NEWS
Temperature scanners of ‘limited value’ in detecting COVID-19
COVID-19 responses in cancer patients: new findings
A new study funded by Cancer Research UK shows that the immune response to COVID-19 is the same in people with solid tumours compared to those without cancer. However, blood cancer patients varied in their ability to respond to the virus, with many unable to shake off the virus for up to 90 days after the first signs of infection – around five times longer than the average. Due to the importance of sharing findings related to the pandemic, the publication has been fast-tracked online as a preprint in Cancer Cell. The study gives reassurance to many people with cancer, but also highlights that patients cannot be grouped together when it comes to delivering cancer care during the pandemic.
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to many challenges for people with cancer, including decisions around shielding and delaying treatment. There is also conflicting evidence around COVID-19 having a more detrimental effect on those with cancer, and there is little insight into how cancer patients’ immune systems respond to the virus. Researchers led by Dr. Sheeba Irshad, a
Cancer Research UK clinician scientist based at King’s College London, in collaboration with Professor Adrian Hayday and Dr. Piers Patten (consultant haematologist) wanted to address two key questions: 1) Does the immune response to COVID-19 in cancer patients differ to those without cancer and 2) what is the long-term impact of COVID-19 on the immune system in people with cancer?
The study analysed the blood of 76 cancer patients: 41 of them had COVID-19, and 35 had not been exposed to the virus. The samples were compared to the blood of people who didn’t have cancer, and who had already been recruited to the previously published COVID-IP study led by Professor Adrian Hayday. Of the 41 people with
cancer, 23 had solid tumours, and 18 had blood cancer.
Immune responses to the virus in people with solid tumours were like those of people without cancer. This was the case even where patients were in the advanced stages of cancer and were undergoing active anti- cancer treatments. Both groups were able to mount a strong immune response to the initial COVID-19 infection, and subsequently developed high levels of antibodies to clear the virus from their systems.
This study was the first to show that high levels of COVID-19 antibodies are sustained long-term in patients with solid tumours — up to 78 days after exposure to the virus. The study also found that once patients had recovered from COVID-19, their immune systems returned to ‘normal’, pre-COVID functioning.
The immune response to COVID-19 in people with certain types of blood cancer was similar but “milder” in the active/early phases of the disease and became stronger over time resembling immune changes often seen in chronic infections. This was especially true for cancers affecting B cells: a type of immune cell that plays an important role in immune memory. In patients with B cell-related blood cancers, the antibody response to the virus was more diverse compared to people with solid tumours and presented as three distinct groups: 1) those who developed antibodies and cleared the virus like the solid cancer patients and people without cancer; 2) those who never developed antibodies even >75 days after virus exposure and continued to fail to clear the virus; and finally, 3) those who despite having developed antibodies against the virus were unable to clear it. The next phase of the SOAP study will be monitoring the immune responses of cancer patients to the COVID-19 vaccine.
10 l
WWW.CLINICALSERVICESJOURNAL.COM
Making people stand in front of a scanner to have their body temperature read can result in a large number of false negatives, allowing people with COVID-19 to pass through airports and hospitals undetected. Leading experts in physiology have suggested instead that taking temperature readings of a person’s fingertip and eye would give a significantly better and more reliable reading
The study found four key factors:
l Temperature alone isn’t a good indicator of disease – not all who have the virus have a fever and many who do, develop one only after admission to hospital.
l Measuring skin temperature doesn’t give an accurate estimation of deep body temperature (raised in a fever). A direct measure of deep body temperature is impractical.
l A high temperature, even one taken from deep body, does not necessarily mean a person has COVID-19.
Taking two temperature measurements, one of the finger, the other of the eye, is likely to be a better and more reliable indicator of a fever-induced increase in deep body temperature. Professor Tipton, from the University of Portsmouth, said: “Too many factors make the measurement of a skin temperature a poor surrogate for deep body temperature; skin temperature can change independently of deep body temperature for lots of reasons. Even if such a single measure did reflect deep body temperature reliably, other things, such as exercise can raise deep body temperature. The pandemic has had a devastating effect on all aspects of our lives, and it’s unlikely to be the last pandemic we face. It’s critical we develop a method of gauging if an individual has a fever that’s accurate and fast.” The researchers say a significant
proportion (at least 11%) of those with COVID-19 do not have a fever, and that fewer than half those admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19 had a fever. Although the majority of positive cases go on to develop a high temperature after being admitted to hospital, they were infectious before their temperature soared.
FEBRUARY 2021
©motortion -
stock.adobe.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
