration, thousands of scientists, allies, and frontline communities are holding a rally in Boston’s Copley Square on Sunday.
“Science serves the common good,” reads the call to action. “It protects the health of our communities, the safety of our families, the education of our children, the foundation of our economy and jobs, and the future we all want to live in and preserve for coming generations.”
It continues:
But it’s under attack—both science itself, and the unalienable rights that scientists help uphold and protect.
From the muzzling of scientists and government agencies, to the immigration ban, the deletion of scientific data, and the de-funding of public science, the erosion of our institutions of science is a dangerous direction for our country. Real people and communities bear the brunt of these actions.
The rally was planned to coincide with the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference, which draws thousands of science professionals, and is a precursor to the March for Science in Washington, D.C. and in cities around the world on April 22.
However, some feel that scientists are being too sensitive and that science policy and science-based decision making may not be under that much of a threat in this country. Yet even as some people think that there is no actual war on science and on scientists they realize that the public is not engaged in science and may not be sympathetic to the scientific process or trust scientists’ opinions.
Certainly, opponents of genetically modified crops, vaccinations that are required for children and climate science have become louder and more organized in recent times. But opponents typically live in separate camps and protest single issues, not science as a whole, said science historian and philosopher Roberta Millstein of the University of California, Davis. She spoke at a standing-room only panel session at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting, held in Washington, D.C. All the speakers advocated for a scientifically informed citizenry and public policy, and most discouraged broadly applied battle-themed rhetoric.
In general, it appears to be a major misunderstanding by the public of the scientific process, and principles of scientific discovery, which may be the fault of miscommunication by scientists or agendas which have the goals of subverting or misdirecting public policy decisions from scientific discourse and investigation.
This can lead to an information vacuum, which, in this age of rapid social media communication,
can quickly perpetuate misinformation.
This perpetuation of misinformation was very evident in a Twitter feed discussion with Dr. Eric Topol, M.D. (cardiologist and Founder and Director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute) on the US President’s tweet on the use of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine based on President Trump referencing a single study in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. The Twitter thread became a sort of “scientific journal club” with input from international scientists discussing and critiquing the results in the paper.
Please note that when we scientists CRITIQUE a paper it does not mean CRITICIZE it. A critique is merely an in depth analysis of the results and conclusions with an open discussion on the paper. This is part of the normal peer review process.
Below is the original Tweet by Dr. Eric Topol as well as the ensuing tweet thread
I reviewed the cited paperhttps://t.co/E4Iw7GpVh6 an open-label, non=randomized study The endpoint was viral PCR (mostly + or -, many ND) by nasopharyngeal swab. 6 of the 36 people were asymptomatic. 6 with pneumonia (LRTI) 6 people received "H + A" pic.twitter.com/KBjR1QcZRV
Eric – a huge issue here is they only report data on 20 of the 26 patients, and of the 6 – all deteriorated! Six hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were lost in follow-up: they worsened and weee sent to the ICU! They need to do last observation carried forward for those.
— Christopher Cannon, M.D. 🇺🇦 (@cpcannon) March 21, 2020
OMG, do you realize none of the patients in the treatment arm were definitive positives to start with? They were all in the "gray zone". JFC, this study was worse than I thought when I skimmed it the first time!
Within the tweet thread it was discussed some of the limitations or study design flaws of the referenced paper leading the scientists in this impromptu discussion that the study could not reasonably conclude that hydroxychloroquine was not a reliable therapeutic for this coronavirus strain.
The lesson:The public has to realizeCRITIQUE does not mean CRITICISM.
Scientific discourse has to occur to allow for the proper critique of results. When this is allowed science becomes better, more robust, and we protect ourselves from maybe heading down an incorrect path, which may have major impacts on a clinical outcome, in this case.
2. Lack of communication and connection between patients and those involved in the healthcare industry
In normal times, it is imperative for the patient-physician relationship to be intact in order for the physician to be able to communicate proper information to their patient during and after therapy/care. In these critical times, this relationship and good communication skills becomes even more important.
Recently, I have had multiple communications, either through Twitter, Facebook, and other social media outlets with cancer patients, cancer advocacy groups, and cancer survivorship forums concerning their risks of getting infected with the coronavirus and how they should handle various aspects of their therapy, whether they were currently undergoing therapy or just about to start chemotherapy. This made me realize that there were a huge subset of patients who were not receiving all the information and support they needed; namely patients who are immunocompromised.
These are patients represent
cancer patient undergoing/or about to start chemotherapy
Patients taking immunosuppressive drugs: organ transplant recipients, patients with autoimmune diseases, multiple sclerosis patients
Patients with immunodeficiency disorders
These concerns prompted me to write a posting curating the guidance from National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated cancer centers to cancer patients concerning their risk to COVID19 (which can be found here).
Surprisingly, there were only 14 of the 51 US NCI Cancer Centers which had posted guidance (either there own or from organizations like NCI or the National Cancer Coalition Network (NCCN). Most of the guidance to patients had stemmed from a paper written by Dr. Markham of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle Washington, the first major US city which was impacted by COVID19.
Also I was surprised at the reactions to this posting, with patients and oncologists enthusiastic to discuss concerns around the coronavirus problem. This led to having additional contact with patients and oncologists who, as I was surprised, are not having these conversations with each other or are totally confused on courses of action during this pandemic. There was a true need for each party, both patients/caregivers and physicians/oncologists to be able to communicate with each other and disseminate good information.
Last night there was a Tweet conversation on Twitter #OTChat sponsored by @OncologyTimes. A few tweets are included below
The Lesson: Rapid Communication of Vital Information in times of stress is crucial in maintaining a good patient/physician relationship and preventing Misinformation.
3. Socio-geographical Inequalities in the US Healthcare System
It has become very clear that the US healthcare system is fractioned and multiple inequalities (based on race, sex, geography, socio-economic status, age) exist across the whole healthcare system. These inequalities are exacerbated in times of stress, especially when access to care is limited.
Some of the passengers had to be extricated from the wrecked cars. Many of the passengers and local residents helped first responders during the rescue operation. Five local hospitals treated the injured. The derailment disrupted train service for several days.
What was not reported was the difficulties that first responders, namely paramedics had in finding an emergency room capable of taking on the massive load of patients. In the years prior to this accident, several hospitals, due to monetary reasons, had to close their emergency rooms or reduce them in size. In addition only two in Philadelphia were capable of accepting gun shot victims (Temple University Hospital was the closest to the derailment but one of the emergency rooms which would accept gun shot victims. This was important as Temple University ER, being in North Philadelphia, is usually very busy on any given night. The stress to the local health system revealed how one disaster could easily overburden many hospitals.
Over the past decade many hospitals, especially rural hospitals, have been shuttered or consolidated into bigger health systems. The graphic below shows this
Note the huge swath of hospital closures in the midwest, especially in rural areas. This has become an ongoing problem as the health care system deals with rising costs.
Lesson:Epidemic Stresses an already stressed out US healthcare system
The Relevance of Glycans in the Viral Pathology of COVID-19
Reporter: Ofer Markman, PhD
While we are constantly cautioning people from putting too high validity to the results seen in the bellow mentioned Study,
The ABO blood groups are a result of various and different glycans on the surfaces of red blood cells and their definition is related to Blood Immunology and Blood Typing classification used for Blood Donations. It was the hallmark of the 1930 Nobel prize of medicine.
Glycans are involved in the interaction of the flu virus to the host cell and the antiviral drug Tamiflu (Oseltamivir ) is based on the inhibition of that sort of interaction/modulation.
The Relevance of Glycans in the Viral Pathology of COVID-19
Even if true, the numbers in this paper show statistical significant difference but mildly significant difference in the risk profile suggesting we are to pay too much attention to the phenomena or worry, regardless of the fact these result have no significance on behavioral instructions nor would call for testing one’s blood type in regards to a viral infection. I would neither totally ignore the finding as it may shed light on viral pathology and infection mechanisms and understanding of the later may lead us to treatment or effective vaccines. But we are still early on this path.
yet a more relevant understanding of glycans in the biology of the virus:-
this week NEJM interview shed some more light on the issue in their 2nd part of the talk when they discussed again blood group risk factors in the covid-19 context.
2012pharmaceutical
sjwilliamspa