It takes two: The relative contributions of parent versus child-led regulatory behaviours on toddler vaccination pain

BACKGROUND

Past research has established the important role of parent soothing in early childhood pain management. However, limited research has assessed children's own emerging emotion regulation strategies to reduce their pain during vaccination. The purpose of the current study was to understand the relative contributions of child-led emotion-regulation behaviours over and above parent regulatory behaviours and pre-needle distress.

METHODS

Toddler-caregiver dyads were videotaped at their 12- and/or 18-month vaccinations. Videos were coded for pain-related behavioural distress, child-led regulatory behaviours (disengagement of attention, parent-focused behaviours, and physical self-soothing), and parent regulatory/soothing behaviours (distraction, physical comfort, rocking, verbal reassurance). Pre-needle distress, followed by parent regulatory behaviours, followed by child regulatory behaviours were used as hierarchical predictors of pain regulation. Two sets of models were estimated at each age, by incorporating parent and child regulatory behaviours at 1 min and 2 min post-needle, separately.

RESULTS

At both ages, child-led parent-focused behaviours predicted less regulation. At 18 months, parent soothing behaviours (e.g. distraction, verbal reassurance, rocking) played a stronger role in regulation, however; the only behaviour that increased regulation was rocking.

CONCLUSIONS

Measuring both parent and child regulatory behaviours was important for fully understanding pain-related distress regulation. Toddlers' use of parent-focused regulatory behaviours (e.g. proximity seeking) suggests that they signal to their parent directly when they are struggling to regulate post-needle. The only parent behaviour that supported this regulation was rocking at 18 months, suggesting a greater need to understand the sensitivity of parent behaviours post-needle.

SIGNIFICANCE

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine both parent and child regulatory behaviours following vaccination at different stages in toddlerhood. This investigation allows a deeper understanding of the dyadic nature of early childhood vaccination, as well as the evolving role of the parent through toddlerhood. Importantly, findings suggest that toddlers do not simply wait for their parents to respond to their pain post-needle and provide clear signals to show their need of support in regulation.

Smoking and COVID-19 in patients with cancer: Novel analysis from CCC19 registry

e18766

Background: Patients (pts) with thoracic cancers have a high rate of hospitalization and death from COVID-19. Smoking has been associated with increased risk for severe COVID-19. However, there is limited data evaluating the impact of smoking recency on COVID-19 severity in pts with cancer. We aimed to characterize the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 based on the recency of smoking in pts with thoracic cancers (TC) and all other cancers (OC). Methods: Adult pts with cancer and lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and smoking history recorded in the CCC19 registry (NCT0435470) were included. Pts were stratified by cancer type (TC or OC) and further stratified into subgroups based on the recency of smoking cessation: current smoker; former smokers who quit < 1 yr. ago; 1-5 yr. ago; 6-10 yr. ago; quit > 10 yr. ago; and never smoker. 30-day all-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were any hospitalization; hospitalization with supplemental O2; ICU admission; and mechanical ventilation. Results: From January 2020 to December 2021, 752 pts from TC group and 8,291 pts from OC group met the inclusion criteria. 78% of patients in TC group ever smoked compared to 36% patients in the OC group. In both groups, the majority of never-smokers were females (70% and 60% in TC and OC respectively). The burden of smoking and the rate of pulmonary comorbidities (PC) was higher in the TC group (PC 22-69%) compared to OC group (PC 12-26%) across all smoking strata. Overall, 30-day all-cause mortality was 21% and 11% in pts with TC and OC respectively. Former smokers who quit < 1 year ago in TC group had the highest rate of mortality and severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, in the OC group, there was no consistent trend of higher mortality or severe COVID-19 outcomes in specific subgroups based on smoking recency. Conclusions: To our knowledge this is the largest study evaluating the effect of granular phenotypes of smoking recency on COVID-19 outcomes in pts with cancer. Recent smokers who quit < 1 year ago in TC group had the highest rate of mortality and severe COVID-19. Further analysis exploring the factors (e.g., smoking pack years) associated with severe outcomes in this subgroup is planned.[Table: see text]

Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with cancer

e18746

Background: Most patients with cancer and COVID-19 will survive the acute illness. The longer-term impacts of COVID-19 on patients with cancer remain incompletely described. Methods: Using COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry data thru 12/31/2021, we examined outcomes of long-term COVID-19 survivors with post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC aka “long COVID”). PASC was defined as having recovered w/ complications or having died w/ ongoing infection 90+ days from original diagnosis; absence of PASC was defined as having fully recovered by 90 days, with 90+ days of follow-up. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 re-infection and records with low quality data were excluded. Results: 858 of 3710 of included patients (23%) met PASC criteria. Median follow-up (IQR) for PASC and recovered patients was 180 (98-217) and 180 (90-180) days, respectively. The PASC group had a higher rate of baseline comorbidities and poor performance status (Table). Cancer types, status, and recent anticancer treatment were similar between the groups. The PASC group experienced a higher illness burden, with more hospitalized (83% vs 48%); requiring ICU (29% vs 6%); requiring mechanical ventilation (17% vs 2%); and experiencing co-infections (19% vs 8%). There were more deaths in the PASC vs recovered group (8% vs 3%), with median (IQR) days to death of 158 (120-272) and 180 (130-228), respectively. Of these, 9% were attributed to COVID-19; 15% to both COVID-19 and cancer; 15% to cancer; and 23% to other causes. Conversely, no deaths in the recovered group were attributed to COVID-19; 57% were attributed to cancer; and 24% to other causes (proximal cause of death unknown/missing in 38% and 19%, respectively). Cancer treatment modification was more common in the recovered group (23% vs 18%). Conclusions: Patients with underlying comorbidities, worse ECOG PS, and more severe acute SARS-CoV-2 infection had higher rates of PASC. These patients suffered more severe complications and incurred worse outcomes. There was an appreciable rate of death in both PASC and non-PASC, with cancer the dominant but not only cause in fully recovered patients. Further study is needed to understand what factors drive PASC, and whether longer-term cancer-specific outcomes will be affected.[Table: see text]

Association of clinical factors and recent anticancer therapy with COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer: a report from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer may be at high risk of adverse outcomes from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) to identify prognostic clinical factors, including laboratory measurements and anticancer therapies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with active or historical cancer and a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis recorded between 17 March and 18 November 2020 were included. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on an ordinal scale (uncomplicated, hospitalized, admitted to intensive care unit, mechanically ventilated, died within 30 days). Multivariable regression models included demographics, cancer status, anticancer therapy and timing, COVID-19-directed therapies, and laboratory measurements (among hospitalized patients).

RESULTS

A total of 4966 patients were included (median age 66 years, 51% female, 50% non-Hispanic white); 2872 (58%) were hospitalized and 695 (14%) died; 61% had cancer that was present, diagnosed, or treated within the year prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Older age, male sex, obesity, cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities, renal disease, diabetes mellitus, non-Hispanic black race, Hispanic ethnicity, worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and hematologic malignancy were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Among hospitalized patients, low or high absolute lymphocyte count; high absolute neutrophil count; low platelet count; abnormal creatinine; troponin; lactate dehydrogenase; and C-reactive protein were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Patients diagnosed early in the COVID-19 pandemic (January-April 2020) had worse outcomes than those diagnosed later. Specific anticancer therapies (e.g. R-CHOP, platinum combined with etoposide, and DNA methyltransferase inhibitors) were associated with high 30-day all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical factors (e.g. older age, hematological malignancy, recent chemotherapy) and laboratory measurements were associated with poor outcomes among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Although further studies are needed, caution may be required in utilizing particular anticancer therapies.

CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER

NCT04354701.

Social distancing to avoid SARS-Cov-2 infection in cancer and non-cancer patients

e18697

Background: Social distancing has been recommended by the CDC to avoid exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Cancer patients on or after active therapy appear to be more prone to COVID being symptomatic and life threatening. When evaluating cancer patients’ risk of acquiring COVID it is essential to know the behavior of cancer patients that will affect their risk of exposure. However, it is not known to what degree social distancing is practiced by cancer patients compared to non-cancer patients and what factors lead to the decision to distance oneself. Methods: After a pilot phase using patients MyChart messaging, links to the electronic questionnaires were texted to patients using Twillio. Responses were stored on REDCap. Six questions about their social distancing behavior and mask wearing were posed and responses were compared between cancer and non-cancer patients. Demographics, comorbidities and a questionnaire about anxiety (GAD-7 scale for Generalized Anxiety Disorder) were recorded. To assess differences between cancer and non-cancer groups Bonferroni-corrected chi-square tests and proportions confidence intervals were used. Results: The pilot survey was sent in mid-2020 and the full survey followed in January 2021 during a high community COVID incidence. 387 cancer patients (32.4% responded and 503 non-cancer (22.9% responded) patients completed the survey. Questions about leaving their house, driving, shopping, friends and family indicated that patients with cancer are more cautious (p < 0.001). Cancer patients were up to 20% more likely to distance themselves. No evidence of a difference was seen in wearing a mask, at least 85 % most of the time. A majority of respondents were female (63% vs 71%). Cancer patients were older ( > 60 years, 69 % vs 45%) and less likely to work (52% vs 31%) or less likely to be white collar workers (21% vs 38%). There was no difference of the anxiety score in both groups (not at all anxious, 54%). Conclusions: Cancer patients’ responses revealed a distancing behavior that would likely lower the risk exposure to SARS-CoV-2. It is unclear, which of the demographic differences would account for this behavior, although remarkably anxiety was not a clear motivating factor. The high acceptance of masks is encouraging. Early publications during the pandemic and patient education suggesting a higher COVID risk for cancer patients may have reduced risk prone behavior. Considering COVID’s impact on the vulnerable cancer population and uncertainty in immunosuppressed patients about clearing the virus or adequately responding to a vaccine, further studies about health behavior and health promotion during the pandemic are needed.

Effect of Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) exposure on severity of COVID-19 infection: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) study

4529

Background: Oncology patients experience more severe disease outcomes from COVID-19 infection than the general population. BCG is a live bovine tuberculosis bacillus with immunotherapeutic effects in urothelial cancers; it is also used as vaccination against Mycobacterium tuberculosis in parts of the world. As BCG vaccination has been associated with broad protection against viral pathogens, BCG exposure through vaccination or intravesical therapy may modulate host immunity and reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection. We report the effect of BCG exposure on COVID-19 severity in oncology patients from the CCC19 registry. Methods: The CCC19 registry (NCT04354701) was used to identify patients with prior BCG exposure. Cohort A received intravesical treatment for bladder carcinoma, and cohort B received prior BCG vaccination. Each cohort was matched 3:1 to non-BCG-exposed controls by age, sex, race, primary cancer type, cancer status, ECOG performance status (PS) and calendar time of COVID-19 infection. The primary endpoint was COVID-19 severity reported on an ordinal scale (uncomplicated, hospitalized, admitted to ICU +/- ventilated, died within 30 days) of patients exposed to prior BCG compared to matched non-exposed controls. 2-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used. Results: As of 6-Feb-2021 we included 124 patients with BCG exposure, 68 patients with bladder carcinoma who had received intravesical BCG (Cohort A), and 64 cancer patients with prior BCG vaccination (Cohort B). Median age was 76 years, IQR 69-83 (Cohort A) and 67 years, IQR 62-74 (Cohort B). Bladder cancer pts were predominately male (78%) vs 55% for Cohort B. Patients with PS 2+ were uncommon, 18% in Cohort A and 16% in Cohort B. COVID-19 illness severity was no different in patients exposed to prior intravesicular BCG (p=0.87). COVID-19 illness severity was no different in patients exposed to prior intradermal BCG vaccination (p=0.60). Conclusions: Despite this being the largest such cohort reported to date, we failed to demonstrate an association of prior BCG exposure with modulation of severity of COVID-19 illness. Prospective trials evaluating the protective effect of BCG vaccination are ongoing and will add further insight into the effect of BCG on COVID-19 illness.[Table: see text]

Efficacy/safety analysis of a phase 2 study of ruxolitinib (Rux) + regorafenib (Re) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (r/r) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)

663

Background: The JAK-STAT pathway plays a role in the systemic inflammatory response in CRC. Rux, a potent JAK1/2 inhibitor, was evaluated in r/r mCRC pts. Methods: After a safety run-in (Rux 20 mg BID + Re 160 mg QD), pts were randomized to Rux 15 mg BID or placebo (Pb) + Re 160 mg QD. Rux could be titrated to 20 mg BID. The randomized phase included Substudy 1 (S1, pts with C-reactive protein [CRP] > 10 mg/L) and Substudy 2 (S2, pts with CRP ≤ 10 mg/L). Primary endpoint: OS. Results: Rux 20 mg BID was well tolerated in the safety run-in (n = 11). 396 pts were randomized (S1: n = 175; S2: n = 221). Median age in Rux vs (v) Pb groups: 62 v 60 yr (S1), 59 v 61 yr (S2). Most pts had ≥ 3 prior chemotherapy regimens: 85% v 84% (S1); 81% v 78% (S2). Median treatment durations: 57 d with Rux v 56 d with Pb (S1), 106 d with Rux v 56 d with Pb (S2). Discontinuations were mainly due to disease progression (S1: 61% v 63%, S2: 62% v 66%) or AEs (S1: 10% v 19%, S2: 9% v 9%). Rux + Re did not improve OS/PFS over Re + Pb in S1/S2 (see Table). S1 was terminated for futility at interim analysis; S2 was terminated per sponsor decision. The number of events required for final efficacy analysis was reached in S1, not in S2. Most common non-hematologic AEs (Rux v Pb): palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (PPES; S1: 42% v 44%; S2: 58% v 47%), diarrhea (S1: 38% v 31%; S2: 39% v 27%), decreased appetite (S1: 37% v 36%; S2: 26% v 33%), fatigue (S1: 34% v 36%; S2: 41% v 44%), hypertension (S1: 21% v 26%; S2: 42% v 40%). Most common grade (G) 3/4 non-hematologic AEs: PPES (S1: 13% v 15%; S2: 17% v 13%) and hypertension (S1: 9% v 7%; S2: 22% v 16%). Most common G 3/4 hematologic AEs (new/worsening lab abnormalities): lymphopenia (S1: 13% v 8%; S2: 14% v 7%) and anemia (S1: 4% v 5%; S2: 9% v 4%). Conclusions: Rux + Re did not improve OS/PFS in mCRC pts over Re alone. There was a nonsignificant trend towards improved OS/PFS in S2. Rux 15-20 mg BID safety profile was consistent with previous studies in other tumors. Clinical trial information: NCT02119676. [Table: see text]

Disaggregating the distal, proximal, and time-varying effects of parent alcoholism on children's internalizing symptoms

We tested whether children show greater internalizing symptoms when their parents are actively abusing alcohol. In an integrative data analysis, we combined observations over ages 2 through 17 from two longitudinal studies of children of alcoholic parents and matched controls recruited from the community. Using a mixed modeling approach, we tested whether children showed elevated mother- and child-reported internalizing symptoms (a) at the same time that parents showed alcohol-related consequences (time-varying effects), (b) if parents showed greater alcohol-related consequences during the study period (proximal effects), and (c) if parents had a lifetime diagnosis of alcoholism that predated the study period (distal effects). No support for time-varying effects was found; proximal effects of mothers' alcohol-related consequences on child-reported internalizing symptoms were found and distal effects of mother and father alcoholism predicted greater internalizing symptoms among children of alcoholic parents. Implications for the time-embedded relations between parent alcoholism and children's internalizing symptoms are discussed.

Self-association properties of monomeric insulin analogs under formulation conditions

PURPOSE

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the effects of two important excipients, zinc and m-cresol, on the self-association properties of a series of monomeric insulin analogs. In this way, the effects on formulation behavior of individual amino acid substitutions in the C-terminal region of the insulin B-chain could be compared.

METHODS

The self-association of ten insulin analogs was monitored by equilibrium and velocity analytical ultracentrifugation under three different conditions: (i) in neutral buffer alone; (ii) in neutral buffer containing zinc ion; and (iii) in neutral buffer containing both zinc ion and phenolic preservative (a typical condition for insulin formulations). The self-association properties of these analogs were compared to those of human insulin and the rapid-acting insulin analog Lys(B28)Pro(B29)-human insulin.

RESULTS

The analogs in the current study exhibited a wide range of association properties when examined in neutral buffer alone or in neutral buffer containing zinc ion. However, all of these analogs had association properties similar to human insulin in the presence of both zinc and m-cresol. Under these formulation conditions each analog had an apparent sedimentation coefficient of s* = 2.9-3.1 S, which corresponds to the insulin hexamer.

CONCLUSIONS

Analogs with changes in the B27-B29 region of human insulin form soluble hexamers in the presence of both zinc and m-cresol, and m-cresol binding overrides the otherwise destabilizing effects of these mutations on self assembly.

Modifications in the B10 and B26-30 regions of the B chain of human insulin alter affinity for the human IGF-I receptor more than for the insulin receptor

Inversion of the natural sequence of the B chain of human insulin (HI) from ProB28LysB29 to LysB28ProB29 generates an insulin analogue with reduced tendency to self-associate. Since this substitution increases the homology of insulin to insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), we have examined the affinity of a series of insulin analogues with the general modified structure XaaB28ProB29 HI for binding to both human placental insulin and IGF-I receptors. The XaaB28ProB29 HI series is approximately equipotent to HI in binding to the insulin receptor with the exception of when Xaa = Phe, Trp, Leu, Ile, and Gly (40-60% relative to HI). Substitution with basic residues in the B28 position increased the relative affinity to the IGF-I receptor approximately 1.5-2-fold (ArgB28ProB29 > OrnB28ProB29 = LysB28ProB29). Substitution with acidic residues reduced relative affinity for the IGF-I receptor approximately 2-fold (CyaB28ProB29 = GluB28ProB29 > AspB28ProB29). Combination of AspB10 substitution in conjunction with a modification in the B28-29 position (e.g. AspB10LysB28ProB29 HI) showed an additional 2-fold selective increase in affinity for the IGF-I receptor, suggesting that these two effects are additive. Addition of Arg residues at B31-32, on the backbone of either HI or AspB10 HI, increased affinity for the IGF-I receptor 10 and 28 fold, respectively, compared to HI, confirming the significance of enhanced positive charge at the C-terminal end of the insulin B-chain in increasing selectivity for the IGF-I receptor. This relative increase in IGF-I receptor affinity correlated largely, but not completely, with enhanced growth promoting activity in human mammary epithelial cells. In the case of LysB28ProB29 HI, growth activity correlated with dissociation kinetics from the insulin receptor which were shown to be identical with those of human insulin.