Search This Blog

Sunday, July 26, 2020

Trump Softens School Reopening Stance

After weeks of insisting that all schools must resume in-person learning on their usual schedules, President Trump acknowledged Thursday that some “may need to delay reopening for a few weeks.”
Trump said state governors should decide when COVID-19 is spreading too fast for children to be in classrooms. His announcement coincided with new and more specific guidance from the CDC.
That guidance covers use of masks, symptom checks and virus testing, building sanitation, and infrastructure preparation — all aimed at limiting the coronavirus’s spread among children, adult school personnel, and the surrounding community. It includes examples of posters and other materials to promote handwashing and mask wearing. It suggests checklists for parents, guardians, and caregivers to divide students into small cohorts or offer a hybrid curriculum with both in-class and virtual learning on alternate days.
In a news conference Friday to discuss its new guidelines, CDC Director Robert Redfield suggested that it’s appropriate for school officials to exercise more caution in areas of the country “where the percent positivity rate within the community is greater than 5%.”
He added, though, that positivity rates are “quite dynamic.” Local school boards and health departments must “look exactly at the data in their environment at this moment in time” in making decisions, he urged.
Redfield said he didn’t have an exact figure, but said “the majority of the nation right now actually has positivity rates that are less than 5%.”
Those comments echoed one of Trump’s statements the previous evening: “The decision should be made based on the data and the facts on the ground of each community, but every district should be actively making preparations to open again.”
“The decision should be made based on the data and the facts on the ground of each community, but every district should be actively making preparations to open again,” Trump said.
While many school districts can reopen safely if they implement protocols to protect families, teachers, and students, “we have to remember that all families should be empowered to make the decision that is right for their own circumstance. This is especially important if a child has underlying health conditions or lives with a parent or grandparent who is at higher risk,” Trump said.
Local leaders should “put the full health and wellbeing of their students first and make the right decision for children, parents, teachers and not make political decisions,” the president said. “This isn’t about politics.”
Trump talked up a Republican proposal announced Thursday that would provide $105 billion to help schools reopen by supporting smaller class sizes, teachers’ aides, and repurposing spaces to encourage social distancing with structural changes to school buildings. A substantial part of the CDC guidance addresses measures that schools should take to maintain distancing in classrooms and other areas where children and staff would ordinarily congregate.
But Trump didn’t entirely back off on his previous threat to withhold federal funding from schools that don’t reopen. He said that, in such cases, those dollars should go instead to parents so they can send their children “to a public private, charter, religious, or home school of their choice, the key word being choice…. The money should follow the student so parents and families are in control of their own decision.”
The president also reiterated previous arguments that children suffer educational and developmental delays from being held out of school and that pediatric infections typically have few consequences for the children or their contacts.
According to the COVKID Project, as of Thursday, 77 children have died from COVID-19 since Jan. 1, and 805 have been admitted to pediatric intensive care units.
Kids’ Vulnerability
During a media briefing Thursday sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, experts postulated several reasons why in general, most children who become infected with the COVID-19 virus do not appear to get as sick as adults, but offered some important caveats.
Children are not spared from severe illness, said panelist Tina Tan, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. Nationally, children represent a bit over 7% of all confirmed cases of COVID-19 in states that break out cases by age, with 50,000 new pediatric cases just in the two weeks from June 18 to July 2. Some 3% of total COVID hospitalizations are in children, she added.
Tan mentioned three theories why children may be less susceptible to severe illness:
  • Children don’t develop cytokine release syndrome to the same extent as adults
  • Children have a greater tendency toward infection “with other viruses that compete with COVID-19 for the ability to infect the child”
  • Angiotensin converting enzyme receptor expression — key to viral entry into host cells — is different in children than in adults, “suggesting that this accounts for the decrease in the amount of infection seen in children”
But standing against those theories is the multi-inflammatory syndrome in children, which has become a bigger problem for children since April and so far has been diagnosed in more than 300 children in North America, Tan said. Similar to Kawasaki syndrome, but different in some respects, its symptoms include persistent fever, rash, bloodshot eyes, severe abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and heart and blood vessel inflammation.
Those issues remain a risk for children sent back to the classroom, especially in areas where community transmission is widespread or unknown.
Younger children do seem to have lower rates of infection than adults, Wendy Armstrong, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta. But by age 10, she said, that protection may have dissipated.
Several studies indicate that older children and teens do get infected and transmit the virus at the same rate as adults, she said.
She emphasized that so much about COVID-19 in youngsters remains unknown, and that any plans to reopen schools “must be flexible to accommodate new knowledge.”
“What we know about COVID is that what we know today may very well change tomorrow. There also needs to be access to testing that has a rapid turnaround time. Testing with results 8 days later” — the norm in many surge areas now — “is not helpful in this day, and there needs to be access to public health interventions and contact tracing.”
Asked whether it might be feasible to test all school children and teens, and teachers regularly and routinely, Armstrong said that widespread testing in schools “is not feasible and not as helpful as you might think… It tells you about that person at that moment in time,” which may be a week or more earlier.
In the event of an exposure, she said, “schools must have a partnership in place where they have access to testing that has rapid turnaround time.”
Tan said school reopenings in current hotspots such as Florida and California are a bad idea. “When you have such surges of disease in the community, you’re basically asking for trouble if you open schools. You’re bringing in individuals from all across the community that potentially could be exposed to COVID, and you’re putting them in a more enclosed setting. Regardless of what protocols you have in place, you still run a much higher risk of spreading COVID.”

COVID-19 More Deadly Than Cancer?

During the recent months of the pandemic, cancer patients undergoing active treatment saw their risk for death increase 15-fold with a COVID-19 diagnosis, real-world data from two large healthcare systems in the Midwest found.
Among nearly 40,000 patients who had undergone treatment for their cancer at some point over the past year, 15% of those diagnosed with COVID-19 died from February to May 2020, as compared to 1% of those not diagnosed with COVID-19 during this same timeframe, reported Shirish Gadgeel, MD, of the Henry Ford Cancer Institute in Detroit.
And in more than 100,000 cancer survivors, 11% of those diagnosed with COVID-19 died compared to 1% of those not diagnosed with COVID-19, according to the findings presented at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) COVID-19 and Cancer meeting.
“Certain comorbidities were more commonly seen in patients with COVID-19,” said Gadgeel. “This included cardiac arrhythmias, renal failure, congestive heart failure, and pulmonary circulation disorders.”
For their study, Gadgeel and colleagues examined data on 154,585 malignant cancer patients from 2015 to the present day with active cancer or a history of cancer treated at two major Midwestern health systems. Among the 39,790 patients with active disease, 388 were diagnosed with COVID-19 from February 15 through May 13, 2020. For the 114,795 patients with a history of cancer, 412 were diagnosed with COVID-19.
After adjusting for multiple variables, older age (70-99 years) and several comorbid conditions were significantly associated with increased mortality among COVID-19 patients with active cancer:
  • Older age: OR 3.4 (95% CI 1.3-9.3)
  • Diabetes: OR 3.0 (95% CI 1.5-6.0)
  • Renal failure: OR 2.3 (95% CI 1.1-4.9)
  • Pulmonary circulation disorders: OR 3.9 (95% CI 1.4-10.5)
In COVID-19 patients with a history of cancer, an increased risk for death was seen for those ages 60 to 69 years (OR 6.3, 95% CI 1.1-35.3), 70 to 99 years (OR 18.2, 95% CI 3.9-84.3), and those with a history of coagulopathy (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.2-7.6).
Despite Black patients consisting of less than 10% of the total study population, Gadgeel noted that 39.4% of COVID-19 diagnoses in the active cancer group were among Black patients, as were a third of diagnoses in the cancer survivor group.
And the proportion of COVID-19 patients with a median household income below $30,000 was also higher in COVID-19 patients in both groups, he added.
COVID-19 carried a far greater chance for hospitalization, both for patients with active cancer (81% vs 15% for those without COVID-19) as well as those with a history of cancer (68% vs 6%), with higher hospitalization rates among Black individuals and those with a median income below $30,000. Even younger COVID-19 patients (<50 years) saw high rates of hospitalization, at 79% for those with active cancer and 49% for those with a history of the disease.
While few cancer patients without COVID-19 required mechanical ventilation (≤1%) during the study period, 21% of patients with active disease and COVID-19 needed ventilation, as did 14% of those with a history of cancer, with higher rates among those with a history of coagulopathy (36% and 23%, respectively).
CCC-19 Data Triples in Size
Another study presented during the meeting again showed higher mortality rates for cancer patients with COVID-19, with lung cancer patients appearing to be especially vulnerable.
Among 2,749 cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19, 60% required hospitalization, 45% needed supplemental oxygen, 16% were admitted to the intensive care unit, and 12% needed mechanical ventilation, and 16% died within 30 days, reported Brian Rini, MD, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tennessee.
“When COVID first started there was a hypothesis that cancer patients could be at adverse outcome risk due to many factors,” said Rini, noting their typically “advanced age, presence of comorbidities, increased contact with the healthcare system, perhaps immune alterations due to their cancer and/or therapy, and decreased performance status.”
Rini was presenting an updated analysis of the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC-19), which now includes 114 sites (includes comprehensive cancer centers and community sites) collecting data on cancer patients and their outcomes with COVID-19.
Initial data from the consortium, of about 1,000 patients, were presented earlier this year at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting and published in The Lancet. The early analysis showed that use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to treat COVID-19 in cancer patients was associated with a nearly threefold greater risk of dying within 30 days.
Notably, in the new analysis, decreased all-cause mortality at 30 days was observed among the 57 patients treated with remdesivir alone, when compared to patients that received other investigational therapies for COVID-19, including hydroxychloroquine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.41, 95% CI 0.17-0.99) and a trend toward lower mortality when compared to patients that received no other investigational therapies (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31-1.85).
Cancer status was associated with a greater mortality risk. Compared to patients in remission, those with stable (aOR 1.47, 95% CI 1.07-2.02) or progressive disease (aOR 2.96, 95% CI 2.05-4.28) were both at increased risk of death at 30 days.
Mortality at 30 days reached 35% for patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or higher, as compared to 4% (aOR 4.22, 95% CI 2.92-6.10).
“As you start to combine these adverse risk factors you get into really high mortality rates,” said Rini, with highest risk seen among intubated patients who were either 75 and older (64%) or had poor performance status (75%).
“There are several factors that are starting to emerge as relating to COVID-19 mortality in cancer patients,” said Rini during his presentation at the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer meeting. “Some are cancer-related, such as the status of their cancer and perhaps performance status, and others are perhaps unrelated, such as age or gender.”
Other factors that were significantly associated with higher mortality included older age, male sex, Black race, and being a current or former smoker, and having a hematologic malignancy.
Findings from the study were simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery.
“Importantly, there were some factors that did not reach statistical significance,” said Rini, including obesity.
“Patients who received recent cytotoxic chemotherapy or other types of anti-cancer therapy, or who had recent surgery were not in the present analysis of almost 3,000 patients at increased risk,” he continued. “I think this provides some reassurance that cancer care can and should continue for these patients.”
For specific cancer types, mortality was highest in lung cancer patients (26%), followed by those with lymphoma (22%), colorectal cancer (19%), plasma cell dyscrasias (19%), prostate cancer (18%), breast cancer (8%), and thyroid cancer (3%).
“The COVID mortality rate in cancer patients appears to be higher than the general population,” said Rini. “Lung cancer patients appear especially vulnerable by our data, as well as TERAVOLT‘s.”

Disclosures
Gadgeel disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Loxo, Blueprint, Takeda, Merck, and Jazz.
Rini reported consulting work for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Aveo, Synthorx, Peloton, Compugen, Merck, Corvus, Surface Oncology, 3DMedicines, Aravive, Alkermes, and Arrowhead; as well as stock ownership in PTC Therapeutics.

Air Conditioning May Be Spreading COVID

As COVID-19 cases rise rapidly throughout the South, some scientists believe there could be an important, but overlooked factor in the spread of the virus in the region–air conditioning.
Just as chilly winter temps create the perfect conditions for passing colds and flu—driving people indoors and into closer proximity for more hours of the day where it’s easy to swap germs, researchers believe broiling heat in the southern U.S. could be having the same effect, sending people indoors where whirring air conditioners are running full blast.
“You go indoors for the cool, just as in the northeast and other cool places you go in for the warmth in winter, so you’re less socially distanced,” says Edward Nardell, MD, professor of environmental health and immunology and infectious diseases at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “You’re more likely to be touching the same surfaces that have been contaminated by people speaking and coughing etc.,” he says.
And that’s not the only problem.
Air conditioning is also risky because of the way air handlers work. When outdoor temperatures are extreme, HVAC systems adjust the mix of fresh air they pull in to save energy. That means the hotter it is outside, the more indoor air recirculates, which means, “You’re breathing a higher percentage of the same air that other people are exhaling,” Nardell says. If someone in the building is shedding the new coronavirus, it can build up in the recirculated air.
And this may seem obvious, but air conditioners have fans that blow the air around. That gives the smallest viral particles—aerosols–extra lift to say suspended in the air for longer. “The air currents that are produced by air conditioners and also fans and other air moving devices can carry particles further than they might otherwise go,” he says.
Air conditioners also remove moisture from the air, “and we know viruses prefer dry air,” he says.
In certain situations, that combination of factors may create the perfect conditions for contagion.

Emerging Evidence Points To Airborne Transmission

Studies of air conditioning come as more evidence emerges about airborne spread of COVID-19. In a commentary published this week in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, an international group of 239 scientists have appealed to “national and international bodies” including the World Health Organization, to recognize this potential for airborne spread.
“We’re pushing because we need very clear, consistent messaging to the world,” said Shelly Miller, PhD, a professor of mechanical engineering who studies indoor air quality at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Miller was one of the chief proponents of the commentary. “This virus is opportunistically airborne, you can get it by inhaling it,” she says.
Miller and others believe that WHO and other public health agencies have a blind spot when it comes to airborne transmission.
“Based on our assessments of outbreaks, air sampling, and animal studies and we have just as much evidence to show that airborne transmission is happening as is surface transmission, so we need clear guidance for how to address this,” Miller says.
In its latest press briefing, WHO experts responded to the communication, and said the agency would be publishing a scientific brief summarizing their view of the science shortly.
“We acknowledge that there is emerging evidence in this field,” said Benedetta Allegranzi, MD, WHO’s technical lead for infection prevention and control, “We believe we have to be open to this evidence and understand its implications regarding the modes of transmission and the precautions that need to be taken,” she said.

The Role of Air Conditioning

So far, there are just a few studies pointing to the role of air conditioning in the spread of COVID-19. They indicate more research in the area is needed. In July, Chinese scientists published a short study detailing the results of their investigation of a cluster of COVID-19 cases linked to the same restaurant. The 10 diners who fell ill were all sitting at tables on the same side of the room. The tables were spaced more than 3 feet apart, though, indicating that the virus probably wasn’t being passed through larger droplets, which fall out of the air pretty quickly. Instead, they think “strong airflow” from a wall mounted air conditioner probably spread aerosols, or “micro-droplets”, from a single infected, but asymptomatic person over the tables, infecting three different families.
In another study, which hasn’t yet been peer reviewed, researchers swabbed three different HVAC units at the Oregon Health and Science University Hospital in Portland. Then they checked their samples for the presence of genetic material from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The swabs were positive in 1 out of every 4 samples taken.
“We found it in multiple locations within the air handler,” says study author Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg, PhD, a professor of architecture and director of the Institute for Health in the Built Environment at the University of Oregon in Eugene.
A similar study, from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, detected genetic material from the virus in air samples collected from rooms of COVID-19 patients, even air samples collected from more than six feet away.
Van Den Wymelenberg says their study can’t prove that the remnants of the virus they picked up could have actually infected anyone. To know that, they would have had to try to grow their samples alongside cells in a petri dish and watch to see if those cells were infected. Those are expensive studies to perform and they require a specialized lab certified to handle highly contagious germs—called a biosafety level 3 lab. Those are less common, and they’re all currently slammed with projects.
But he says his study does show that genetic material from the virus is making it into the machinery of massive air handlers in hospitals, even ones that are using good filters, and he thinks that should make public health experts closely consider air conditioning as a vehicle for virus spread.

Steps for Safer Indoor Air

Miller says that the easiest thing to keep the virus from building up inside is to bring in more outdoor air. In homes, that means opening windows and doors regularly to let fresh air in.
That’s harder to do in commercial buildings.
“What we’ve been recommending to minimize risk indoors is to provide 100% outside air, which you can’t do if you’re trying to heat or cool because it just costs way too much money,” she said.
Another strategy to reduce the risk of being indoors is to kill airborne viruses with special wall or ceiling mounted boxes that emit short-range UV radiation. This kind of UV light doesn’t damage skin the way sunlight does, but still zaps harmful germs. These so-called upper-room germicidal systems have successfully controlled outbreaks of other airborne viruses, like tuberculosis, Nardell says.
Finally, you can invest in an air cleaner. Miller cautions that if you go this route, you need to do a fair amount of homework first, learning about things like a machine’s clean air delivery rate, or CADR.
“I purchased an air cleaner strictly to operate when and if somebody in my household gets sick so we can reduce the viral load in my house air,” she says.
Ionizing cleaners don’t work, she says.
Miller recommends checking the website of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, or AHAM to find a good air cleaner.
“They have a whole website set up to do your research and buy a good air cleaner that will work in your home or office,” she says.