User login
-
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine 95% effective in final phase 3 results
After initial promising interim results on Nov. 9, Pfizer and BioNTech today announced that their mRNA vaccine, in development to prevent COVID-19, is 95% effective.
Final analysis of the randomized, phase 3 study of more than 43,000 people yielded 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 – with 162 positive cases in the placebo group versus 8 in the BNT162b2 vaccine group.
Researchers reported 10 severe cases of COVID-19 in the trial, 9 of which occurred in the placebo group.
The study was ethnically diverse, and results were consistent across gender and age groups, with a 94% efficacy reported among participants aged older than 65 years.
Pfizer plans to file for an emergency-use authorization with the Food and Drug Administration “within days,” having now met all the FDA data endpoints, according to a news release from the two companies.
The vaccine was well tolerated with no serious safety concerns, the company stated. Two grade 3 adverse events were reported – fatigue in 3.8% of participants and headache in 2%.
The 95% efficacy places the Pfizer vaccine in the same neighborhood as the interim results of the Moderna vaccine, reported at 94.5%. Both products are two-dose mRNA vaccines.
As of Nov. 13, of 43,661 total participants in the Pfizer vaccine phase 3 trial, 41,135 received a second dose. The final results are based on two outcomes measured 7 days after the second dose: vaccine efficacy in people without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as a secondary outcome in people both with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The 95% vaccine efficacy was statistically significant, compared with placebo (P < .0001).
‘Historic 8-month journey’
The BNT162b2 vaccine candidate is a joint effort between Pfizer and BioNTech. “The study results mark an important step in this historic 8-month journey to bring forward a vaccine capable of helping to end this devastating pandemic,” Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, Pfizer chairman and CEO, said in a statement. “With hundreds of thousands of people around the globe infected every day, we urgently need to get a safe and effective vaccine to the world.”
Ugur Sahin, MD, PhD, cofounder and CEO of BioNTech, added, “we are grateful that the first global trial to reach the final efficacy analysis mark indicates that a high rate of protection against COVID-19 can be achieved very fast after the first 30-mcg dose, underscoring the power of BNT162 in providing early protection.”
The two companies expect to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 for global distribution. Projections for 2021 include up to 1.3 billion doses.
The companies also designed temperature-controlled thermal shipping containers with dry ice to maintain the required, approximate –70° C (–94° F) conditions. Clinicians can use the containers as temporary storage units for up to 15 days by replacing the dry ice.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After initial promising interim results on Nov. 9, Pfizer and BioNTech today announced that their mRNA vaccine, in development to prevent COVID-19, is 95% effective.
Final analysis of the randomized, phase 3 study of more than 43,000 people yielded 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 – with 162 positive cases in the placebo group versus 8 in the BNT162b2 vaccine group.
Researchers reported 10 severe cases of COVID-19 in the trial, 9 of which occurred in the placebo group.
The study was ethnically diverse, and results were consistent across gender and age groups, with a 94% efficacy reported among participants aged older than 65 years.
Pfizer plans to file for an emergency-use authorization with the Food and Drug Administration “within days,” having now met all the FDA data endpoints, according to a news release from the two companies.
The vaccine was well tolerated with no serious safety concerns, the company stated. Two grade 3 adverse events were reported – fatigue in 3.8% of participants and headache in 2%.
The 95% efficacy places the Pfizer vaccine in the same neighborhood as the interim results of the Moderna vaccine, reported at 94.5%. Both products are two-dose mRNA vaccines.
As of Nov. 13, of 43,661 total participants in the Pfizer vaccine phase 3 trial, 41,135 received a second dose. The final results are based on two outcomes measured 7 days after the second dose: vaccine efficacy in people without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as a secondary outcome in people both with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The 95% vaccine efficacy was statistically significant, compared with placebo (P < .0001).
‘Historic 8-month journey’
The BNT162b2 vaccine candidate is a joint effort between Pfizer and BioNTech. “The study results mark an important step in this historic 8-month journey to bring forward a vaccine capable of helping to end this devastating pandemic,” Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, Pfizer chairman and CEO, said in a statement. “With hundreds of thousands of people around the globe infected every day, we urgently need to get a safe and effective vaccine to the world.”
Ugur Sahin, MD, PhD, cofounder and CEO of BioNTech, added, “we are grateful that the first global trial to reach the final efficacy analysis mark indicates that a high rate of protection against COVID-19 can be achieved very fast after the first 30-mcg dose, underscoring the power of BNT162 in providing early protection.”
The two companies expect to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 for global distribution. Projections for 2021 include up to 1.3 billion doses.
The companies also designed temperature-controlled thermal shipping containers with dry ice to maintain the required, approximate –70° C (–94° F) conditions. Clinicians can use the containers as temporary storage units for up to 15 days by replacing the dry ice.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After initial promising interim results on Nov. 9, Pfizer and BioNTech today announced that their mRNA vaccine, in development to prevent COVID-19, is 95% effective.
Final analysis of the randomized, phase 3 study of more than 43,000 people yielded 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 – with 162 positive cases in the placebo group versus 8 in the BNT162b2 vaccine group.
Researchers reported 10 severe cases of COVID-19 in the trial, 9 of which occurred in the placebo group.
The study was ethnically diverse, and results were consistent across gender and age groups, with a 94% efficacy reported among participants aged older than 65 years.
Pfizer plans to file for an emergency-use authorization with the Food and Drug Administration “within days,” having now met all the FDA data endpoints, according to a news release from the two companies.
The vaccine was well tolerated with no serious safety concerns, the company stated. Two grade 3 adverse events were reported – fatigue in 3.8% of participants and headache in 2%.
The 95% efficacy places the Pfizer vaccine in the same neighborhood as the interim results of the Moderna vaccine, reported at 94.5%. Both products are two-dose mRNA vaccines.
As of Nov. 13, of 43,661 total participants in the Pfizer vaccine phase 3 trial, 41,135 received a second dose. The final results are based on two outcomes measured 7 days after the second dose: vaccine efficacy in people without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as a secondary outcome in people both with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The 95% vaccine efficacy was statistically significant, compared with placebo (P < .0001).
‘Historic 8-month journey’
The BNT162b2 vaccine candidate is a joint effort between Pfizer and BioNTech. “The study results mark an important step in this historic 8-month journey to bring forward a vaccine capable of helping to end this devastating pandemic,” Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, Pfizer chairman and CEO, said in a statement. “With hundreds of thousands of people around the globe infected every day, we urgently need to get a safe and effective vaccine to the world.”
Ugur Sahin, MD, PhD, cofounder and CEO of BioNTech, added, “we are grateful that the first global trial to reach the final efficacy analysis mark indicates that a high rate of protection against COVID-19 can be achieved very fast after the first 30-mcg dose, underscoring the power of BNT162 in providing early protection.”
The two companies expect to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 for global distribution. Projections for 2021 include up to 1.3 billion doses.
The companies also designed temperature-controlled thermal shipping containers with dry ice to maintain the required, approximate –70° C (–94° F) conditions. Clinicians can use the containers as temporary storage units for up to 15 days by replacing the dry ice.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Hospital at home’ increases COVID capacity in large study
A “hospital at home” (HaH) program at Atrium Health, a large integrated delivery system in the Southeast, expanded its hospital capacity during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic by providing hospital-level acute care to COVID-19 patients at home, according to a new study in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Virtual hospital programs have the potential to provide health systems with additional inpatient capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond,” wrote Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, from the Atrium Health Hospitalist Group, Monroe, N.C., and colleagues.
Whereas most previous HaH programs have relied on visiting nurses and physicians, the new study uses telemedicine to connect with patients. Advocate Health Care researchers published the only other study using the telemedicine-powered model in 2015.
The new Atrium Health study evaluated 1,477 patients who received care in the HaH program between March 23 and May 7 of this year after having been diagnosed with COVID-19. The program provided home monitoring and hospital-level care in a home-based virtual observation unit (VOU) and a virtual acute care unit (VACU).
Patients were tested for the virus in Atrium emergency departments, primary care clinics, urgent care centers, and external testing sites. Those who tested positive were invited to be cared for either in the VOU, if they had mild to moderate symptoms, or in the VACU, if they were sick enough to be admitted to the hospital.
Patients hop onboard
Nearly all COVID-positive patients tested in these sites agreed to be admitted to the hospital at home, coauthor Stephanie Murphy, DO, medical director of the Atrium Health HaH program, said in an interview.
Patients with moderate symptoms were glad to be monitored at home, she said. When they got to the point where the nurse supervising their care felt they needed escalation to acute care, they were asked whether they wanted to continue to be cared for at home. Most opted to stay home rather than be admitted to the hospital, where their loved ones couldn’t visit them.
Low-acuity patients in the VOU received daily telemonitoring by a nurse to identify disease progression and escalate care as needed. For those who required more care and were admitted to the VACU, a team of paramedics and registered nurses (RNs; mobile clinicians) visited the patient’s home within 24 hours, setting up a hospital bed, other necessary medical equipment, videoconferencing gear, and a remote-monitoring kit that included a blood pressure cuff, a pulse oximeter, and a thermometer.
Dedicated hospitalists and nurses managed patients with 24/7 coverage and monitoring, bringing in other specialties as needed for virtual consults. Mobile clinician and virtual provider visits continued daily until a patient’s condition improved to the point where they could be deescalated back to the VOU. After that, patients received mobile app-driven symptom monitoring and telephone follow-up with a nurse until they got better.
Few patients go to hospital
Overall, patients had a median length of stay of 11 days in the VOU or the VACU or both. The vast majority, 1,293 patients (88%), received care in the VOU only. In that cohort, just 40 patients (3%) required hospitalization in an Atrium facility. Sixteen of those patients spent time in an ICU, seven required ventilator support, and two died in the hospital.
A total of 184 patients (12%) were admitted to the VACU. Twenty-one (11%) required intravenous fluids, 16 (9%) received antibiotics, 40 (22%) required inhaler or nebulizer treatments, 41 (22%) used supplemental oxygen, and 24 (13%) were admitted to a conventional hospital. Of the latter patients, 10 were admitted to an ICU, one required a ventilator, and none died in the hospital.
Dr. Sitammagari, a hospitalist and comedical director for quality at Atrium Health, told this news organization that, overall, the outcomes for patients in the system’s HaH were comparable to those seen in the literature among other COVID-19 cohorts.
Augmenting hospital capacity
The authors note that treating the 160 VACU patients within the HaH saved hospital beds for other patients. The HaH maintained a consistent census of between 20 and 30 patients for the first 6 weeks as COVID-19 cases spread.
Since last spring, Dr. Murphy said, the Atrium HaH’s daily census has grown to between 30 and 45 patients. “We could absorb 50 patients if our hospitals required it.”
How much capacity does that add to Atrium Health? While there are 50 hospitals in the health system, the HaH was set up mainly to care for COVID-19 patients who would otherwise have been admitted to the 10 acute-care hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area. In the 4 weeks ending Nov. 16, these facilities carried an average daily census of around 160 COVID-19 patients, Dr. Murphy noted. “During that time, the Atrium Health HaH has carried, on average, about 20%-25% of that census.”
If the pandemic were to overwhelm area hospitals, she added, “the structure would support flexing up our staffing and supplies to expand to crisis capacity,” which could be up to 200 patients a day.
For the nurses who make most of the phone calls to patients, patients average about 12 to 15 per RN, Dr. Murphy said, and there’s one mobile clinician for every six to nine patients. That’s pretty consistent with the staffing on med-surg floors in hospitals, she said.
The physicians in the program include hospitalists dedicated to telemedicine and some doctors who can’t work in the regular hospital because they’re immunocompromised. The physicians round virtually, covering 12-17 HaH patients per day, according to Dr. Murphy.
Prior planning paid off
Unlike some other health care systems that have launched HaH programs with the aid of outside vendors, Atrium Health developed its own HaH and brought it online just 2 weeks after deciding to launch the program. Atrium was able to do this, Dr. Sitammagari explained, because before the pandemic its hospitalist program was already developing an HaH model to improve the care of high-risk patients after hospital discharge to prevent readmission.
While Atrium’s electronic health record system wasn’t designed for hospital at home, its health information technology department and clinicians collaborated in rewriting some of the workflows and order sets in the EHR. For example, they set up a nursing questionnaire to administer after VACU admission, and they created another form for automatic admission to the HaH after a patient tested positive for COVID-19. Atrium staff also modified a patient-doctor communications app to help clinicians monitor HaH patients, Dr. Murphy noted.
Other hospital systems have gotten up to speed on HaH pretty quickly by using platforms supplied by outside vendors. Adventist Health in Los Angeles, for example, started admitting patients to its hospital at home just a month after approaching a vendor called Medically Home.
COVID vs. non-COVID patients
Atrium’s decision to focus its HaH effort on COVID-19 patients is unusual among the small but growing number of health systems that have adopted the HaH model to increase their capacity. (Atrium is now transferring some hospitalized patients with other conditions to its HaH, but is still focusing mainly on COVID-19 in its HaH program.)
Bruce Leff, MD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, a leading expert on the HaH model, agrees that it can increase hospital capacity significantly.
Dr. Leff praised the Atrium Health study. “It proves that within an integrated delivery system you can quickly deploy and implement a virtual hospital in the specific-use case of COVID, and help patients and help the system at scale,” he said. “They took a bunch of people into the virtual observation unit and thereby kept people from overwhelming their [emergency department] and treated those people safely at home.”
Dr. Leff had no problem with Atrium’s focus on patients with COVID-19 rather than other conditions. “My guess is that they have the ability to take what they developed and apply it to other conditions. Once you have the ability to do acute care at home, you can do a lot at home.”
The biggest barrier to the spread of hospital at home remains the lack of insurer coverage. Dr. Murphy said that health plans are covering virtual physician consultations with patients in the HaH, as well as some other bits and pieces, but not the entire episode of acute care.
Dr. Leff believes that this will start changing soon. COVID-19 has altered the attitudes of physicians and hospitals toward telehealth, he noted, “and it has moved policy makers and payers to start thinking about the new models – home-based care in general and hospital at home in particular. For the first time in 25 years, payers are starting to get interested.”
Most of the authors are employees of Atrium Health. In addition, one coauthor reports being the cofounder of a digital health company, iEnroll, and receiving grants from The Heineman Foundation. Dr. Leff is an advisor to Medically Home, which provides support to hospital at home programs.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A “hospital at home” (HaH) program at Atrium Health, a large integrated delivery system in the Southeast, expanded its hospital capacity during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic by providing hospital-level acute care to COVID-19 patients at home, according to a new study in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Virtual hospital programs have the potential to provide health systems with additional inpatient capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond,” wrote Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, from the Atrium Health Hospitalist Group, Monroe, N.C., and colleagues.
Whereas most previous HaH programs have relied on visiting nurses and physicians, the new study uses telemedicine to connect with patients. Advocate Health Care researchers published the only other study using the telemedicine-powered model in 2015.
The new Atrium Health study evaluated 1,477 patients who received care in the HaH program between March 23 and May 7 of this year after having been diagnosed with COVID-19. The program provided home monitoring and hospital-level care in a home-based virtual observation unit (VOU) and a virtual acute care unit (VACU).
Patients were tested for the virus in Atrium emergency departments, primary care clinics, urgent care centers, and external testing sites. Those who tested positive were invited to be cared for either in the VOU, if they had mild to moderate symptoms, or in the VACU, if they were sick enough to be admitted to the hospital.
Patients hop onboard
Nearly all COVID-positive patients tested in these sites agreed to be admitted to the hospital at home, coauthor Stephanie Murphy, DO, medical director of the Atrium Health HaH program, said in an interview.
Patients with moderate symptoms were glad to be monitored at home, she said. When they got to the point where the nurse supervising their care felt they needed escalation to acute care, they were asked whether they wanted to continue to be cared for at home. Most opted to stay home rather than be admitted to the hospital, where their loved ones couldn’t visit them.
Low-acuity patients in the VOU received daily telemonitoring by a nurse to identify disease progression and escalate care as needed. For those who required more care and were admitted to the VACU, a team of paramedics and registered nurses (RNs; mobile clinicians) visited the patient’s home within 24 hours, setting up a hospital bed, other necessary medical equipment, videoconferencing gear, and a remote-monitoring kit that included a blood pressure cuff, a pulse oximeter, and a thermometer.
Dedicated hospitalists and nurses managed patients with 24/7 coverage and monitoring, bringing in other specialties as needed for virtual consults. Mobile clinician and virtual provider visits continued daily until a patient’s condition improved to the point where they could be deescalated back to the VOU. After that, patients received mobile app-driven symptom monitoring and telephone follow-up with a nurse until they got better.
Few patients go to hospital
Overall, patients had a median length of stay of 11 days in the VOU or the VACU or both. The vast majority, 1,293 patients (88%), received care in the VOU only. In that cohort, just 40 patients (3%) required hospitalization in an Atrium facility. Sixteen of those patients spent time in an ICU, seven required ventilator support, and two died in the hospital.
A total of 184 patients (12%) were admitted to the VACU. Twenty-one (11%) required intravenous fluids, 16 (9%) received antibiotics, 40 (22%) required inhaler or nebulizer treatments, 41 (22%) used supplemental oxygen, and 24 (13%) were admitted to a conventional hospital. Of the latter patients, 10 were admitted to an ICU, one required a ventilator, and none died in the hospital.
Dr. Sitammagari, a hospitalist and comedical director for quality at Atrium Health, told this news organization that, overall, the outcomes for patients in the system’s HaH were comparable to those seen in the literature among other COVID-19 cohorts.
Augmenting hospital capacity
The authors note that treating the 160 VACU patients within the HaH saved hospital beds for other patients. The HaH maintained a consistent census of between 20 and 30 patients for the first 6 weeks as COVID-19 cases spread.
Since last spring, Dr. Murphy said, the Atrium HaH’s daily census has grown to between 30 and 45 patients. “We could absorb 50 patients if our hospitals required it.”
How much capacity does that add to Atrium Health? While there are 50 hospitals in the health system, the HaH was set up mainly to care for COVID-19 patients who would otherwise have been admitted to the 10 acute-care hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area. In the 4 weeks ending Nov. 16, these facilities carried an average daily census of around 160 COVID-19 patients, Dr. Murphy noted. “During that time, the Atrium Health HaH has carried, on average, about 20%-25% of that census.”
If the pandemic were to overwhelm area hospitals, she added, “the structure would support flexing up our staffing and supplies to expand to crisis capacity,” which could be up to 200 patients a day.
For the nurses who make most of the phone calls to patients, patients average about 12 to 15 per RN, Dr. Murphy said, and there’s one mobile clinician for every six to nine patients. That’s pretty consistent with the staffing on med-surg floors in hospitals, she said.
The physicians in the program include hospitalists dedicated to telemedicine and some doctors who can’t work in the regular hospital because they’re immunocompromised. The physicians round virtually, covering 12-17 HaH patients per day, according to Dr. Murphy.
Prior planning paid off
Unlike some other health care systems that have launched HaH programs with the aid of outside vendors, Atrium Health developed its own HaH and brought it online just 2 weeks after deciding to launch the program. Atrium was able to do this, Dr. Sitammagari explained, because before the pandemic its hospitalist program was already developing an HaH model to improve the care of high-risk patients after hospital discharge to prevent readmission.
While Atrium’s electronic health record system wasn’t designed for hospital at home, its health information technology department and clinicians collaborated in rewriting some of the workflows and order sets in the EHR. For example, they set up a nursing questionnaire to administer after VACU admission, and they created another form for automatic admission to the HaH after a patient tested positive for COVID-19. Atrium staff also modified a patient-doctor communications app to help clinicians monitor HaH patients, Dr. Murphy noted.
Other hospital systems have gotten up to speed on HaH pretty quickly by using platforms supplied by outside vendors. Adventist Health in Los Angeles, for example, started admitting patients to its hospital at home just a month after approaching a vendor called Medically Home.
COVID vs. non-COVID patients
Atrium’s decision to focus its HaH effort on COVID-19 patients is unusual among the small but growing number of health systems that have adopted the HaH model to increase their capacity. (Atrium is now transferring some hospitalized patients with other conditions to its HaH, but is still focusing mainly on COVID-19 in its HaH program.)
Bruce Leff, MD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, a leading expert on the HaH model, agrees that it can increase hospital capacity significantly.
Dr. Leff praised the Atrium Health study. “It proves that within an integrated delivery system you can quickly deploy and implement a virtual hospital in the specific-use case of COVID, and help patients and help the system at scale,” he said. “They took a bunch of people into the virtual observation unit and thereby kept people from overwhelming their [emergency department] and treated those people safely at home.”
Dr. Leff had no problem with Atrium’s focus on patients with COVID-19 rather than other conditions. “My guess is that they have the ability to take what they developed and apply it to other conditions. Once you have the ability to do acute care at home, you can do a lot at home.”
The biggest barrier to the spread of hospital at home remains the lack of insurer coverage. Dr. Murphy said that health plans are covering virtual physician consultations with patients in the HaH, as well as some other bits and pieces, but not the entire episode of acute care.
Dr. Leff believes that this will start changing soon. COVID-19 has altered the attitudes of physicians and hospitals toward telehealth, he noted, “and it has moved policy makers and payers to start thinking about the new models – home-based care in general and hospital at home in particular. For the first time in 25 years, payers are starting to get interested.”
Most of the authors are employees of Atrium Health. In addition, one coauthor reports being the cofounder of a digital health company, iEnroll, and receiving grants from The Heineman Foundation. Dr. Leff is an advisor to Medically Home, which provides support to hospital at home programs.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A “hospital at home” (HaH) program at Atrium Health, a large integrated delivery system in the Southeast, expanded its hospital capacity during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic by providing hospital-level acute care to COVID-19 patients at home, according to a new study in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Virtual hospital programs have the potential to provide health systems with additional inpatient capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond,” wrote Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, from the Atrium Health Hospitalist Group, Monroe, N.C., and colleagues.
Whereas most previous HaH programs have relied on visiting nurses and physicians, the new study uses telemedicine to connect with patients. Advocate Health Care researchers published the only other study using the telemedicine-powered model in 2015.
The new Atrium Health study evaluated 1,477 patients who received care in the HaH program between March 23 and May 7 of this year after having been diagnosed with COVID-19. The program provided home monitoring and hospital-level care in a home-based virtual observation unit (VOU) and a virtual acute care unit (VACU).
Patients were tested for the virus in Atrium emergency departments, primary care clinics, urgent care centers, and external testing sites. Those who tested positive were invited to be cared for either in the VOU, if they had mild to moderate symptoms, or in the VACU, if they were sick enough to be admitted to the hospital.
Patients hop onboard
Nearly all COVID-positive patients tested in these sites agreed to be admitted to the hospital at home, coauthor Stephanie Murphy, DO, medical director of the Atrium Health HaH program, said in an interview.
Patients with moderate symptoms were glad to be monitored at home, she said. When they got to the point where the nurse supervising their care felt they needed escalation to acute care, they were asked whether they wanted to continue to be cared for at home. Most opted to stay home rather than be admitted to the hospital, where their loved ones couldn’t visit them.
Low-acuity patients in the VOU received daily telemonitoring by a nurse to identify disease progression and escalate care as needed. For those who required more care and were admitted to the VACU, a team of paramedics and registered nurses (RNs; mobile clinicians) visited the patient’s home within 24 hours, setting up a hospital bed, other necessary medical equipment, videoconferencing gear, and a remote-monitoring kit that included a blood pressure cuff, a pulse oximeter, and a thermometer.
Dedicated hospitalists and nurses managed patients with 24/7 coverage and monitoring, bringing in other specialties as needed for virtual consults. Mobile clinician and virtual provider visits continued daily until a patient’s condition improved to the point where they could be deescalated back to the VOU. After that, patients received mobile app-driven symptom monitoring and telephone follow-up with a nurse until they got better.
Few patients go to hospital
Overall, patients had a median length of stay of 11 days in the VOU or the VACU or both. The vast majority, 1,293 patients (88%), received care in the VOU only. In that cohort, just 40 patients (3%) required hospitalization in an Atrium facility. Sixteen of those patients spent time in an ICU, seven required ventilator support, and two died in the hospital.
A total of 184 patients (12%) were admitted to the VACU. Twenty-one (11%) required intravenous fluids, 16 (9%) received antibiotics, 40 (22%) required inhaler or nebulizer treatments, 41 (22%) used supplemental oxygen, and 24 (13%) were admitted to a conventional hospital. Of the latter patients, 10 were admitted to an ICU, one required a ventilator, and none died in the hospital.
Dr. Sitammagari, a hospitalist and comedical director for quality at Atrium Health, told this news organization that, overall, the outcomes for patients in the system’s HaH were comparable to those seen in the literature among other COVID-19 cohorts.
Augmenting hospital capacity
The authors note that treating the 160 VACU patients within the HaH saved hospital beds for other patients. The HaH maintained a consistent census of between 20 and 30 patients for the first 6 weeks as COVID-19 cases spread.
Since last spring, Dr. Murphy said, the Atrium HaH’s daily census has grown to between 30 and 45 patients. “We could absorb 50 patients if our hospitals required it.”
How much capacity does that add to Atrium Health? While there are 50 hospitals in the health system, the HaH was set up mainly to care for COVID-19 patients who would otherwise have been admitted to the 10 acute-care hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area. In the 4 weeks ending Nov. 16, these facilities carried an average daily census of around 160 COVID-19 patients, Dr. Murphy noted. “During that time, the Atrium Health HaH has carried, on average, about 20%-25% of that census.”
If the pandemic were to overwhelm area hospitals, she added, “the structure would support flexing up our staffing and supplies to expand to crisis capacity,” which could be up to 200 patients a day.
For the nurses who make most of the phone calls to patients, patients average about 12 to 15 per RN, Dr. Murphy said, and there’s one mobile clinician for every six to nine patients. That’s pretty consistent with the staffing on med-surg floors in hospitals, she said.
The physicians in the program include hospitalists dedicated to telemedicine and some doctors who can’t work in the regular hospital because they’re immunocompromised. The physicians round virtually, covering 12-17 HaH patients per day, according to Dr. Murphy.
Prior planning paid off
Unlike some other health care systems that have launched HaH programs with the aid of outside vendors, Atrium Health developed its own HaH and brought it online just 2 weeks after deciding to launch the program. Atrium was able to do this, Dr. Sitammagari explained, because before the pandemic its hospitalist program was already developing an HaH model to improve the care of high-risk patients after hospital discharge to prevent readmission.
While Atrium’s electronic health record system wasn’t designed for hospital at home, its health information technology department and clinicians collaborated in rewriting some of the workflows and order sets in the EHR. For example, they set up a nursing questionnaire to administer after VACU admission, and they created another form for automatic admission to the HaH after a patient tested positive for COVID-19. Atrium staff also modified a patient-doctor communications app to help clinicians monitor HaH patients, Dr. Murphy noted.
Other hospital systems have gotten up to speed on HaH pretty quickly by using platforms supplied by outside vendors. Adventist Health in Los Angeles, for example, started admitting patients to its hospital at home just a month after approaching a vendor called Medically Home.
COVID vs. non-COVID patients
Atrium’s decision to focus its HaH effort on COVID-19 patients is unusual among the small but growing number of health systems that have adopted the HaH model to increase their capacity. (Atrium is now transferring some hospitalized patients with other conditions to its HaH, but is still focusing mainly on COVID-19 in its HaH program.)
Bruce Leff, MD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, a leading expert on the HaH model, agrees that it can increase hospital capacity significantly.
Dr. Leff praised the Atrium Health study. “It proves that within an integrated delivery system you can quickly deploy and implement a virtual hospital in the specific-use case of COVID, and help patients and help the system at scale,” he said. “They took a bunch of people into the virtual observation unit and thereby kept people from overwhelming their [emergency department] and treated those people safely at home.”
Dr. Leff had no problem with Atrium’s focus on patients with COVID-19 rather than other conditions. “My guess is that they have the ability to take what they developed and apply it to other conditions. Once you have the ability to do acute care at home, you can do a lot at home.”
The biggest barrier to the spread of hospital at home remains the lack of insurer coverage. Dr. Murphy said that health plans are covering virtual physician consultations with patients in the HaH, as well as some other bits and pieces, but not the entire episode of acute care.
Dr. Leff believes that this will start changing soon. COVID-19 has altered the attitudes of physicians and hospitals toward telehealth, he noted, “and it has moved policy makers and payers to start thinking about the new models – home-based care in general and hospital at home in particular. For the first time in 25 years, payers are starting to get interested.”
Most of the authors are employees of Atrium Health. In addition, one coauthor reports being the cofounder of a digital health company, iEnroll, and receiving grants from The Heineman Foundation. Dr. Leff is an advisor to Medically Home, which provides support to hospital at home programs.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Experts disagree with USPSTF’s take on pediatric blood pressure screening
Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for high blood pressure in children and adolescents, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reported in JAMA.
However, two experts in this area suggested there is evidence if you know where to look, and pediatric BP testing is crucial now.
In this update to the 2013 statement, the USPSTF’s systematic review focused on evidence surrounding the benefits of screening, test accuracy, treatment effectiveness and harms, and links between hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD) markers in childhood and adulthood.
Limited information was available on the accuracy of screening tests. No studies were found that directly evaluated screening for pediatric high BP or reported effectiveness in delayed onset or risk reduction for cardiovascular outcomes related to hypertension. Additionally, no studies were found that addressed screening for secondary hypertension in asymptomatic pediatric patients. No studies were found that evaluated the treatment of primary childhood hypertension and BP reduction or other outcomes in adulthood. The panel also was unable to identify any studies that reported on harms of screening and treatment.
When the adult framework for cardiovascular risk reduction is extended in pediatric patients, there are methodological challenges that make it harder to determine how much of the potential burden can actually be prevented, the panel said. The clinical and epidemiologic significance of percentile thresholds that are used to determine their ties to adult CVD has limited supporting evidence. Inconsistent performance characteristics of current diagnostic methods, of which there are few, tend to yield unfavorable high false-positive rates. Such false positives are potentially harmful, because they lead to “unnecessary secondary evaluations or treatments.” Because pharmacologic management of pediatric hypertension is continued for a much longer period, it is the increased likelihood of adverse events that should be cause for concern.
Should the focus for screening be shifted to significant risk factors?
In an accompanying editorial, Joseph T. Flynn, MD, MS, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, said that the outcome of the latest statement is expected, “given how the key questions were framed and the analysis performed.” To begin, he suggested restating the question: “What is the best approach to assess whether childhood BP measurement is associated with adult CVD or whether treatment of high BP in childhood is associated with reducing the burden of adult CVD?” The answer is to tackle these questions with randomized clinical trials that compare screening to no screening and treatment to no treatment. But such studies are likely infeasible, partly because of the required length of follow-up of 5-6 decades.
Perhaps a better question would be: “Does BP measurement in childhood identify children and adolescents who already have markers of CVD or who are at risk of developing them as adults?” Were these youth to be identified, they would become candidates for approaches that seek to prevent disease progression. Reframing the question in this manner better positions physicians to focus on prevention and sidestep “the requirement that the only acceptable outcome is prevention of CVD events in adulthood,” he explained.
The next step would be to identify data already available to address the reframed question. Cross-sectional studies could be used to make the association between BP levels and cardiovascular risk markers already present. For example, several publications from the multicenter Study of High Blood Pressure in Pediatrics: Adult Hypertension Onset in Youth (SHIP-AHOY), which enrolled roughly 400 youth, provided data that reinforce prior single-center studies that essentially proved there are adverse consequences for youth with high BP, and they “set the stage for the institution of measures designed to reverse target-organ damage and reduce cardiovascular risk in youth,” said Dr. Flynn.
More specifically, results from SHIP-AHOY “have demonstrated that increased left ventricular mass can be demonstrated at BP levels currently classified as normotensive and that abnormal left ventricular function can be seen at similar BP levels,” Dr. Flynn noted. In addition, “they have established a substantial association between an abnormal metabolic phenotype and several forms of target-organ damage associated with high BP.”
One approach is to analyze longitudinal cohort studies
Because there is a paucity of prospective clinical trials, Dr. Flynn suggested that analyzing longitudinal cohort studies would be the most effective approach for evaluating the potential link between current BP levels and future CVD. Such studies already have “data that address an important point raised in the USPSTF statement, namely whether the pediatric percentile-based BP cut points, such as those in the 2017 AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] guideline, are associated with adult hypertension and CVD,” noted Dr. Flynn. “In the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort Consortium study, the specific childhood BP levels that were associated with increased adult carotid intima-medial thickness were remarkably similar to the BP percentile cut points in the AAP guideline for children of similar ages.”
Analysis of data from the Bogalusa Heart Study found looking at children classified as having high BP by the 2017 AAP guideline had “increased relative risks of having hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, or metabolic syndrome as adults 36 years later.”
“The conclusions of the USPSTF statement underscore the need for additional research on childhood high BP and its association with adult CVD. The starting points for such research can be deduced from currently available cross-sectional and longitudinal data, which demonstrate the detrimental outcomes associated with high BP in youth. Using these data to reframe and answer the questions raised by the USPSTF should point the way toward effective prevention of adult CVD,” concluded Dr. Flynn.
In a separate interview, Kristen Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, medical director of the preventive cardiology clinic at Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston, noted that in spite of USPSTF’s findings, there is actually an association between children with high blood pressure and intermediate outcomes in adults.
“Dr. Flynn suggests reframing the question. In fact, evidence exists that children with high blood pressure are at higher risk of left ventricular hypertrophy, increased arterial stiffness, and changes in retinal arteries,” noted Dr. Sexson Tejtel.
Evidence of pediatric heart damage has been documented in autopsies
“It is imperative that children have blood pressure evaluation,” she urged. “There is evidence that there are changes similar to those seen in adults with cardiovascular compromise. It has been shown that children dying of other causes [accidents] who have these problems also have more plaque on autopsy, indicating that those with high blood pressure are more likely to have markers of CVD already present in childhood.
“One of the keys of pediatric medicine is prevention and the counseling for prevention of adult diseases. The duration of study necessary to objectively determine whether treatment of hypertension in childhood reduces the risk of adult cardiac problems is extensive. If nothing is done now, we are putting more future generations in danger. We must provide appropriate counseling for children and their families regarding lifestyle improvements, to have a chance to improve cardiovascular risk factors in adults, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia and/or obesity,” urged Dr. Sexson Tejtel.
All members of the USPSTF received travel reimbursement and honoraria. Dr. Barry received grants and personal fees from Healthwise. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. Dr. Flynn reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and royalties from UpToDate and Springer outside the submitted work. Dr. Sexson Tejtel said she had no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: USPSTF. JAMA. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.20122.
Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for high blood pressure in children and adolescents, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reported in JAMA.
However, two experts in this area suggested there is evidence if you know where to look, and pediatric BP testing is crucial now.
In this update to the 2013 statement, the USPSTF’s systematic review focused on evidence surrounding the benefits of screening, test accuracy, treatment effectiveness and harms, and links between hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD) markers in childhood and adulthood.
Limited information was available on the accuracy of screening tests. No studies were found that directly evaluated screening for pediatric high BP or reported effectiveness in delayed onset or risk reduction for cardiovascular outcomes related to hypertension. Additionally, no studies were found that addressed screening for secondary hypertension in asymptomatic pediatric patients. No studies were found that evaluated the treatment of primary childhood hypertension and BP reduction or other outcomes in adulthood. The panel also was unable to identify any studies that reported on harms of screening and treatment.
When the adult framework for cardiovascular risk reduction is extended in pediatric patients, there are methodological challenges that make it harder to determine how much of the potential burden can actually be prevented, the panel said. The clinical and epidemiologic significance of percentile thresholds that are used to determine their ties to adult CVD has limited supporting evidence. Inconsistent performance characteristics of current diagnostic methods, of which there are few, tend to yield unfavorable high false-positive rates. Such false positives are potentially harmful, because they lead to “unnecessary secondary evaluations or treatments.” Because pharmacologic management of pediatric hypertension is continued for a much longer period, it is the increased likelihood of adverse events that should be cause for concern.
Should the focus for screening be shifted to significant risk factors?
In an accompanying editorial, Joseph T. Flynn, MD, MS, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, said that the outcome of the latest statement is expected, “given how the key questions were framed and the analysis performed.” To begin, he suggested restating the question: “What is the best approach to assess whether childhood BP measurement is associated with adult CVD or whether treatment of high BP in childhood is associated with reducing the burden of adult CVD?” The answer is to tackle these questions with randomized clinical trials that compare screening to no screening and treatment to no treatment. But such studies are likely infeasible, partly because of the required length of follow-up of 5-6 decades.
Perhaps a better question would be: “Does BP measurement in childhood identify children and adolescents who already have markers of CVD or who are at risk of developing them as adults?” Were these youth to be identified, they would become candidates for approaches that seek to prevent disease progression. Reframing the question in this manner better positions physicians to focus on prevention and sidestep “the requirement that the only acceptable outcome is prevention of CVD events in adulthood,” he explained.
The next step would be to identify data already available to address the reframed question. Cross-sectional studies could be used to make the association between BP levels and cardiovascular risk markers already present. For example, several publications from the multicenter Study of High Blood Pressure in Pediatrics: Adult Hypertension Onset in Youth (SHIP-AHOY), which enrolled roughly 400 youth, provided data that reinforce prior single-center studies that essentially proved there are adverse consequences for youth with high BP, and they “set the stage for the institution of measures designed to reverse target-organ damage and reduce cardiovascular risk in youth,” said Dr. Flynn.
More specifically, results from SHIP-AHOY “have demonstrated that increased left ventricular mass can be demonstrated at BP levels currently classified as normotensive and that abnormal left ventricular function can be seen at similar BP levels,” Dr. Flynn noted. In addition, “they have established a substantial association between an abnormal metabolic phenotype and several forms of target-organ damage associated with high BP.”
One approach is to analyze longitudinal cohort studies
Because there is a paucity of prospective clinical trials, Dr. Flynn suggested that analyzing longitudinal cohort studies would be the most effective approach for evaluating the potential link between current BP levels and future CVD. Such studies already have “data that address an important point raised in the USPSTF statement, namely whether the pediatric percentile-based BP cut points, such as those in the 2017 AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] guideline, are associated with adult hypertension and CVD,” noted Dr. Flynn. “In the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort Consortium study, the specific childhood BP levels that were associated with increased adult carotid intima-medial thickness were remarkably similar to the BP percentile cut points in the AAP guideline for children of similar ages.”
Analysis of data from the Bogalusa Heart Study found looking at children classified as having high BP by the 2017 AAP guideline had “increased relative risks of having hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, or metabolic syndrome as adults 36 years later.”
“The conclusions of the USPSTF statement underscore the need for additional research on childhood high BP and its association with adult CVD. The starting points for such research can be deduced from currently available cross-sectional and longitudinal data, which demonstrate the detrimental outcomes associated with high BP in youth. Using these data to reframe and answer the questions raised by the USPSTF should point the way toward effective prevention of adult CVD,” concluded Dr. Flynn.
In a separate interview, Kristen Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, medical director of the preventive cardiology clinic at Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston, noted that in spite of USPSTF’s findings, there is actually an association between children with high blood pressure and intermediate outcomes in adults.
“Dr. Flynn suggests reframing the question. In fact, evidence exists that children with high blood pressure are at higher risk of left ventricular hypertrophy, increased arterial stiffness, and changes in retinal arteries,” noted Dr. Sexson Tejtel.
Evidence of pediatric heart damage has been documented in autopsies
“It is imperative that children have blood pressure evaluation,” she urged. “There is evidence that there are changes similar to those seen in adults with cardiovascular compromise. It has been shown that children dying of other causes [accidents] who have these problems also have more plaque on autopsy, indicating that those with high blood pressure are more likely to have markers of CVD already present in childhood.
“One of the keys of pediatric medicine is prevention and the counseling for prevention of adult diseases. The duration of study necessary to objectively determine whether treatment of hypertension in childhood reduces the risk of adult cardiac problems is extensive. If nothing is done now, we are putting more future generations in danger. We must provide appropriate counseling for children and their families regarding lifestyle improvements, to have a chance to improve cardiovascular risk factors in adults, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia and/or obesity,” urged Dr. Sexson Tejtel.
All members of the USPSTF received travel reimbursement and honoraria. Dr. Barry received grants and personal fees from Healthwise. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. Dr. Flynn reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and royalties from UpToDate and Springer outside the submitted work. Dr. Sexson Tejtel said she had no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: USPSTF. JAMA. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.20122.
Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for high blood pressure in children and adolescents, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reported in JAMA.
However, two experts in this area suggested there is evidence if you know where to look, and pediatric BP testing is crucial now.
In this update to the 2013 statement, the USPSTF’s systematic review focused on evidence surrounding the benefits of screening, test accuracy, treatment effectiveness and harms, and links between hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD) markers in childhood and adulthood.
Limited information was available on the accuracy of screening tests. No studies were found that directly evaluated screening for pediatric high BP or reported effectiveness in delayed onset or risk reduction for cardiovascular outcomes related to hypertension. Additionally, no studies were found that addressed screening for secondary hypertension in asymptomatic pediatric patients. No studies were found that evaluated the treatment of primary childhood hypertension and BP reduction or other outcomes in adulthood. The panel also was unable to identify any studies that reported on harms of screening and treatment.
When the adult framework for cardiovascular risk reduction is extended in pediatric patients, there are methodological challenges that make it harder to determine how much of the potential burden can actually be prevented, the panel said. The clinical and epidemiologic significance of percentile thresholds that are used to determine their ties to adult CVD has limited supporting evidence. Inconsistent performance characteristics of current diagnostic methods, of which there are few, tend to yield unfavorable high false-positive rates. Such false positives are potentially harmful, because they lead to “unnecessary secondary evaluations or treatments.” Because pharmacologic management of pediatric hypertension is continued for a much longer period, it is the increased likelihood of adverse events that should be cause for concern.
Should the focus for screening be shifted to significant risk factors?
In an accompanying editorial, Joseph T. Flynn, MD, MS, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, said that the outcome of the latest statement is expected, “given how the key questions were framed and the analysis performed.” To begin, he suggested restating the question: “What is the best approach to assess whether childhood BP measurement is associated with adult CVD or whether treatment of high BP in childhood is associated with reducing the burden of adult CVD?” The answer is to tackle these questions with randomized clinical trials that compare screening to no screening and treatment to no treatment. But such studies are likely infeasible, partly because of the required length of follow-up of 5-6 decades.
Perhaps a better question would be: “Does BP measurement in childhood identify children and adolescents who already have markers of CVD or who are at risk of developing them as adults?” Were these youth to be identified, they would become candidates for approaches that seek to prevent disease progression. Reframing the question in this manner better positions physicians to focus on prevention and sidestep “the requirement that the only acceptable outcome is prevention of CVD events in adulthood,” he explained.
The next step would be to identify data already available to address the reframed question. Cross-sectional studies could be used to make the association between BP levels and cardiovascular risk markers already present. For example, several publications from the multicenter Study of High Blood Pressure in Pediatrics: Adult Hypertension Onset in Youth (SHIP-AHOY), which enrolled roughly 400 youth, provided data that reinforce prior single-center studies that essentially proved there are adverse consequences for youth with high BP, and they “set the stage for the institution of measures designed to reverse target-organ damage and reduce cardiovascular risk in youth,” said Dr. Flynn.
More specifically, results from SHIP-AHOY “have demonstrated that increased left ventricular mass can be demonstrated at BP levels currently classified as normotensive and that abnormal left ventricular function can be seen at similar BP levels,” Dr. Flynn noted. In addition, “they have established a substantial association between an abnormal metabolic phenotype and several forms of target-organ damage associated with high BP.”
One approach is to analyze longitudinal cohort studies
Because there is a paucity of prospective clinical trials, Dr. Flynn suggested that analyzing longitudinal cohort studies would be the most effective approach for evaluating the potential link between current BP levels and future CVD. Such studies already have “data that address an important point raised in the USPSTF statement, namely whether the pediatric percentile-based BP cut points, such as those in the 2017 AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] guideline, are associated with adult hypertension and CVD,” noted Dr. Flynn. “In the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohort Consortium study, the specific childhood BP levels that were associated with increased adult carotid intima-medial thickness were remarkably similar to the BP percentile cut points in the AAP guideline for children of similar ages.”
Analysis of data from the Bogalusa Heart Study found looking at children classified as having high BP by the 2017 AAP guideline had “increased relative risks of having hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, or metabolic syndrome as adults 36 years later.”
“The conclusions of the USPSTF statement underscore the need for additional research on childhood high BP and its association with adult CVD. The starting points for such research can be deduced from currently available cross-sectional and longitudinal data, which demonstrate the detrimental outcomes associated with high BP in youth. Using these data to reframe and answer the questions raised by the USPSTF should point the way toward effective prevention of adult CVD,” concluded Dr. Flynn.
In a separate interview, Kristen Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, medical director of the preventive cardiology clinic at Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston, noted that in spite of USPSTF’s findings, there is actually an association between children with high blood pressure and intermediate outcomes in adults.
“Dr. Flynn suggests reframing the question. In fact, evidence exists that children with high blood pressure are at higher risk of left ventricular hypertrophy, increased arterial stiffness, and changes in retinal arteries,” noted Dr. Sexson Tejtel.
Evidence of pediatric heart damage has been documented in autopsies
“It is imperative that children have blood pressure evaluation,” she urged. “There is evidence that there are changes similar to those seen in adults with cardiovascular compromise. It has been shown that children dying of other causes [accidents] who have these problems also have more plaque on autopsy, indicating that those with high blood pressure are more likely to have markers of CVD already present in childhood.
“One of the keys of pediatric medicine is prevention and the counseling for prevention of adult diseases. The duration of study necessary to objectively determine whether treatment of hypertension in childhood reduces the risk of adult cardiac problems is extensive. If nothing is done now, we are putting more future generations in danger. We must provide appropriate counseling for children and their families regarding lifestyle improvements, to have a chance to improve cardiovascular risk factors in adults, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia and/or obesity,” urged Dr. Sexson Tejtel.
All members of the USPSTF received travel reimbursement and honoraria. Dr. Barry received grants and personal fees from Healthwise. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. Dr. Flynn reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and royalties from UpToDate and Springer outside the submitted work. Dr. Sexson Tejtel said she had no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: USPSTF. JAMA. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.20122.
FROM JAMA
Myocarditis rare, macrophage infiltration common at COVID autopsy
An international autopsy study of 21 patients who died from COVID-19 has shown the presence of multifocal lymphocytic myocarditis in three patients (14%). In an additional six patients, focally increased interstitial T-lymphocytes within the myocardium were noted, with only focal or no myocyte injury.
However, increased interstitial macrophage infiltration, possibly related to cytokine infiltration, was seen in 86% of patients.
“One way to think about this is that, if these patients were having biopsies and not autopsies, there would be myocardial injury in the patients with myocarditis, even after they recovered. But with interstitial macrophages, there may or may not be any injury,” said cardiovascular pathologist James R. Stone, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Dr. Stone and colleagues from Mass General, two hospitals in Italy, the University of Amsterdam, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., conducted the autopsies in March and April. The results were published in the October 14 issue of the European Heart Journal.
Their technique was rigorous: a median of 20 full-thickness blocks of myocardium were examined histologically (range, 5-29 blocks).
The presence of myocarditis, defined by the presence of multiple foci of inflammation with associated myocyte injury, was determined, and the inflammatory cell composition analyzed by immunohistochemistry.
“I think one of the take-homes from this study is that you have to do a thorough sampling of the heart in order to exclude myocardial injury. You cannot exclude myocarditis with just a biopsy or two,” said Dr. Stone in an interview.
“We looked at multiple different sections of tissue preserved in paraffin for every case and found only 14% had myocarditis. The vast majority of autopsies done on patients dying from COVID-19 have short-changed the autopsy and not been done in a way to exclude myocarditis,” he added.
For all patients, COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death, but the mechanisms of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome in 15, viral pneumonia in 4, cardiogenic shock in 1, and cardiac arrest in 1. Seven patients had a history of cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation in four, coronary artery disease in three, left ventricular hypertrophy in one, and previous valve replacement in one. A total of 16 had hypertension, 7 had diabetes mellitus, and 1 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In four cases, mild pericarditis was present. Acute myocyte injury in the right ventricle, most probably from strain or overload, was also present in four cases.
A nonsignificant trend was seen toward higher serum troponin levels in the patients with myocarditis compared with those without myocarditis. There were no reports of disrupted coronary artery plaques, coronary artery aneurysms, or large pulmonary emboli.
Macrophage infiltration rather than myocarditis, myocardial injury?
The study sheds more light on previous cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging findings that have suggested that many patients who recover from COVID-19 show signs suggestive of myocarditis. These earlier studies include a recent one in competitive athletes and the earlier Puntmann and colleagues study of relatively young COVID-19 patients, which showed ongoing myocardial involvement in a majority of patients.
“It would not surprise me if some or all of the cardiac MR changes seen in some of these recent imaging studies are due to the macrophages,” said Dr. Stone.
“What we saw was not a routine pathology by any means. It was a huge amount of macrophages, higher that what we saw in SARS and more similar to a study published in 2007 that looked at patients with bacterial sepsis,” said Dr. Stone.
In an older study of SARS patients, 35% had the virus detected in myocardial tissue by polymerase chain reaction. In that subset, the degree of myocardial macrophage infiltrate was comparable to that seen in 86% of the COVID-19 cases described in this series.
Another possibility is that the macrophage infiltration reflects underlying disease rather than COVID-19. All but one of the patients had known underlying medical conditions associated with cardiac remodeling, said Nikolaos G. Frangogiannis, MD, a cardiologist who studies the mechanisms of cardiac injury, repair, and remodeling.
Frangogiannis, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote an editorial that accompanied the autopsy study.
“The problem with this finding of increased macrophage infiltration is that it’s very hard to interpret because as we age, and especially in a less healthy population, the numbers and the density of macrophages in the heart increase, so it’s impossible to interpret as an effect of the infection itself unless you have an appropriate control population that matches the same characteristics, which is almost impossible to ask for,” he said.
“I’ve observed since the beginning of the pandemic that there seemed to be some people who wanted every single case to be myocarditis and others who had a bias toward not wanting COVID-19 to be a cause of myocarditis. I think what we’re seeing is it’s not either/or for anything with this virus, it’s a bit of everything,” said Dr. Stone.
Dr. Stone and Dr. Frangogiannis reported no conflict of interest.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
An international autopsy study of 21 patients who died from COVID-19 has shown the presence of multifocal lymphocytic myocarditis in three patients (14%). In an additional six patients, focally increased interstitial T-lymphocytes within the myocardium were noted, with only focal or no myocyte injury.
However, increased interstitial macrophage infiltration, possibly related to cytokine infiltration, was seen in 86% of patients.
“One way to think about this is that, if these patients were having biopsies and not autopsies, there would be myocardial injury in the patients with myocarditis, even after they recovered. But with interstitial macrophages, there may or may not be any injury,” said cardiovascular pathologist James R. Stone, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Dr. Stone and colleagues from Mass General, two hospitals in Italy, the University of Amsterdam, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., conducted the autopsies in March and April. The results were published in the October 14 issue of the European Heart Journal.
Their technique was rigorous: a median of 20 full-thickness blocks of myocardium were examined histologically (range, 5-29 blocks).
The presence of myocarditis, defined by the presence of multiple foci of inflammation with associated myocyte injury, was determined, and the inflammatory cell composition analyzed by immunohistochemistry.
“I think one of the take-homes from this study is that you have to do a thorough sampling of the heart in order to exclude myocardial injury. You cannot exclude myocarditis with just a biopsy or two,” said Dr. Stone in an interview.
“We looked at multiple different sections of tissue preserved in paraffin for every case and found only 14% had myocarditis. The vast majority of autopsies done on patients dying from COVID-19 have short-changed the autopsy and not been done in a way to exclude myocarditis,” he added.
For all patients, COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death, but the mechanisms of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome in 15, viral pneumonia in 4, cardiogenic shock in 1, and cardiac arrest in 1. Seven patients had a history of cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation in four, coronary artery disease in three, left ventricular hypertrophy in one, and previous valve replacement in one. A total of 16 had hypertension, 7 had diabetes mellitus, and 1 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In four cases, mild pericarditis was present. Acute myocyte injury in the right ventricle, most probably from strain or overload, was also present in four cases.
A nonsignificant trend was seen toward higher serum troponin levels in the patients with myocarditis compared with those without myocarditis. There were no reports of disrupted coronary artery plaques, coronary artery aneurysms, or large pulmonary emboli.
Macrophage infiltration rather than myocarditis, myocardial injury?
The study sheds more light on previous cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging findings that have suggested that many patients who recover from COVID-19 show signs suggestive of myocarditis. These earlier studies include a recent one in competitive athletes and the earlier Puntmann and colleagues study of relatively young COVID-19 patients, which showed ongoing myocardial involvement in a majority of patients.
“It would not surprise me if some or all of the cardiac MR changes seen in some of these recent imaging studies are due to the macrophages,” said Dr. Stone.
“What we saw was not a routine pathology by any means. It was a huge amount of macrophages, higher that what we saw in SARS and more similar to a study published in 2007 that looked at patients with bacterial sepsis,” said Dr. Stone.
In an older study of SARS patients, 35% had the virus detected in myocardial tissue by polymerase chain reaction. In that subset, the degree of myocardial macrophage infiltrate was comparable to that seen in 86% of the COVID-19 cases described in this series.
Another possibility is that the macrophage infiltration reflects underlying disease rather than COVID-19. All but one of the patients had known underlying medical conditions associated with cardiac remodeling, said Nikolaos G. Frangogiannis, MD, a cardiologist who studies the mechanisms of cardiac injury, repair, and remodeling.
Frangogiannis, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote an editorial that accompanied the autopsy study.
“The problem with this finding of increased macrophage infiltration is that it’s very hard to interpret because as we age, and especially in a less healthy population, the numbers and the density of macrophages in the heart increase, so it’s impossible to interpret as an effect of the infection itself unless you have an appropriate control population that matches the same characteristics, which is almost impossible to ask for,” he said.
“I’ve observed since the beginning of the pandemic that there seemed to be some people who wanted every single case to be myocarditis and others who had a bias toward not wanting COVID-19 to be a cause of myocarditis. I think what we’re seeing is it’s not either/or for anything with this virus, it’s a bit of everything,” said Dr. Stone.
Dr. Stone and Dr. Frangogiannis reported no conflict of interest.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
An international autopsy study of 21 patients who died from COVID-19 has shown the presence of multifocal lymphocytic myocarditis in three patients (14%). In an additional six patients, focally increased interstitial T-lymphocytes within the myocardium were noted, with only focal or no myocyte injury.
However, increased interstitial macrophage infiltration, possibly related to cytokine infiltration, was seen in 86% of patients.
“One way to think about this is that, if these patients were having biopsies and not autopsies, there would be myocardial injury in the patients with myocarditis, even after they recovered. But with interstitial macrophages, there may or may not be any injury,” said cardiovascular pathologist James R. Stone, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Dr. Stone and colleagues from Mass General, two hospitals in Italy, the University of Amsterdam, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., conducted the autopsies in March and April. The results were published in the October 14 issue of the European Heart Journal.
Their technique was rigorous: a median of 20 full-thickness blocks of myocardium were examined histologically (range, 5-29 blocks).
The presence of myocarditis, defined by the presence of multiple foci of inflammation with associated myocyte injury, was determined, and the inflammatory cell composition analyzed by immunohistochemistry.
“I think one of the take-homes from this study is that you have to do a thorough sampling of the heart in order to exclude myocardial injury. You cannot exclude myocarditis with just a biopsy or two,” said Dr. Stone in an interview.
“We looked at multiple different sections of tissue preserved in paraffin for every case and found only 14% had myocarditis. The vast majority of autopsies done on patients dying from COVID-19 have short-changed the autopsy and not been done in a way to exclude myocarditis,” he added.
For all patients, COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death, but the mechanisms of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome in 15, viral pneumonia in 4, cardiogenic shock in 1, and cardiac arrest in 1. Seven patients had a history of cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation in four, coronary artery disease in three, left ventricular hypertrophy in one, and previous valve replacement in one. A total of 16 had hypertension, 7 had diabetes mellitus, and 1 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In four cases, mild pericarditis was present. Acute myocyte injury in the right ventricle, most probably from strain or overload, was also present in four cases.
A nonsignificant trend was seen toward higher serum troponin levels in the patients with myocarditis compared with those without myocarditis. There were no reports of disrupted coronary artery plaques, coronary artery aneurysms, or large pulmonary emboli.
Macrophage infiltration rather than myocarditis, myocardial injury?
The study sheds more light on previous cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging findings that have suggested that many patients who recover from COVID-19 show signs suggestive of myocarditis. These earlier studies include a recent one in competitive athletes and the earlier Puntmann and colleagues study of relatively young COVID-19 patients, which showed ongoing myocardial involvement in a majority of patients.
“It would not surprise me if some or all of the cardiac MR changes seen in some of these recent imaging studies are due to the macrophages,” said Dr. Stone.
“What we saw was not a routine pathology by any means. It was a huge amount of macrophages, higher that what we saw in SARS and more similar to a study published in 2007 that looked at patients with bacterial sepsis,” said Dr. Stone.
In an older study of SARS patients, 35% had the virus detected in myocardial tissue by polymerase chain reaction. In that subset, the degree of myocardial macrophage infiltrate was comparable to that seen in 86% of the COVID-19 cases described in this series.
Another possibility is that the macrophage infiltration reflects underlying disease rather than COVID-19. All but one of the patients had known underlying medical conditions associated with cardiac remodeling, said Nikolaos G. Frangogiannis, MD, a cardiologist who studies the mechanisms of cardiac injury, repair, and remodeling.
Frangogiannis, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote an editorial that accompanied the autopsy study.
“The problem with this finding of increased macrophage infiltration is that it’s very hard to interpret because as we age, and especially in a less healthy population, the numbers and the density of macrophages in the heart increase, so it’s impossible to interpret as an effect of the infection itself unless you have an appropriate control population that matches the same characteristics, which is almost impossible to ask for,” he said.
“I’ve observed since the beginning of the pandemic that there seemed to be some people who wanted every single case to be myocarditis and others who had a bias toward not wanting COVID-19 to be a cause of myocarditis. I think what we’re seeing is it’s not either/or for anything with this virus, it’s a bit of everything,” said Dr. Stone.
Dr. Stone and Dr. Frangogiannis reported no conflict of interest.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Painful ethical choices in 2020 vs. 2010: How has thinking changed?
Much has changed in the 10 years since Medscape’s first survey on what physicians would do when faced with painful choices in patient care.
A new report, Ethics 2020: Life, Death, and Painful Dilemmas, shows that physicians’ value judgments have shifted in many respects, sometimes as a result of increased regulations and fears of litigation.
End-of-life decisions
Several of the questions in the survey revolved around end-of-life decisions, and in some cases, the differences seen in just a decade were striking. One example concerned life support decisions in the context of a family’s choices.
Age also seemed to play a role in the 2020 answers to that question: Physicians younger than 45 were more likely (28%) to answer “yes” (that they would withdraw life support in that instance) than were those 45 and older (16%).
A critical care physician said, “If the family appears to have an underlying motivation that may not be in the patient’s best interest, I might be inclined to pursue a legal decision prior to withdrawing support.”
A cardiologist had a more pointed response to the question: “To me, that would be murder.”
Another example of how perspectives have changed over the past 10 years concerns whether physician-aided dying should be legal for terminally ill patients. The practice is now mandated by law in eight states and the District of Columbia, and it is mandated by court ruling in two additional states.
In 2010, 41% said “no.” That number dropped to 28% in 2020.
On legalization, a psychiatrist said, “Yes, when there is truly no hope and the quality of remaining life is too poor. We show more compassion to our sick animals than we do to our human population.”
Conversely, a neurologist answered, “No, I see younger physicians already becoming comfortable with the idea of deciding ASAP whether there is a reasonable chance of survival and then pressing for the right code status. This change would make things worse.”
Assisted death and incurable suffering
Far fewer physicians supported physician-assisted death for those who had years to live but faced incurable suffering: Thirty-seven percent said “yes,” 34% said “no,” and 29% said “it depends.”
However, support was significantly higher than it was just 2 years ago, in 2018, when only 27% supported the concept, the report authors noted.
“The shift reflects movements by many states to legalize assisted dying for the terminally ill,” Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics, New York University, said in the report. “Legalization has not been abused, so some doctors are more willing to press further beyond terminal illness as a trigger to suffering.”
Conversely, many more physicians (44% vs. 24% a decade ago) said they would provide life-sustaining therapy if the family requested it, even if the physician thought it was futile.
“Concerns over a malpractice lawsuit and potential negative patient/family online reviews are factors that play into this change,” the survey authors wrote.
Shared decision making also increased in the past decade.
Would you undertreat pain?
Primary care physicians fear the consequences of what they consider adequate pain management more than specialists do (24% vs. 17%), the survey authors noted.
Ten years ago, Medscape asked physicians whether they would undertreat a patient’s pain because of fear of repercussions or the patient’s becoming addicted: Eighty-four percent said “no,” and 6% said “yes.” The rest said “it depends.”
In 2020, the question was asked slightly differently: “Would you undertreat a patient’s pain for fear of addiction or Drug Enforcement Administration or medical board scrutiny?” This year, three times as many said “yes” (18%); 63% said “no.”
“Respondents this year talked about investigations and reprimands by medical boards, and how much they wanted to avoid that,” the survey authors wrote.
Should physicians be required to treat COVID-19 patients?
Some questions were new this year, including one on whether physicians should be required to treat COVID-19 patients. Fewer than half (47%) answered “yes,” 24% said “no,” and 29% answered “it depends.”
Doctors’ answers to this question differed slightly by gender: Fifty percent of men and 43% of women said “yes.” In their responses, many physicians said consideration should be given to risk factors, such as age, underlying conditions, risk of family members, and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE).
Another pandemic-related question asked whether physicians felt they should correct physicians who post misinformation about the pandemic on social media. Half (50%) said “yes,” 19% said “no,” and 31% said “it depends.”
Speaking out against the workplace
This year, many physicians have felt betrayed when they didn’t have adequate PPE during the pandemic.
Asked, “Is it right to speak out against your hospital or workplace when they don’t give you what you need?” 53% of physicians said “yes,” 8% said “no,” and 40% said “it depends.”
A cardiologist made the value judgment this way: “Speaking out just because you had an argument with your boss is inappropriate. Bringing to the public repeated failures to correct situations that have been brought through the proper channels is necessary to incite change.”
Random drug testing for physicians?
Another question in the survey asked whether physicians should be subjected to random drug testing for alcohol and drug abuse. About one-third (34%) said yes, 43% said no, and 23% said “it depends.” A study found that between 10% and 15% of physicians have abused a substance at some point in their careers.
The subject continues to hit a nerve in medicine.
A family physician wrote, “This should not be done unless a particular physician had a problem with drug or alcohol abuse and shows signs of impairment.”
An internist took a different view, saying, “Military service men and women, police, firefighters, airline pilots, and other professions that have responsibilities affecting people’s lives are subject to testing; why not physicians?”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Much has changed in the 10 years since Medscape’s first survey on what physicians would do when faced with painful choices in patient care.
A new report, Ethics 2020: Life, Death, and Painful Dilemmas, shows that physicians’ value judgments have shifted in many respects, sometimes as a result of increased regulations and fears of litigation.
End-of-life decisions
Several of the questions in the survey revolved around end-of-life decisions, and in some cases, the differences seen in just a decade were striking. One example concerned life support decisions in the context of a family’s choices.
Age also seemed to play a role in the 2020 answers to that question: Physicians younger than 45 were more likely (28%) to answer “yes” (that they would withdraw life support in that instance) than were those 45 and older (16%).
A critical care physician said, “If the family appears to have an underlying motivation that may not be in the patient’s best interest, I might be inclined to pursue a legal decision prior to withdrawing support.”
A cardiologist had a more pointed response to the question: “To me, that would be murder.”
Another example of how perspectives have changed over the past 10 years concerns whether physician-aided dying should be legal for terminally ill patients. The practice is now mandated by law in eight states and the District of Columbia, and it is mandated by court ruling in two additional states.
In 2010, 41% said “no.” That number dropped to 28% in 2020.
On legalization, a psychiatrist said, “Yes, when there is truly no hope and the quality of remaining life is too poor. We show more compassion to our sick animals than we do to our human population.”
Conversely, a neurologist answered, “No, I see younger physicians already becoming comfortable with the idea of deciding ASAP whether there is a reasonable chance of survival and then pressing for the right code status. This change would make things worse.”
Assisted death and incurable suffering
Far fewer physicians supported physician-assisted death for those who had years to live but faced incurable suffering: Thirty-seven percent said “yes,” 34% said “no,” and 29% said “it depends.”
However, support was significantly higher than it was just 2 years ago, in 2018, when only 27% supported the concept, the report authors noted.
“The shift reflects movements by many states to legalize assisted dying for the terminally ill,” Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics, New York University, said in the report. “Legalization has not been abused, so some doctors are more willing to press further beyond terminal illness as a trigger to suffering.”
Conversely, many more physicians (44% vs. 24% a decade ago) said they would provide life-sustaining therapy if the family requested it, even if the physician thought it was futile.
“Concerns over a malpractice lawsuit and potential negative patient/family online reviews are factors that play into this change,” the survey authors wrote.
Shared decision making also increased in the past decade.
Would you undertreat pain?
Primary care physicians fear the consequences of what they consider adequate pain management more than specialists do (24% vs. 17%), the survey authors noted.
Ten years ago, Medscape asked physicians whether they would undertreat a patient’s pain because of fear of repercussions or the patient’s becoming addicted: Eighty-four percent said “no,” and 6% said “yes.” The rest said “it depends.”
In 2020, the question was asked slightly differently: “Would you undertreat a patient’s pain for fear of addiction or Drug Enforcement Administration or medical board scrutiny?” This year, three times as many said “yes” (18%); 63% said “no.”
“Respondents this year talked about investigations and reprimands by medical boards, and how much they wanted to avoid that,” the survey authors wrote.
Should physicians be required to treat COVID-19 patients?
Some questions were new this year, including one on whether physicians should be required to treat COVID-19 patients. Fewer than half (47%) answered “yes,” 24% said “no,” and 29% answered “it depends.”
Doctors’ answers to this question differed slightly by gender: Fifty percent of men and 43% of women said “yes.” In their responses, many physicians said consideration should be given to risk factors, such as age, underlying conditions, risk of family members, and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE).
Another pandemic-related question asked whether physicians felt they should correct physicians who post misinformation about the pandemic on social media. Half (50%) said “yes,” 19% said “no,” and 31% said “it depends.”
Speaking out against the workplace
This year, many physicians have felt betrayed when they didn’t have adequate PPE during the pandemic.
Asked, “Is it right to speak out against your hospital or workplace when they don’t give you what you need?” 53% of physicians said “yes,” 8% said “no,” and 40% said “it depends.”
A cardiologist made the value judgment this way: “Speaking out just because you had an argument with your boss is inappropriate. Bringing to the public repeated failures to correct situations that have been brought through the proper channels is necessary to incite change.”
Random drug testing for physicians?
Another question in the survey asked whether physicians should be subjected to random drug testing for alcohol and drug abuse. About one-third (34%) said yes, 43% said no, and 23% said “it depends.” A study found that between 10% and 15% of physicians have abused a substance at some point in their careers.
The subject continues to hit a nerve in medicine.
A family physician wrote, “This should not be done unless a particular physician had a problem with drug or alcohol abuse and shows signs of impairment.”
An internist took a different view, saying, “Military service men and women, police, firefighters, airline pilots, and other professions that have responsibilities affecting people’s lives are subject to testing; why not physicians?”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Much has changed in the 10 years since Medscape’s first survey on what physicians would do when faced with painful choices in patient care.
A new report, Ethics 2020: Life, Death, and Painful Dilemmas, shows that physicians’ value judgments have shifted in many respects, sometimes as a result of increased regulations and fears of litigation.
End-of-life decisions
Several of the questions in the survey revolved around end-of-life decisions, and in some cases, the differences seen in just a decade were striking. One example concerned life support decisions in the context of a family’s choices.
Age also seemed to play a role in the 2020 answers to that question: Physicians younger than 45 were more likely (28%) to answer “yes” (that they would withdraw life support in that instance) than were those 45 and older (16%).
A critical care physician said, “If the family appears to have an underlying motivation that may not be in the patient’s best interest, I might be inclined to pursue a legal decision prior to withdrawing support.”
A cardiologist had a more pointed response to the question: “To me, that would be murder.”
Another example of how perspectives have changed over the past 10 years concerns whether physician-aided dying should be legal for terminally ill patients. The practice is now mandated by law in eight states and the District of Columbia, and it is mandated by court ruling in two additional states.
In 2010, 41% said “no.” That number dropped to 28% in 2020.
On legalization, a psychiatrist said, “Yes, when there is truly no hope and the quality of remaining life is too poor. We show more compassion to our sick animals than we do to our human population.”
Conversely, a neurologist answered, “No, I see younger physicians already becoming comfortable with the idea of deciding ASAP whether there is a reasonable chance of survival and then pressing for the right code status. This change would make things worse.”
Assisted death and incurable suffering
Far fewer physicians supported physician-assisted death for those who had years to live but faced incurable suffering: Thirty-seven percent said “yes,” 34% said “no,” and 29% said “it depends.”
However, support was significantly higher than it was just 2 years ago, in 2018, when only 27% supported the concept, the report authors noted.
“The shift reflects movements by many states to legalize assisted dying for the terminally ill,” Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics, New York University, said in the report. “Legalization has not been abused, so some doctors are more willing to press further beyond terminal illness as a trigger to suffering.”
Conversely, many more physicians (44% vs. 24% a decade ago) said they would provide life-sustaining therapy if the family requested it, even if the physician thought it was futile.
“Concerns over a malpractice lawsuit and potential negative patient/family online reviews are factors that play into this change,” the survey authors wrote.
Shared decision making also increased in the past decade.
Would you undertreat pain?
Primary care physicians fear the consequences of what they consider adequate pain management more than specialists do (24% vs. 17%), the survey authors noted.
Ten years ago, Medscape asked physicians whether they would undertreat a patient’s pain because of fear of repercussions or the patient’s becoming addicted: Eighty-four percent said “no,” and 6% said “yes.” The rest said “it depends.”
In 2020, the question was asked slightly differently: “Would you undertreat a patient’s pain for fear of addiction or Drug Enforcement Administration or medical board scrutiny?” This year, three times as many said “yes” (18%); 63% said “no.”
“Respondents this year talked about investigations and reprimands by medical boards, and how much they wanted to avoid that,” the survey authors wrote.
Should physicians be required to treat COVID-19 patients?
Some questions were new this year, including one on whether physicians should be required to treat COVID-19 patients. Fewer than half (47%) answered “yes,” 24% said “no,” and 29% answered “it depends.”
Doctors’ answers to this question differed slightly by gender: Fifty percent of men and 43% of women said “yes.” In their responses, many physicians said consideration should be given to risk factors, such as age, underlying conditions, risk of family members, and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE).
Another pandemic-related question asked whether physicians felt they should correct physicians who post misinformation about the pandemic on social media. Half (50%) said “yes,” 19% said “no,” and 31% said “it depends.”
Speaking out against the workplace
This year, many physicians have felt betrayed when they didn’t have adequate PPE during the pandemic.
Asked, “Is it right to speak out against your hospital or workplace when they don’t give you what you need?” 53% of physicians said “yes,” 8% said “no,” and 40% said “it depends.”
A cardiologist made the value judgment this way: “Speaking out just because you had an argument with your boss is inappropriate. Bringing to the public repeated failures to correct situations that have been brought through the proper channels is necessary to incite change.”
Random drug testing for physicians?
Another question in the survey asked whether physicians should be subjected to random drug testing for alcohol and drug abuse. About one-third (34%) said yes, 43% said no, and 23% said “it depends.” A study found that between 10% and 15% of physicians have abused a substance at some point in their careers.
The subject continues to hit a nerve in medicine.
A family physician wrote, “This should not be done unless a particular physician had a problem with drug or alcohol abuse and shows signs of impairment.”
An internist took a different view, saying, “Military service men and women, police, firefighters, airline pilots, and other professions that have responsibilities affecting people’s lives are subject to testing; why not physicians?”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
One-third of critical illness survivors emerge from ICU with functional deterioration
More patients are surviving critical illnesses requiring ICU care but many emerge with physical debility that may or may not eventually resolve.
Over the past decade, functional status deterioration after critical illness has become more common and of greater magnitude, despite concurrent efforts to reduce post–intensive care syndrome, based on a retrospective analysis of more than 100,000 patients.
Almost one-third of patients who survived nonsurgical ICU admission had evidence of functional status decline, reported lead author Nicholas E. Ingraham, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues.
“Increasing capacity and decreasing mortality have created an evolving and diverse population of ICU survivors,” the investigators wrote in Critical Care Medicine. “Today’s survivors of critical illness are increasingly burdened by extensive physical and psychological comorbidities, often resulting in reduced quality of life.”
To determine trends in post–intensive care syndrome from 2008 to 2016, Dr. Ingraham and colleagues analyzed data from the Cerner Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation outcomes database, a national prospective cohort. Out of 202,786 adult patients admitted to the ICU, 129,917 were eligible for the study. Patients were excluded because of surgical admission, death, lack of functional status documentation, or inadequate hospital size or duration of participation. The final dataset had a median age of 63 years, with a slight predominance of male patients (54.0%). Most patients (80.9%) were White.
The primary outcome was defined as presence or absence of functional status deterioration, based on functional status at admission versus time of discharge. The secondary outcome was magnitude of deterioration over time.
The analysis, which controlled for age and severity of illness, revealed concerning trends for both outcomes.
Across the entire cohort 38,116 patients (29.3%) had functional status deterioration, with a 15% increase in prevalence over the course of the decade that spanned all disease categories (prevalence rate ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.17; P < .001). The magnitude of functional status decline also increased by 4% (odds ratio, 1.04; P < .001), with all but nonsurgical trauma patients showing greater deterioration over time.
“However, despite the decreasing magnitude of functional status deterioration in nonsurgical trauma, many admission diagnoses in this category remain in the top quartile of higher risk for functional status deterioration,” the investigators noted.
Functional status decline was most common among patients with head and polytrauma (OR, 3.39), followed closely by chest and spine trauma (OR, 3.38), and spine trauma (OR, 3.19). The top quartile of categories for prevalence of deterioration included nonsurgical trauma, neurologic, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal diseases.
Functional status decline was least common among patients diagnosed with diabetic ketoacidosis (OR, 0.27) or asthma (OR, 0.35).
“We believe our study provides important information that can be used in beginning to identify patients at high risk of functional status decline,” the investigators concluded. “Improving the identification of these patients and targeting appropriate interventions to mitigate this decline will be important directions for future studies in this area.”
According to David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, professor emeritus, section on critical care, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, N.C., the findings show just how common functional decline is after critical illness, and may actually underestimate prevalence.
“Because the authors employed a course evaluation tool employing only three categories of ability/disability and abstracted the level of disability from the medical record, they likely underestimated the frequency of clinically important, though not detected, disability at the time of hospital discharge,” Dr. Bowton said. “The study did not address cognitive impairment which can be detected in half of patients at 3 months following critical illness, and which significantly affects patients’ quality of life (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[2]:193-201).”
Dr. Bowton suggested that evidence-based methods of preventing post–intensive care syndrome are limited.
“Current efforts to improve post-ICU functional and cognitive outcomes suffer from the lack of proven effective interventions (Crit Care Med. 2019;47[11]:1607-18),” he said. “Observational data indicates that compliance with the ABCDEF bundle decreases the duration and incidence of delirium, ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and mortality (Crit Care Med. 2019;47[1]:3-14). However, the implications of these improvements on postdischarge functional outcomes are unknown as area the relative importance of individual elements of the bundle. Early mobility and patient and family diaries appear to improve functional status at discharge and postdischarge anxiety and depression, though the evidence supporting this is thin.”
Appropriate intervention may be especially challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic, he added.
“The impact of COVID on ICU staffing adequacy and stress is significant and the impact on quality bundle compliance and the availability of support services is currently not clear, but likely to be detrimental, especially to support services such as physical therapy that are already commonly understaffed,” Dr. Bowton said.
The study was supported by grants from the University of Minnesota’s Critical Care Research and Programmatic Development Program; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science via the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The investigators reported financial relationships with no other relevant organizations. Dr. Bowton reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ingraham NE et al. Crit Care Med. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004524.
More patients are surviving critical illnesses requiring ICU care but many emerge with physical debility that may or may not eventually resolve.
Over the past decade, functional status deterioration after critical illness has become more common and of greater magnitude, despite concurrent efforts to reduce post–intensive care syndrome, based on a retrospective analysis of more than 100,000 patients.
Almost one-third of patients who survived nonsurgical ICU admission had evidence of functional status decline, reported lead author Nicholas E. Ingraham, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues.
“Increasing capacity and decreasing mortality have created an evolving and diverse population of ICU survivors,” the investigators wrote in Critical Care Medicine. “Today’s survivors of critical illness are increasingly burdened by extensive physical and psychological comorbidities, often resulting in reduced quality of life.”
To determine trends in post–intensive care syndrome from 2008 to 2016, Dr. Ingraham and colleagues analyzed data from the Cerner Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation outcomes database, a national prospective cohort. Out of 202,786 adult patients admitted to the ICU, 129,917 were eligible for the study. Patients were excluded because of surgical admission, death, lack of functional status documentation, or inadequate hospital size or duration of participation. The final dataset had a median age of 63 years, with a slight predominance of male patients (54.0%). Most patients (80.9%) were White.
The primary outcome was defined as presence or absence of functional status deterioration, based on functional status at admission versus time of discharge. The secondary outcome was magnitude of deterioration over time.
The analysis, which controlled for age and severity of illness, revealed concerning trends for both outcomes.
Across the entire cohort 38,116 patients (29.3%) had functional status deterioration, with a 15% increase in prevalence over the course of the decade that spanned all disease categories (prevalence rate ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.17; P < .001). The magnitude of functional status decline also increased by 4% (odds ratio, 1.04; P < .001), with all but nonsurgical trauma patients showing greater deterioration over time.
“However, despite the decreasing magnitude of functional status deterioration in nonsurgical trauma, many admission diagnoses in this category remain in the top quartile of higher risk for functional status deterioration,” the investigators noted.
Functional status decline was most common among patients with head and polytrauma (OR, 3.39), followed closely by chest and spine trauma (OR, 3.38), and spine trauma (OR, 3.19). The top quartile of categories for prevalence of deterioration included nonsurgical trauma, neurologic, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal diseases.
Functional status decline was least common among patients diagnosed with diabetic ketoacidosis (OR, 0.27) or asthma (OR, 0.35).
“We believe our study provides important information that can be used in beginning to identify patients at high risk of functional status decline,” the investigators concluded. “Improving the identification of these patients and targeting appropriate interventions to mitigate this decline will be important directions for future studies in this area.”
According to David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, professor emeritus, section on critical care, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, N.C., the findings show just how common functional decline is after critical illness, and may actually underestimate prevalence.
“Because the authors employed a course evaluation tool employing only three categories of ability/disability and abstracted the level of disability from the medical record, they likely underestimated the frequency of clinically important, though not detected, disability at the time of hospital discharge,” Dr. Bowton said. “The study did not address cognitive impairment which can be detected in half of patients at 3 months following critical illness, and which significantly affects patients’ quality of life (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[2]:193-201).”
Dr. Bowton suggested that evidence-based methods of preventing post–intensive care syndrome are limited.
“Current efforts to improve post-ICU functional and cognitive outcomes suffer from the lack of proven effective interventions (Crit Care Med. 2019;47[11]:1607-18),” he said. “Observational data indicates that compliance with the ABCDEF bundle decreases the duration and incidence of delirium, ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and mortality (Crit Care Med. 2019;47[1]:3-14). However, the implications of these improvements on postdischarge functional outcomes are unknown as area the relative importance of individual elements of the bundle. Early mobility and patient and family diaries appear to improve functional status at discharge and postdischarge anxiety and depression, though the evidence supporting this is thin.”
Appropriate intervention may be especially challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic, he added.
“The impact of COVID on ICU staffing adequacy and stress is significant and the impact on quality bundle compliance and the availability of support services is currently not clear, but likely to be detrimental, especially to support services such as physical therapy that are already commonly understaffed,” Dr. Bowton said.
The study was supported by grants from the University of Minnesota’s Critical Care Research and Programmatic Development Program; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science via the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The investigators reported financial relationships with no other relevant organizations. Dr. Bowton reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ingraham NE et al. Crit Care Med. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004524.
More patients are surviving critical illnesses requiring ICU care but many emerge with physical debility that may or may not eventually resolve.
Over the past decade, functional status deterioration after critical illness has become more common and of greater magnitude, despite concurrent efforts to reduce post–intensive care syndrome, based on a retrospective analysis of more than 100,000 patients.
Almost one-third of patients who survived nonsurgical ICU admission had evidence of functional status decline, reported lead author Nicholas E. Ingraham, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues.
“Increasing capacity and decreasing mortality have created an evolving and diverse population of ICU survivors,” the investigators wrote in Critical Care Medicine. “Today’s survivors of critical illness are increasingly burdened by extensive physical and psychological comorbidities, often resulting in reduced quality of life.”
To determine trends in post–intensive care syndrome from 2008 to 2016, Dr. Ingraham and colleagues analyzed data from the Cerner Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation outcomes database, a national prospective cohort. Out of 202,786 adult patients admitted to the ICU, 129,917 were eligible for the study. Patients were excluded because of surgical admission, death, lack of functional status documentation, or inadequate hospital size or duration of participation. The final dataset had a median age of 63 years, with a slight predominance of male patients (54.0%). Most patients (80.9%) were White.
The primary outcome was defined as presence or absence of functional status deterioration, based on functional status at admission versus time of discharge. The secondary outcome was magnitude of deterioration over time.
The analysis, which controlled for age and severity of illness, revealed concerning trends for both outcomes.
Across the entire cohort 38,116 patients (29.3%) had functional status deterioration, with a 15% increase in prevalence over the course of the decade that spanned all disease categories (prevalence rate ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.17; P < .001). The magnitude of functional status decline also increased by 4% (odds ratio, 1.04; P < .001), with all but nonsurgical trauma patients showing greater deterioration over time.
“However, despite the decreasing magnitude of functional status deterioration in nonsurgical trauma, many admission diagnoses in this category remain in the top quartile of higher risk for functional status deterioration,” the investigators noted.
Functional status decline was most common among patients with head and polytrauma (OR, 3.39), followed closely by chest and spine trauma (OR, 3.38), and spine trauma (OR, 3.19). The top quartile of categories for prevalence of deterioration included nonsurgical trauma, neurologic, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal diseases.
Functional status decline was least common among patients diagnosed with diabetic ketoacidosis (OR, 0.27) or asthma (OR, 0.35).
“We believe our study provides important information that can be used in beginning to identify patients at high risk of functional status decline,” the investigators concluded. “Improving the identification of these patients and targeting appropriate interventions to mitigate this decline will be important directions for future studies in this area.”
According to David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, professor emeritus, section on critical care, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, N.C., the findings show just how common functional decline is after critical illness, and may actually underestimate prevalence.
“Because the authors employed a course evaluation tool employing only three categories of ability/disability and abstracted the level of disability from the medical record, they likely underestimated the frequency of clinically important, though not detected, disability at the time of hospital discharge,” Dr. Bowton said. “The study did not address cognitive impairment which can be detected in half of patients at 3 months following critical illness, and which significantly affects patients’ quality of life (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[2]:193-201).”
Dr. Bowton suggested that evidence-based methods of preventing post–intensive care syndrome are limited.
“Current efforts to improve post-ICU functional and cognitive outcomes suffer from the lack of proven effective interventions (Crit Care Med. 2019;47[11]:1607-18),” he said. “Observational data indicates that compliance with the ABCDEF bundle decreases the duration and incidence of delirium, ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and mortality (Crit Care Med. 2019;47[1]:3-14). However, the implications of these improvements on postdischarge functional outcomes are unknown as area the relative importance of individual elements of the bundle. Early mobility and patient and family diaries appear to improve functional status at discharge and postdischarge anxiety and depression, though the evidence supporting this is thin.”
Appropriate intervention may be especially challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic, he added.
“The impact of COVID on ICU staffing adequacy and stress is significant and the impact on quality bundle compliance and the availability of support services is currently not clear, but likely to be detrimental, especially to support services such as physical therapy that are already commonly understaffed,” Dr. Bowton said.
The study was supported by grants from the University of Minnesota’s Critical Care Research and Programmatic Development Program; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science via the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The investigators reported financial relationships with no other relevant organizations. Dr. Bowton reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ingraham NE et al. Crit Care Med. 2020 Nov. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004524.
FROM CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
COVID-19 burdens follow patients after discharge
COVID-19 patients who survive their hospitalization don’t leave the disease behind upon discharge, as a significant percentage died within 60 days of discharge, with an ICU admission heightening the risk, according to an observational study of 38 Michigan hospitals. What’s more, many of them were burdened with health and emotional challenges ranging from hospital readmission to job loss and financial problems.
“These data confirm that the toll of COVID-19 extends well beyond hospitalization, a finding consistent with long-term sequelae from sepsis and other severe respiratory viral illnesses,” wrote lead author Vineet Chopra, MBBS, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Nov 11: doi: 10.7326/M20-5661)
The researchers found that 29.2% of all patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 16 to July 1 died. The observational cohort study included 1,648 COVID-19 patients hospitalized at 38 Michigan hospitals participating in a statewide collaborative.
The bulk of those deaths occurred during hospitalization: 24.2% of patients (n = 398). Of the 1,250 patients discharged, 78% (n = 975) went home and 12.6% (n = 158) went to a skilled nursing facility, with the remainder unaccounted for. Within 60 days of discharge, 6.7% (n = 84) of hospitalized survivors had died and 15.2% (n = 189) were readmitted. The researchers gathered 60-day postdischarge data via a telephone survey, contacting 41.8% (n = 488) of discharged patients.
Outcomes were even worse for discharged patients who spent time in the ICU. The death rate among this group was 10.4% (17 of 165) after discharge. That resulted in an overall study death rate of 63.5% (n = 257) for the 405 patients who were in the ICU.
While the study data were in the first wave of the novel coronavirus, the findings have relevance today, said Mary Jo Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP, directory of pulmonary hypertension services at Baystate Health in Springfield, Mass.
“This is the best information we have to date,” she said. “We have to continue to have an open mind and expect that this information may change as the virus possibly mutates as it spreads, and we should continue doing these types of outcomes studies at 90 days, 120 days, etc.”
The median age of study patients was 62, with a range of 50-72. The three leading comorbidities among discharged patients were hypertension (n = 800, 64%), diabetes (34.9%, n = 436), and cardiovascular disease (24.1%, n = 301).
Poor postdischarge outcomes weren’t limited to mortality and readmission. Almost 19% (n = 92) reported new or worsening cardiopulmonary symptoms such as cough and dyspnea, 13.3% had a persistent loss of taste or smell, and 12% (n = 58) reported more difficulty with daily living tasks.
The after-effects were not only physical. Nearly half of discharged patients (48.7%, n = 238) reported emotional effects and almost 6% (n = 28) sought mental health care. Among the 40% (n = 195) employed before they were hospitalized, 36% (n = 78) couldn’t return to work because of health issues or layoffs. Sixty percent (n = 117) of the pre-employed discharged patients did return to work, but 25% (n = 30) did so with reduced hours or modified job duties because of health problems.
Financial problems were also a burden. More than a third, 36.7% (n = 179), reported some financial impact from their hospitalization. About 10% (n = 47) said they used most or all of their savings, and 7% (n = 35) said they resorted to rationing necessities such as food or medications.
The researchers noted that one in five patients had no primary care follow-up at 2 months post discharge. “Collectively, these findings suggest that better models to support COVID-19 survivors are necessary,” said Dr. Chopra and colleagues.
The postdischarge course for patients involves two humps, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif.: Getting over the hospitalization itself and the recovery phase. “As you look at the median age of the survivors, elderly patients who survive a hospital stay are still going to have a period of recovery, and like any viral illness that leads to someone being hospitalized, when you have an elderly patient with comorbidities, not all of them can make it over that final hump.”
He echoed the study authors’ call for better postdischarge support for COVID-19 patients. “There’s typically, although not at every hospital, a one-size-fits-all discharge planning process,” Dr. Gupta said. “For older patients, particularly with comorbid conditions, close follow-up after discharge is important.”
Dr. Farmer noted that one challenge in discharge support may be a matter of personnel. “The providers of this care might be fearful of patients who have had COVID-19 – Do the patients remain contagious? What if symptoms of COVID-19 return such as dry cough, fever? – and of contracting the disease themselves,” she said.
The findings regarding the emotional status of discharged patients should factor into discharge planning, she added. “Providers of posthospital care need to be educated in the emotional impact of this disease (e.g., the patients may feel ostracized or that no one wants to be around them) to assist in their recovery.”
Dr. Chopra and Dr. Farmer have no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta is an employee and shareholder of Genentech.
SOURCE: Chopra V et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.7326/M20-5661.
COVID-19 patients who survive their hospitalization don’t leave the disease behind upon discharge, as a significant percentage died within 60 days of discharge, with an ICU admission heightening the risk, according to an observational study of 38 Michigan hospitals. What’s more, many of them were burdened with health and emotional challenges ranging from hospital readmission to job loss and financial problems.
“These data confirm that the toll of COVID-19 extends well beyond hospitalization, a finding consistent with long-term sequelae from sepsis and other severe respiratory viral illnesses,” wrote lead author Vineet Chopra, MBBS, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Nov 11: doi: 10.7326/M20-5661)
The researchers found that 29.2% of all patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 16 to July 1 died. The observational cohort study included 1,648 COVID-19 patients hospitalized at 38 Michigan hospitals participating in a statewide collaborative.
The bulk of those deaths occurred during hospitalization: 24.2% of patients (n = 398). Of the 1,250 patients discharged, 78% (n = 975) went home and 12.6% (n = 158) went to a skilled nursing facility, with the remainder unaccounted for. Within 60 days of discharge, 6.7% (n = 84) of hospitalized survivors had died and 15.2% (n = 189) were readmitted. The researchers gathered 60-day postdischarge data via a telephone survey, contacting 41.8% (n = 488) of discharged patients.
Outcomes were even worse for discharged patients who spent time in the ICU. The death rate among this group was 10.4% (17 of 165) after discharge. That resulted in an overall study death rate of 63.5% (n = 257) for the 405 patients who were in the ICU.
While the study data were in the first wave of the novel coronavirus, the findings have relevance today, said Mary Jo Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP, directory of pulmonary hypertension services at Baystate Health in Springfield, Mass.
“This is the best information we have to date,” she said. “We have to continue to have an open mind and expect that this information may change as the virus possibly mutates as it spreads, and we should continue doing these types of outcomes studies at 90 days, 120 days, etc.”
The median age of study patients was 62, with a range of 50-72. The three leading comorbidities among discharged patients were hypertension (n = 800, 64%), diabetes (34.9%, n = 436), and cardiovascular disease (24.1%, n = 301).
Poor postdischarge outcomes weren’t limited to mortality and readmission. Almost 19% (n = 92) reported new or worsening cardiopulmonary symptoms such as cough and dyspnea, 13.3% had a persistent loss of taste or smell, and 12% (n = 58) reported more difficulty with daily living tasks.
The after-effects were not only physical. Nearly half of discharged patients (48.7%, n = 238) reported emotional effects and almost 6% (n = 28) sought mental health care. Among the 40% (n = 195) employed before they were hospitalized, 36% (n = 78) couldn’t return to work because of health issues or layoffs. Sixty percent (n = 117) of the pre-employed discharged patients did return to work, but 25% (n = 30) did so with reduced hours or modified job duties because of health problems.
Financial problems were also a burden. More than a third, 36.7% (n = 179), reported some financial impact from their hospitalization. About 10% (n = 47) said they used most or all of their savings, and 7% (n = 35) said they resorted to rationing necessities such as food or medications.
The researchers noted that one in five patients had no primary care follow-up at 2 months post discharge. “Collectively, these findings suggest that better models to support COVID-19 survivors are necessary,” said Dr. Chopra and colleagues.
The postdischarge course for patients involves two humps, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif.: Getting over the hospitalization itself and the recovery phase. “As you look at the median age of the survivors, elderly patients who survive a hospital stay are still going to have a period of recovery, and like any viral illness that leads to someone being hospitalized, when you have an elderly patient with comorbidities, not all of them can make it over that final hump.”
He echoed the study authors’ call for better postdischarge support for COVID-19 patients. “There’s typically, although not at every hospital, a one-size-fits-all discharge planning process,” Dr. Gupta said. “For older patients, particularly with comorbid conditions, close follow-up after discharge is important.”
Dr. Farmer noted that one challenge in discharge support may be a matter of personnel. “The providers of this care might be fearful of patients who have had COVID-19 – Do the patients remain contagious? What if symptoms of COVID-19 return such as dry cough, fever? – and of contracting the disease themselves,” she said.
The findings regarding the emotional status of discharged patients should factor into discharge planning, she added. “Providers of posthospital care need to be educated in the emotional impact of this disease (e.g., the patients may feel ostracized or that no one wants to be around them) to assist in their recovery.”
Dr. Chopra and Dr. Farmer have no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta is an employee and shareholder of Genentech.
SOURCE: Chopra V et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.7326/M20-5661.
COVID-19 patients who survive their hospitalization don’t leave the disease behind upon discharge, as a significant percentage died within 60 days of discharge, with an ICU admission heightening the risk, according to an observational study of 38 Michigan hospitals. What’s more, many of them were burdened with health and emotional challenges ranging from hospital readmission to job loss and financial problems.
“These data confirm that the toll of COVID-19 extends well beyond hospitalization, a finding consistent with long-term sequelae from sepsis and other severe respiratory viral illnesses,” wrote lead author Vineet Chopra, MBBS, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Nov 11: doi: 10.7326/M20-5661)
The researchers found that 29.2% of all patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 16 to July 1 died. The observational cohort study included 1,648 COVID-19 patients hospitalized at 38 Michigan hospitals participating in a statewide collaborative.
The bulk of those deaths occurred during hospitalization: 24.2% of patients (n = 398). Of the 1,250 patients discharged, 78% (n = 975) went home and 12.6% (n = 158) went to a skilled nursing facility, with the remainder unaccounted for. Within 60 days of discharge, 6.7% (n = 84) of hospitalized survivors had died and 15.2% (n = 189) were readmitted. The researchers gathered 60-day postdischarge data via a telephone survey, contacting 41.8% (n = 488) of discharged patients.
Outcomes were even worse for discharged patients who spent time in the ICU. The death rate among this group was 10.4% (17 of 165) after discharge. That resulted in an overall study death rate of 63.5% (n = 257) for the 405 patients who were in the ICU.
While the study data were in the first wave of the novel coronavirus, the findings have relevance today, said Mary Jo Farmer, MD, PhD, FCCP, directory of pulmonary hypertension services at Baystate Health in Springfield, Mass.
“This is the best information we have to date,” she said. “We have to continue to have an open mind and expect that this information may change as the virus possibly mutates as it spreads, and we should continue doing these types of outcomes studies at 90 days, 120 days, etc.”
The median age of study patients was 62, with a range of 50-72. The three leading comorbidities among discharged patients were hypertension (n = 800, 64%), diabetes (34.9%, n = 436), and cardiovascular disease (24.1%, n = 301).
Poor postdischarge outcomes weren’t limited to mortality and readmission. Almost 19% (n = 92) reported new or worsening cardiopulmonary symptoms such as cough and dyspnea, 13.3% had a persistent loss of taste or smell, and 12% (n = 58) reported more difficulty with daily living tasks.
The after-effects were not only physical. Nearly half of discharged patients (48.7%, n = 238) reported emotional effects and almost 6% (n = 28) sought mental health care. Among the 40% (n = 195) employed before they were hospitalized, 36% (n = 78) couldn’t return to work because of health issues or layoffs. Sixty percent (n = 117) of the pre-employed discharged patients did return to work, but 25% (n = 30) did so with reduced hours or modified job duties because of health problems.
Financial problems were also a burden. More than a third, 36.7% (n = 179), reported some financial impact from their hospitalization. About 10% (n = 47) said they used most or all of their savings, and 7% (n = 35) said they resorted to rationing necessities such as food or medications.
The researchers noted that one in five patients had no primary care follow-up at 2 months post discharge. “Collectively, these findings suggest that better models to support COVID-19 survivors are necessary,” said Dr. Chopra and colleagues.
The postdischarge course for patients involves two humps, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif.: Getting over the hospitalization itself and the recovery phase. “As you look at the median age of the survivors, elderly patients who survive a hospital stay are still going to have a period of recovery, and like any viral illness that leads to someone being hospitalized, when you have an elderly patient with comorbidities, not all of them can make it over that final hump.”
He echoed the study authors’ call for better postdischarge support for COVID-19 patients. “There’s typically, although not at every hospital, a one-size-fits-all discharge planning process,” Dr. Gupta said. “For older patients, particularly with comorbid conditions, close follow-up after discharge is important.”
Dr. Farmer noted that one challenge in discharge support may be a matter of personnel. “The providers of this care might be fearful of patients who have had COVID-19 – Do the patients remain contagious? What if symptoms of COVID-19 return such as dry cough, fever? – and of contracting the disease themselves,” she said.
The findings regarding the emotional status of discharged patients should factor into discharge planning, she added. “Providers of posthospital care need to be educated in the emotional impact of this disease (e.g., the patients may feel ostracized or that no one wants to be around them) to assist in their recovery.”
Dr. Chopra and Dr. Farmer have no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta is an employee and shareholder of Genentech.
SOURCE: Chopra V et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.7326/M20-5661.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Metapneumovirus infections clinically indistinguishable from flu, RSV
The all-consuming news about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 has overshadowed other viral pathogens that are the cause of severe or fatal lower respiratory infections (LRI) including human metapneumovirus (HMPV).
“MPV is really a leading cause of LRI not just in children but in adults, with high mortality rates in the frail elderly, long-term care facilities, and cancer patients with pneumonia, “ said John Williams, MD, from the department of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
“Right now we have no effective antivirals. There are monoclonal antibodies in development that my group and others have discovered. In fact, some of these treat MPV and RSV [respiratory syncytial virus], so we may have good options,” he said in an online presentation during an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
The virus preys, wolf-like, on the most vulnerable patients, including children and frail elderly adults, as well as other adults with predisposing conditions, he said.
HMPV causes acute respiratory illnesses in approximately 2%-11% of hospitalized adults, 3%-25% of organ transplant recipients or cancer patients, 4%-12% of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, 5%-20% of asthma exacerbations, and it has been identified in multiple outbreaks at long-term care facilities.
Relative newcomer
Metapneumovirus was isolated and discovered from children with respiratory tract disease in the early 2000s. Once included in the family of paramyxoviruses (including measles, mumps, Nipah virus, and parainfluenza virus 1-4), HMPV and RSV are now classified as pneumoviruses, based on gene order and other characteristics, Dr. Williams explained.
Various studies have consistently placed the prevalence of HMPV ranging from 5%-14% in young children with LRI, children hospitalized for wheezing, adults with cancer and LRI, adults with asthma admissions, children with upper respiratory infections, and children hospitalized in the United States and Jordan for LRI, as well as children hospitalized in the United States and Peru with acute respiratory infections.
A study tracking respiratory infections in a Rochester, N.Y., cohort from 1999 through 2003 showed that healthy elderly patients had and annual incidence of HMPV infections of 5.9%, compared with 9.1% for high-risk patients, 13.1% for young patients, and 8.5% among hospitalized adult patients.
“These percentages are virtually identical to what has been seen in the same cohort for respiratory syncytial virus, so in this multiyear prospective cohort, metapneumovirus was as common as RSV,” Dr. Williams said.
Although the incidences of both HMPV and RSV were lower among hospitalized adults “clinically, we can’t tell these respiratory viruses apart. If we know it’s circulating we can make a guess, but we really can’t discriminate them,” he added.
In the Rochester cohort the frequency of clinical symptoms – including congestion, sore throat, cough, sputum production, dyspnea, and fever – were similar among patients infected with HMPV, RSV, or influenza A, with the exception of a slightly higher incidence of wheezing (80%) with HMPV, compared with influenza.
“I can tell you as a pediatrician, this is absolutely true in children, that metapneumovirus is indistinguishable from other respiratory viruses in kids,” he said.
Fatalities among older adults
As noted before, HMPV can cause severe and fatal illness in adults. For example, during an outbreak in North Dakota in 2016, 3 of 27 hospitalized adults with HMPV (median age, 69 years) died, and 10 required mechanical or noninvasive ventilation.
In a study from Korea comparing outcomes of severe HMPV-associated community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) with those of severe influenza-associated CAP, the investigators found that 30- and 60-day mortality rates were similar between the groups, at 24% of patients with HMPV-associated CAP and 32.1% for influenza-associated CAP, and 32% versus 38.5%, respectively.
Patients at high risk for severe disease or death from HMPV infection include those over 65 years, especially frail elderly, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunocompromised patients, and those with cardiopulmonary diseases such as congestive heart failure.
Supportive care only
“Do we have anything for treatment? The short answer is, No,” Dr. Williams.
Supportive care is currently the only effective approach for patients with severe HMPV infection.
Ribavirin, used to treat patients with acute RSV infection, has poor in vitro activity against HMPV and poor oral bioavailability and hemolysis, and there are no randomized controlled trials to support its use in this situation.
“It really can’t be recommended, and I don’t recommend it,” he said.
Virology may still help
Mark J. Siedner, MD, an infectious diseases physician at Mass General and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who was not involved in the study, said that, despite the inability to clinically distinguish HMPV from RSV or influenza A, there is still clinical value to identifying HMPV infections.
“We spend millions of dollar each year treating people for upper respiratory tract infections, often with antibacterials, sometimes with antivirals, but those have costs to the health care system, and they also have costs in terms of drug resistance,” he said in an interview seeking objective commentary.
“Diagnostic tests that determine the actual source or the cause of these upper respiratory tract infections and encourage both patients and physicians not to be using antibiotics have value,” he said.
Identifying the pathogen can also help clinicians take appropriate infection-control precautions to prevent patient-to-clinician or patient-to-patient transmission of viral infections, he added.
Dr. Williams’ research is supported by the National Institutes of Health, Henry L. Hillman Foundation, and Asher Krop Memorial Fund of Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh. Dr. Williams and Dr. Siedner reported no relevant conflict of interest disclosures.
The all-consuming news about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 has overshadowed other viral pathogens that are the cause of severe or fatal lower respiratory infections (LRI) including human metapneumovirus (HMPV).
“MPV is really a leading cause of LRI not just in children but in adults, with high mortality rates in the frail elderly, long-term care facilities, and cancer patients with pneumonia, “ said John Williams, MD, from the department of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
“Right now we have no effective antivirals. There are monoclonal antibodies in development that my group and others have discovered. In fact, some of these treat MPV and RSV [respiratory syncytial virus], so we may have good options,” he said in an online presentation during an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
The virus preys, wolf-like, on the most vulnerable patients, including children and frail elderly adults, as well as other adults with predisposing conditions, he said.
HMPV causes acute respiratory illnesses in approximately 2%-11% of hospitalized adults, 3%-25% of organ transplant recipients or cancer patients, 4%-12% of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, 5%-20% of asthma exacerbations, and it has been identified in multiple outbreaks at long-term care facilities.
Relative newcomer
Metapneumovirus was isolated and discovered from children with respiratory tract disease in the early 2000s. Once included in the family of paramyxoviruses (including measles, mumps, Nipah virus, and parainfluenza virus 1-4), HMPV and RSV are now classified as pneumoviruses, based on gene order and other characteristics, Dr. Williams explained.
Various studies have consistently placed the prevalence of HMPV ranging from 5%-14% in young children with LRI, children hospitalized for wheezing, adults with cancer and LRI, adults with asthma admissions, children with upper respiratory infections, and children hospitalized in the United States and Jordan for LRI, as well as children hospitalized in the United States and Peru with acute respiratory infections.
A study tracking respiratory infections in a Rochester, N.Y., cohort from 1999 through 2003 showed that healthy elderly patients had and annual incidence of HMPV infections of 5.9%, compared with 9.1% for high-risk patients, 13.1% for young patients, and 8.5% among hospitalized adult patients.
“These percentages are virtually identical to what has been seen in the same cohort for respiratory syncytial virus, so in this multiyear prospective cohort, metapneumovirus was as common as RSV,” Dr. Williams said.
Although the incidences of both HMPV and RSV were lower among hospitalized adults “clinically, we can’t tell these respiratory viruses apart. If we know it’s circulating we can make a guess, but we really can’t discriminate them,” he added.
In the Rochester cohort the frequency of clinical symptoms – including congestion, sore throat, cough, sputum production, dyspnea, and fever – were similar among patients infected with HMPV, RSV, or influenza A, with the exception of a slightly higher incidence of wheezing (80%) with HMPV, compared with influenza.
“I can tell you as a pediatrician, this is absolutely true in children, that metapneumovirus is indistinguishable from other respiratory viruses in kids,” he said.
Fatalities among older adults
As noted before, HMPV can cause severe and fatal illness in adults. For example, during an outbreak in North Dakota in 2016, 3 of 27 hospitalized adults with HMPV (median age, 69 years) died, and 10 required mechanical or noninvasive ventilation.
In a study from Korea comparing outcomes of severe HMPV-associated community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) with those of severe influenza-associated CAP, the investigators found that 30- and 60-day mortality rates were similar between the groups, at 24% of patients with HMPV-associated CAP and 32.1% for influenza-associated CAP, and 32% versus 38.5%, respectively.
Patients at high risk for severe disease or death from HMPV infection include those over 65 years, especially frail elderly, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunocompromised patients, and those with cardiopulmonary diseases such as congestive heart failure.
Supportive care only
“Do we have anything for treatment? The short answer is, No,” Dr. Williams.
Supportive care is currently the only effective approach for patients with severe HMPV infection.
Ribavirin, used to treat patients with acute RSV infection, has poor in vitro activity against HMPV and poor oral bioavailability and hemolysis, and there are no randomized controlled trials to support its use in this situation.
“It really can’t be recommended, and I don’t recommend it,” he said.
Virology may still help
Mark J. Siedner, MD, an infectious diseases physician at Mass General and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who was not involved in the study, said that, despite the inability to clinically distinguish HMPV from RSV or influenza A, there is still clinical value to identifying HMPV infections.
“We spend millions of dollar each year treating people for upper respiratory tract infections, often with antibacterials, sometimes with antivirals, but those have costs to the health care system, and they also have costs in terms of drug resistance,” he said in an interview seeking objective commentary.
“Diagnostic tests that determine the actual source or the cause of these upper respiratory tract infections and encourage both patients and physicians not to be using antibiotics have value,” he said.
Identifying the pathogen can also help clinicians take appropriate infection-control precautions to prevent patient-to-clinician or patient-to-patient transmission of viral infections, he added.
Dr. Williams’ research is supported by the National Institutes of Health, Henry L. Hillman Foundation, and Asher Krop Memorial Fund of Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh. Dr. Williams and Dr. Siedner reported no relevant conflict of interest disclosures.
The all-consuming news about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 has overshadowed other viral pathogens that are the cause of severe or fatal lower respiratory infections (LRI) including human metapneumovirus (HMPV).
“MPV is really a leading cause of LRI not just in children but in adults, with high mortality rates in the frail elderly, long-term care facilities, and cancer patients with pneumonia, “ said John Williams, MD, from the department of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
“Right now we have no effective antivirals. There are monoclonal antibodies in development that my group and others have discovered. In fact, some of these treat MPV and RSV [respiratory syncytial virus], so we may have good options,” he said in an online presentation during an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
The virus preys, wolf-like, on the most vulnerable patients, including children and frail elderly adults, as well as other adults with predisposing conditions, he said.
HMPV causes acute respiratory illnesses in approximately 2%-11% of hospitalized adults, 3%-25% of organ transplant recipients or cancer patients, 4%-12% of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, 5%-20% of asthma exacerbations, and it has been identified in multiple outbreaks at long-term care facilities.
Relative newcomer
Metapneumovirus was isolated and discovered from children with respiratory tract disease in the early 2000s. Once included in the family of paramyxoviruses (including measles, mumps, Nipah virus, and parainfluenza virus 1-4), HMPV and RSV are now classified as pneumoviruses, based on gene order and other characteristics, Dr. Williams explained.
Various studies have consistently placed the prevalence of HMPV ranging from 5%-14% in young children with LRI, children hospitalized for wheezing, adults with cancer and LRI, adults with asthma admissions, children with upper respiratory infections, and children hospitalized in the United States and Jordan for LRI, as well as children hospitalized in the United States and Peru with acute respiratory infections.
A study tracking respiratory infections in a Rochester, N.Y., cohort from 1999 through 2003 showed that healthy elderly patients had and annual incidence of HMPV infections of 5.9%, compared with 9.1% for high-risk patients, 13.1% for young patients, and 8.5% among hospitalized adult patients.
“These percentages are virtually identical to what has been seen in the same cohort for respiratory syncytial virus, so in this multiyear prospective cohort, metapneumovirus was as common as RSV,” Dr. Williams said.
Although the incidences of both HMPV and RSV were lower among hospitalized adults “clinically, we can’t tell these respiratory viruses apart. If we know it’s circulating we can make a guess, but we really can’t discriminate them,” he added.
In the Rochester cohort the frequency of clinical symptoms – including congestion, sore throat, cough, sputum production, dyspnea, and fever – were similar among patients infected with HMPV, RSV, or influenza A, with the exception of a slightly higher incidence of wheezing (80%) with HMPV, compared with influenza.
“I can tell you as a pediatrician, this is absolutely true in children, that metapneumovirus is indistinguishable from other respiratory viruses in kids,” he said.
Fatalities among older adults
As noted before, HMPV can cause severe and fatal illness in adults. For example, during an outbreak in North Dakota in 2016, 3 of 27 hospitalized adults with HMPV (median age, 69 years) died, and 10 required mechanical or noninvasive ventilation.
In a study from Korea comparing outcomes of severe HMPV-associated community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) with those of severe influenza-associated CAP, the investigators found that 30- and 60-day mortality rates were similar between the groups, at 24% of patients with HMPV-associated CAP and 32.1% for influenza-associated CAP, and 32% versus 38.5%, respectively.
Patients at high risk for severe disease or death from HMPV infection include those over 65 years, especially frail elderly, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunocompromised patients, and those with cardiopulmonary diseases such as congestive heart failure.
Supportive care only
“Do we have anything for treatment? The short answer is, No,” Dr. Williams.
Supportive care is currently the only effective approach for patients with severe HMPV infection.
Ribavirin, used to treat patients with acute RSV infection, has poor in vitro activity against HMPV and poor oral bioavailability and hemolysis, and there are no randomized controlled trials to support its use in this situation.
“It really can’t be recommended, and I don’t recommend it,” he said.
Virology may still help
Mark J. Siedner, MD, an infectious diseases physician at Mass General and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who was not involved in the study, said that, despite the inability to clinically distinguish HMPV from RSV or influenza A, there is still clinical value to identifying HMPV infections.
“We spend millions of dollar each year treating people for upper respiratory tract infections, often with antibacterials, sometimes with antivirals, but those have costs to the health care system, and they also have costs in terms of drug resistance,” he said in an interview seeking objective commentary.
“Diagnostic tests that determine the actual source or the cause of these upper respiratory tract infections and encourage both patients and physicians not to be using antibiotics have value,” he said.
Identifying the pathogen can also help clinicians take appropriate infection-control precautions to prevent patient-to-clinician or patient-to-patient transmission of viral infections, he added.
Dr. Williams’ research is supported by the National Institutes of Health, Henry L. Hillman Foundation, and Asher Krop Memorial Fund of Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh. Dr. Williams and Dr. Siedner reported no relevant conflict of interest disclosures.
FROM IDWEEK 2020
Osteoporosis drugs don’t worsen COVID-19 risk, may help
New observational data are the first to support recommendations to continue osteoporosis medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and even suggest that some agents may protect against the virus.
Findings from the cross-sectional study of 2,102 patients with osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and/or fibromyalgia – so-called noninflammatory rheumatic conditions – during March 1 to May 3, 2020, were recently published in Aging by Josep Blanch-Rubió, MD, scientific clinical director of the Rheumatology Service, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, and colleagues.
Patients taking denosumab, zoledronate, and calcium showed trends toward lower incidence of developing symptomatic presumed COVID-19 (polymerase chain reaction tests weren’t widely available at the time), as did those taking the antidepressant serotonin/norepinephrine inhibitor duloxetine.
Some analgesics, particularly pregabalin and most other antidepressants, were associated with higher incidences of COVID-19, while oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, thiazide diuretics, antihypertensive drugs, and chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had no effect on COVID-19 incidence.
These data are the first to support guidance issued in May 2020 by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and four other professional societies advising continuation of osteoporosis medications during the pandemic. That statement’s authors acknowledged that, lacking data, their recommendations were based primarily on expert opinion.
“There were guidelines without any scientific base. ... This is the first scientific evidence showing that indeed you should continue your osteoporosis treatment if you have COVID-19. This is the first study to provide scientific support for the guidelines,” study coauthor Rafael Maldonado, MD, PhD, of the Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, said in an interview.
And while the data don’t offer proof of benefit for any drug – all of the 95% confidence intervals crossed 1.0 – they do show trends that deserve further study, Dr. Maldonado said.
“What we observed is that there is no harm. Treatments should be continued.”
“But we obtained very interesting results with denosumab, zoledronate, calcium, and duloxetine. ... There is a clear tendency, and the message is we should promote studies to see if these four treatments provide benefit.”
Different mechanisms for each?
Asked to comment on the findings, Matthew T. Drake, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “I would agree that there’s no reason any of these medications should be stopped or discontinued since there’s no evidence that they make the risk for infection worse.”
“But how [some of them may] improve or reduce the infection risk in my mind is somewhat unclear. ... It’s hard to come up with a unifying explanation” because those mentioned as potentially beneficial “are fairly different,” he noted.
Dr. Drake, associate professor of medicine in the department of endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said he agreed with the study authors that denosumab’s targeting of the RANK/RANKL system is a possible anti-COVID-19 mechanism for that drug because that system is involved in immune response.
Regarding zoledronate/zoledronic acid, both the Spanish authors and Dr. Drake pointed to a landmark study linking the intravenous drug to longer survival in patients with hip fracture. The study authors note that there could be several mechanisms for an overall survival benefit, but additionally, “zoledronate may make dendritic cells and their precursors less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could explain the beneficial effects here ... on COVID-19 incidence.”
And, the authors hypothesized, the reason for the lack of benefit with oral bisphosphonates might relate to the higher potency of the intravenous zoledronate. Dr. Drake added that its higher bioavailability may also play a role.
As for calcium, the authors suggest that the beneficial effect against COVID-19 could relate to its action in generating two immune cell types – T follicular helper cells and T follicular regulatory cells – which promote an appropriate immune response against infectious agents, including viruses.
Data supporting the guidelines
Of the 2,102 patients in the study by Blanch-Rubió and colleagues, 80.5% were women, and their mean age was 66.4 years. Overall, 63.7% had osteoarthritis, 43.5% had osteoporosis, and 27.2% had fibromyalgia. Treatments included vitamin D in 62%, calcium in 23.3%, denosumab in 12.6%, and intravenous zoledronate in 8.5%. Over half were taking analgesics and nearly a third antidepressants, with 9.9% taking duloxetine.
During the study period, 5.2%, or 109 individuals, were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on presenting for medical care with hallmark symptoms.
After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes, pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and active cancer or treatment, the relative risks for COVID-19 were 0.58 for denosumab, 0.62 for intravenous zoledronate, and 0.64 for calcium, all nonsignificant trends. No associations were found between COVID-19 and oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, or thiazide diuretics. Increased but nonsignificant relative risks for COVID-19 were seen with analgesics, particularly pregabalin (1.55), gabapentin (1.39), and opioids (1.25).
Among antidepressants, there was a relative risk of 1.54 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, 1.38 for amitriptyline, and 1.22 for all dual-action antidepressants together. In contrast, there was a negative association with the dual-action antidepressant duloxetine, with an adjusted relative risk of 0.68.
“The good news,” Dr. Drake said, “is that none of it appears bad.”
Dr. Blanch-Rubió has received grants or consulting fees from Amgen, Laboratorio Stada, Gedeon-Rhicter Ibérica, Lilly España, Pfizer, Gebro Pharma, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Maldonado has received research grants or consulting fees from Aelis, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, BrainCo, Esteve, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janus, Lundbeck, Pharmaleads, Phytoplant, Rhodes, Sanofi, Spherium, Union de Pharmacologie Scientifique Appliquée, Upjohn, and Uriach. Dr. Drake has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
New observational data are the first to support recommendations to continue osteoporosis medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and even suggest that some agents may protect against the virus.
Findings from the cross-sectional study of 2,102 patients with osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and/or fibromyalgia – so-called noninflammatory rheumatic conditions – during March 1 to May 3, 2020, were recently published in Aging by Josep Blanch-Rubió, MD, scientific clinical director of the Rheumatology Service, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, and colleagues.
Patients taking denosumab, zoledronate, and calcium showed trends toward lower incidence of developing symptomatic presumed COVID-19 (polymerase chain reaction tests weren’t widely available at the time), as did those taking the antidepressant serotonin/norepinephrine inhibitor duloxetine.
Some analgesics, particularly pregabalin and most other antidepressants, were associated with higher incidences of COVID-19, while oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, thiazide diuretics, antihypertensive drugs, and chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had no effect on COVID-19 incidence.
These data are the first to support guidance issued in May 2020 by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and four other professional societies advising continuation of osteoporosis medications during the pandemic. That statement’s authors acknowledged that, lacking data, their recommendations were based primarily on expert opinion.
“There were guidelines without any scientific base. ... This is the first scientific evidence showing that indeed you should continue your osteoporosis treatment if you have COVID-19. This is the first study to provide scientific support for the guidelines,” study coauthor Rafael Maldonado, MD, PhD, of the Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, said in an interview.
And while the data don’t offer proof of benefit for any drug – all of the 95% confidence intervals crossed 1.0 – they do show trends that deserve further study, Dr. Maldonado said.
“What we observed is that there is no harm. Treatments should be continued.”
“But we obtained very interesting results with denosumab, zoledronate, calcium, and duloxetine. ... There is a clear tendency, and the message is we should promote studies to see if these four treatments provide benefit.”
Different mechanisms for each?
Asked to comment on the findings, Matthew T. Drake, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “I would agree that there’s no reason any of these medications should be stopped or discontinued since there’s no evidence that they make the risk for infection worse.”
“But how [some of them may] improve or reduce the infection risk in my mind is somewhat unclear. ... It’s hard to come up with a unifying explanation” because those mentioned as potentially beneficial “are fairly different,” he noted.
Dr. Drake, associate professor of medicine in the department of endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said he agreed with the study authors that denosumab’s targeting of the RANK/RANKL system is a possible anti-COVID-19 mechanism for that drug because that system is involved in immune response.
Regarding zoledronate/zoledronic acid, both the Spanish authors and Dr. Drake pointed to a landmark study linking the intravenous drug to longer survival in patients with hip fracture. The study authors note that there could be several mechanisms for an overall survival benefit, but additionally, “zoledronate may make dendritic cells and their precursors less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could explain the beneficial effects here ... on COVID-19 incidence.”
And, the authors hypothesized, the reason for the lack of benefit with oral bisphosphonates might relate to the higher potency of the intravenous zoledronate. Dr. Drake added that its higher bioavailability may also play a role.
As for calcium, the authors suggest that the beneficial effect against COVID-19 could relate to its action in generating two immune cell types – T follicular helper cells and T follicular regulatory cells – which promote an appropriate immune response against infectious agents, including viruses.
Data supporting the guidelines
Of the 2,102 patients in the study by Blanch-Rubió and colleagues, 80.5% were women, and their mean age was 66.4 years. Overall, 63.7% had osteoarthritis, 43.5% had osteoporosis, and 27.2% had fibromyalgia. Treatments included vitamin D in 62%, calcium in 23.3%, denosumab in 12.6%, and intravenous zoledronate in 8.5%. Over half were taking analgesics and nearly a third antidepressants, with 9.9% taking duloxetine.
During the study period, 5.2%, or 109 individuals, were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on presenting for medical care with hallmark symptoms.
After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes, pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and active cancer or treatment, the relative risks for COVID-19 were 0.58 for denosumab, 0.62 for intravenous zoledronate, and 0.64 for calcium, all nonsignificant trends. No associations were found between COVID-19 and oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, or thiazide diuretics. Increased but nonsignificant relative risks for COVID-19 were seen with analgesics, particularly pregabalin (1.55), gabapentin (1.39), and opioids (1.25).
Among antidepressants, there was a relative risk of 1.54 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, 1.38 for amitriptyline, and 1.22 for all dual-action antidepressants together. In contrast, there was a negative association with the dual-action antidepressant duloxetine, with an adjusted relative risk of 0.68.
“The good news,” Dr. Drake said, “is that none of it appears bad.”
Dr. Blanch-Rubió has received grants or consulting fees from Amgen, Laboratorio Stada, Gedeon-Rhicter Ibérica, Lilly España, Pfizer, Gebro Pharma, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Maldonado has received research grants or consulting fees from Aelis, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, BrainCo, Esteve, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janus, Lundbeck, Pharmaleads, Phytoplant, Rhodes, Sanofi, Spherium, Union de Pharmacologie Scientifique Appliquée, Upjohn, and Uriach. Dr. Drake has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
New observational data are the first to support recommendations to continue osteoporosis medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and even suggest that some agents may protect against the virus.
Findings from the cross-sectional study of 2,102 patients with osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and/or fibromyalgia – so-called noninflammatory rheumatic conditions – during March 1 to May 3, 2020, were recently published in Aging by Josep Blanch-Rubió, MD, scientific clinical director of the Rheumatology Service, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, and colleagues.
Patients taking denosumab, zoledronate, and calcium showed trends toward lower incidence of developing symptomatic presumed COVID-19 (polymerase chain reaction tests weren’t widely available at the time), as did those taking the antidepressant serotonin/norepinephrine inhibitor duloxetine.
Some analgesics, particularly pregabalin and most other antidepressants, were associated with higher incidences of COVID-19, while oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, thiazide diuretics, antihypertensive drugs, and chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had no effect on COVID-19 incidence.
These data are the first to support guidance issued in May 2020 by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and four other professional societies advising continuation of osteoporosis medications during the pandemic. That statement’s authors acknowledged that, lacking data, their recommendations were based primarily on expert opinion.
“There were guidelines without any scientific base. ... This is the first scientific evidence showing that indeed you should continue your osteoporosis treatment if you have COVID-19. This is the first study to provide scientific support for the guidelines,” study coauthor Rafael Maldonado, MD, PhD, of the Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, said in an interview.
And while the data don’t offer proof of benefit for any drug – all of the 95% confidence intervals crossed 1.0 – they do show trends that deserve further study, Dr. Maldonado said.
“What we observed is that there is no harm. Treatments should be continued.”
“But we obtained very interesting results with denosumab, zoledronate, calcium, and duloxetine. ... There is a clear tendency, and the message is we should promote studies to see if these four treatments provide benefit.”
Different mechanisms for each?
Asked to comment on the findings, Matthew T. Drake, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “I would agree that there’s no reason any of these medications should be stopped or discontinued since there’s no evidence that they make the risk for infection worse.”
“But how [some of them may] improve or reduce the infection risk in my mind is somewhat unclear. ... It’s hard to come up with a unifying explanation” because those mentioned as potentially beneficial “are fairly different,” he noted.
Dr. Drake, associate professor of medicine in the department of endocrinology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said he agreed with the study authors that denosumab’s targeting of the RANK/RANKL system is a possible anti-COVID-19 mechanism for that drug because that system is involved in immune response.
Regarding zoledronate/zoledronic acid, both the Spanish authors and Dr. Drake pointed to a landmark study linking the intravenous drug to longer survival in patients with hip fracture. The study authors note that there could be several mechanisms for an overall survival benefit, but additionally, “zoledronate may make dendritic cells and their precursors less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could explain the beneficial effects here ... on COVID-19 incidence.”
And, the authors hypothesized, the reason for the lack of benefit with oral bisphosphonates might relate to the higher potency of the intravenous zoledronate. Dr. Drake added that its higher bioavailability may also play a role.
As for calcium, the authors suggest that the beneficial effect against COVID-19 could relate to its action in generating two immune cell types – T follicular helper cells and T follicular regulatory cells – which promote an appropriate immune response against infectious agents, including viruses.
Data supporting the guidelines
Of the 2,102 patients in the study by Blanch-Rubió and colleagues, 80.5% were women, and their mean age was 66.4 years. Overall, 63.7% had osteoarthritis, 43.5% had osteoporosis, and 27.2% had fibromyalgia. Treatments included vitamin D in 62%, calcium in 23.3%, denosumab in 12.6%, and intravenous zoledronate in 8.5%. Over half were taking analgesics and nearly a third antidepressants, with 9.9% taking duloxetine.
During the study period, 5.2%, or 109 individuals, were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on presenting for medical care with hallmark symptoms.
After adjustments for sex, age, diabetes, pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and active cancer or treatment, the relative risks for COVID-19 were 0.58 for denosumab, 0.62 for intravenous zoledronate, and 0.64 for calcium, all nonsignificant trends. No associations were found between COVID-19 and oral bisphosphonates, vitamin D, or thiazide diuretics. Increased but nonsignificant relative risks for COVID-19 were seen with analgesics, particularly pregabalin (1.55), gabapentin (1.39), and opioids (1.25).
Among antidepressants, there was a relative risk of 1.54 for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, 1.38 for amitriptyline, and 1.22 for all dual-action antidepressants together. In contrast, there was a negative association with the dual-action antidepressant duloxetine, with an adjusted relative risk of 0.68.
“The good news,” Dr. Drake said, “is that none of it appears bad.”
Dr. Blanch-Rubió has received grants or consulting fees from Amgen, Laboratorio Stada, Gedeon-Rhicter Ibérica, Lilly España, Pfizer, Gebro Pharma, and UCB Pharma. Dr. Maldonado has received research grants or consulting fees from Aelis, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, BrainCo, Esteve, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janus, Lundbeck, Pharmaleads, Phytoplant, Rhodes, Sanofi, Spherium, Union de Pharmacologie Scientifique Appliquée, Upjohn, and Uriach. Dr. Drake has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiac arrest in COVID-19 pandemic: ‘Survival is possible’
In the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, rates of sustained return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were lower throughout the country, compared with a year earlier, in one study.
A second study of that period showed that patients with COVID-19 had rates that were better than previously reported of surviving in-hospital cardiac arrest.
Paul S. Chan, MD, presented the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest research, and Oscar J. Mitchell, MD, presented the in-hospital cardiac arrest findings in a late-breaking resuscitation science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The former study was also simultaneously published online Nov. 14 in JAMA Cardiology.
Importantly, “the survival rates were not zero in either setting,” said Dr. Chan, commenting on the implications of both studies taken together.
“The survival rates – either return of circulation or survival to discharge – were not futile,” Dr. Chan, from Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, said in an interview.
“And I think that’s an overall important message – that we can’t write off patients who have a cardiac arrest at this point,” he stressed. “They deserve a response. Although the outcomes might not be as good as we had seen in years prior, we are seeing patients making it out of the hospital and surviving.”
Dr. Mitchell, from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, echoed this message in an interview.
“I think that the key finding here is that survival is possible after patients with COVID-19 suffer an in-hospital cardiac arrest,” Dr. Mitchell said. “We hope that the information from our study will be of use to frontline providers who are treating patients with COVID-19.”
“In coming weeks, there will likely be increased hospital strain and enormous challenges to providing COVID-19 care,” added Benjamin S. Abella, MD, the senior author of the in-hospital study. Dr. Abella is also from the University of Pennsylvania and was cochair of the Resuscitation Science symposium during the AHA meeting.
“It is crucial that hospital leaders prepare now for how they will manage COVID-19 resuscitation efforts,” Dr. Abella said. “Emergency medicine and critical care leaders must be mindful that many COVID-19 patients with arrest could survive to return to their families.”
“It is important to note both studies demonstrated variations in outcome and that those differences were associated with the differential COVID prevalence and mortality,” session comoderator Cindy H. Hsu, MD, PhD, University of Michigan, said in an interview.
“Future studies,” she said, “should address knowledge gaps including associated comorbidities and affected resuscitation process variables during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, March 2019 vs. March 2020
Compared with 2019, in 2020, the reported rates of return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest fell from 25% to 10.6% in New York and from 13.5% to 5.0% in northern Italy – two areas that were severely affected, Dr. Chan noted.
In this study, the researchers aimed to examine whether out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes would be similar throughout the United States, including areas that were less severely affected, in the first weeks of the pandemic.
They linked data from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES), which covers an area with about 152 million U.S. residents, with COVID-19 disease mortality data.
There were 9,863 out-of-hospital arrests from March 16 to April 30, 2020, compared with 9,440 cases during this time in 2019.
The patients in both years had a similar age (mean, 62 years) and sex (62% male), but there were more Black patients in 2020 (28% vs. 23%).
Overall, in communities with low to high rates of death from COVID-19, the rate of return of spontaneous circulation was 18% lower in that early pandemic period than in the same time in the previous year (23% vs. 29.8%; adjusted rate ratio, 0.82).
The rates of return of spontaneous circulation were also lower in communities with a low rate of COVID-19 mortality, but to a lesser extent (11%-15% lower in 2020 vs. 2019).
In the subset of emergency medical agencies with complete data on hospital survival, overall rates of survival to discharge were 17% lower during the studied pandemic period versus the same time a year earlier (6.6% vs. 9.8%; adjusted RR, 0.83).
This drop in survival was greater in communities with moderate to high COVID-19 mortality.
These outcomes were not explained by differences in emergency medical services arrival or treatment times, rates of bystander CPR, or initial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rhythm.
Dr. Chan was a coauthor of an interim guidance issued April 9, 2020, by the AHA and several other medical societies for ways to protect frontline workers from contracting COVID-19 while they were performing CPR.
Communities that were not heavily affected by COVID-19 could have also been following the recommendations, which might have affected outcomes, he speculated.
For example, “when we pause chest compressions it can potentially worsen survival even if it’s for a short period of time. That might explain the lower rates of return of circulation.”
“That guidance was really meant for heavily affected communities,” Dr. Chan added. “Of course, as we speak, the pandemic is pretty much everywhere in the United States. It’s not just in the northeast; it’s not just in Arizona, Florida, California, Texas like it was in the summer. You are seeing surges in 46 of the 50 states.
“If your community is heavily affected by COVID-19 in terms of deaths at this time, paramedics will need to take caution to also help protect themselves, and the guidance may apply at that point,” he said.
In-hospital cardiac arrest, March Through May 2020
The early studies of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19 showed “concerningly low rates” of return of spontaneous circulation and survival, said Dr. Mitchell.
“The first was a study from Wuhan, which demonstrated a 2.9% 30-day survival and the second was a small cohort from NYC with 0% survival to hospital discharge,” he said. “This raised concerns that offering CPR to patients who had a cardiac arrest from COVID-19 might only hold a low probability of success.”
To investigate this, the researchers formed a COVID study group comprising two hospitals in New York and nine hospitals in the Northeast and West Coast.
They identified 260 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who had in-hospital cardiac arrest between March 1 and May 31, 2020. The patients had a median age of 69 years, and 72% were male. Most had preexisting comorbidities. Most of the cardiac arrests were in the ICU (64%), and almost all were witnessed (91%).
Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 22% of the patients, and 12% had survived 30 days later. Of the 260 cardiac arrests, most (204) occurred in the New York hospitals.
There was a huge variation in outcomes. The rate of sustained return of spontaneous circulation was much lower in the two hospitals in New York compared with elsewhere (11% vs. 64%), as was 30-day survival (6% vs. 36%).
“Variation in outcomes from [in-hospital cardiac arrest] has been well described prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Mitchell, “and is felt to be due to a range of factors, including variation in detection and prevention of cardiac arrest, management of patients during the cardiac arrest, and differences in postarrest care – including targeted temperature management and neuroprognostication.”
“We hypothesize that the strains of the COVID-19 pandemic may have amplified these variations (although we were unable to compare hospital performance before and after the pandemic),” he said.
Nevertheless, “in contrast to [earlier] studies, we have found that survival with a good neurological status is possible after in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19, which is certainly reassuring for those of us on the front line.”
Dr. Chan has received research support from the American Heart Association (which helps fund CARES); the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Optum Rx. Dr. Abella has received honoraria from NeuroproteXeon, Becton Dickinson, and Physio-Control, and research grants from Medtronic, PCORI, Physio-Control, Stryker, and TerSera. Dr. Mitchell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, rates of sustained return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were lower throughout the country, compared with a year earlier, in one study.
A second study of that period showed that patients with COVID-19 had rates that were better than previously reported of surviving in-hospital cardiac arrest.
Paul S. Chan, MD, presented the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest research, and Oscar J. Mitchell, MD, presented the in-hospital cardiac arrest findings in a late-breaking resuscitation science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The former study was also simultaneously published online Nov. 14 in JAMA Cardiology.
Importantly, “the survival rates were not zero in either setting,” said Dr. Chan, commenting on the implications of both studies taken together.
“The survival rates – either return of circulation or survival to discharge – were not futile,” Dr. Chan, from Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, said in an interview.
“And I think that’s an overall important message – that we can’t write off patients who have a cardiac arrest at this point,” he stressed. “They deserve a response. Although the outcomes might not be as good as we had seen in years prior, we are seeing patients making it out of the hospital and surviving.”
Dr. Mitchell, from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, echoed this message in an interview.
“I think that the key finding here is that survival is possible after patients with COVID-19 suffer an in-hospital cardiac arrest,” Dr. Mitchell said. “We hope that the information from our study will be of use to frontline providers who are treating patients with COVID-19.”
“In coming weeks, there will likely be increased hospital strain and enormous challenges to providing COVID-19 care,” added Benjamin S. Abella, MD, the senior author of the in-hospital study. Dr. Abella is also from the University of Pennsylvania and was cochair of the Resuscitation Science symposium during the AHA meeting.
“It is crucial that hospital leaders prepare now for how they will manage COVID-19 resuscitation efforts,” Dr. Abella said. “Emergency medicine and critical care leaders must be mindful that many COVID-19 patients with arrest could survive to return to their families.”
“It is important to note both studies demonstrated variations in outcome and that those differences were associated with the differential COVID prevalence and mortality,” session comoderator Cindy H. Hsu, MD, PhD, University of Michigan, said in an interview.
“Future studies,” she said, “should address knowledge gaps including associated comorbidities and affected resuscitation process variables during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, March 2019 vs. March 2020
Compared with 2019, in 2020, the reported rates of return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest fell from 25% to 10.6% in New York and from 13.5% to 5.0% in northern Italy – two areas that were severely affected, Dr. Chan noted.
In this study, the researchers aimed to examine whether out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes would be similar throughout the United States, including areas that were less severely affected, in the first weeks of the pandemic.
They linked data from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES), which covers an area with about 152 million U.S. residents, with COVID-19 disease mortality data.
There were 9,863 out-of-hospital arrests from March 16 to April 30, 2020, compared with 9,440 cases during this time in 2019.
The patients in both years had a similar age (mean, 62 years) and sex (62% male), but there were more Black patients in 2020 (28% vs. 23%).
Overall, in communities with low to high rates of death from COVID-19, the rate of return of spontaneous circulation was 18% lower in that early pandemic period than in the same time in the previous year (23% vs. 29.8%; adjusted rate ratio, 0.82).
The rates of return of spontaneous circulation were also lower in communities with a low rate of COVID-19 mortality, but to a lesser extent (11%-15% lower in 2020 vs. 2019).
In the subset of emergency medical agencies with complete data on hospital survival, overall rates of survival to discharge were 17% lower during the studied pandemic period versus the same time a year earlier (6.6% vs. 9.8%; adjusted RR, 0.83).
This drop in survival was greater in communities with moderate to high COVID-19 mortality.
These outcomes were not explained by differences in emergency medical services arrival or treatment times, rates of bystander CPR, or initial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rhythm.
Dr. Chan was a coauthor of an interim guidance issued April 9, 2020, by the AHA and several other medical societies for ways to protect frontline workers from contracting COVID-19 while they were performing CPR.
Communities that were not heavily affected by COVID-19 could have also been following the recommendations, which might have affected outcomes, he speculated.
For example, “when we pause chest compressions it can potentially worsen survival even if it’s for a short period of time. That might explain the lower rates of return of circulation.”
“That guidance was really meant for heavily affected communities,” Dr. Chan added. “Of course, as we speak, the pandemic is pretty much everywhere in the United States. It’s not just in the northeast; it’s not just in Arizona, Florida, California, Texas like it was in the summer. You are seeing surges in 46 of the 50 states.
“If your community is heavily affected by COVID-19 in terms of deaths at this time, paramedics will need to take caution to also help protect themselves, and the guidance may apply at that point,” he said.
In-hospital cardiac arrest, March Through May 2020
The early studies of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19 showed “concerningly low rates” of return of spontaneous circulation and survival, said Dr. Mitchell.
“The first was a study from Wuhan, which demonstrated a 2.9% 30-day survival and the second was a small cohort from NYC with 0% survival to hospital discharge,” he said. “This raised concerns that offering CPR to patients who had a cardiac arrest from COVID-19 might only hold a low probability of success.”
To investigate this, the researchers formed a COVID study group comprising two hospitals in New York and nine hospitals in the Northeast and West Coast.
They identified 260 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who had in-hospital cardiac arrest between March 1 and May 31, 2020. The patients had a median age of 69 years, and 72% were male. Most had preexisting comorbidities. Most of the cardiac arrests were in the ICU (64%), and almost all were witnessed (91%).
Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 22% of the patients, and 12% had survived 30 days later. Of the 260 cardiac arrests, most (204) occurred in the New York hospitals.
There was a huge variation in outcomes. The rate of sustained return of spontaneous circulation was much lower in the two hospitals in New York compared with elsewhere (11% vs. 64%), as was 30-day survival (6% vs. 36%).
“Variation in outcomes from [in-hospital cardiac arrest] has been well described prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Mitchell, “and is felt to be due to a range of factors, including variation in detection and prevention of cardiac arrest, management of patients during the cardiac arrest, and differences in postarrest care – including targeted temperature management and neuroprognostication.”
“We hypothesize that the strains of the COVID-19 pandemic may have amplified these variations (although we were unable to compare hospital performance before and after the pandemic),” he said.
Nevertheless, “in contrast to [earlier] studies, we have found that survival with a good neurological status is possible after in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19, which is certainly reassuring for those of us on the front line.”
Dr. Chan has received research support from the American Heart Association (which helps fund CARES); the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Optum Rx. Dr. Abella has received honoraria from NeuroproteXeon, Becton Dickinson, and Physio-Control, and research grants from Medtronic, PCORI, Physio-Control, Stryker, and TerSera. Dr. Mitchell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, rates of sustained return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were lower throughout the country, compared with a year earlier, in one study.
A second study of that period showed that patients with COVID-19 had rates that were better than previously reported of surviving in-hospital cardiac arrest.
Paul S. Chan, MD, presented the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest research, and Oscar J. Mitchell, MD, presented the in-hospital cardiac arrest findings in a late-breaking resuscitation science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The former study was also simultaneously published online Nov. 14 in JAMA Cardiology.
Importantly, “the survival rates were not zero in either setting,” said Dr. Chan, commenting on the implications of both studies taken together.
“The survival rates – either return of circulation or survival to discharge – were not futile,” Dr. Chan, from Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, said in an interview.
“And I think that’s an overall important message – that we can’t write off patients who have a cardiac arrest at this point,” he stressed. “They deserve a response. Although the outcomes might not be as good as we had seen in years prior, we are seeing patients making it out of the hospital and surviving.”
Dr. Mitchell, from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, echoed this message in an interview.
“I think that the key finding here is that survival is possible after patients with COVID-19 suffer an in-hospital cardiac arrest,” Dr. Mitchell said. “We hope that the information from our study will be of use to frontline providers who are treating patients with COVID-19.”
“In coming weeks, there will likely be increased hospital strain and enormous challenges to providing COVID-19 care,” added Benjamin S. Abella, MD, the senior author of the in-hospital study. Dr. Abella is also from the University of Pennsylvania and was cochair of the Resuscitation Science symposium during the AHA meeting.
“It is crucial that hospital leaders prepare now for how they will manage COVID-19 resuscitation efforts,” Dr. Abella said. “Emergency medicine and critical care leaders must be mindful that many COVID-19 patients with arrest could survive to return to their families.”
“It is important to note both studies demonstrated variations in outcome and that those differences were associated with the differential COVID prevalence and mortality,” session comoderator Cindy H. Hsu, MD, PhD, University of Michigan, said in an interview.
“Future studies,” she said, “should address knowledge gaps including associated comorbidities and affected resuscitation process variables during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, March 2019 vs. March 2020
Compared with 2019, in 2020, the reported rates of return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest fell from 25% to 10.6% in New York and from 13.5% to 5.0% in northern Italy – two areas that were severely affected, Dr. Chan noted.
In this study, the researchers aimed to examine whether out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes would be similar throughout the United States, including areas that were less severely affected, in the first weeks of the pandemic.
They linked data from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES), which covers an area with about 152 million U.S. residents, with COVID-19 disease mortality data.
There were 9,863 out-of-hospital arrests from March 16 to April 30, 2020, compared with 9,440 cases during this time in 2019.
The patients in both years had a similar age (mean, 62 years) and sex (62% male), but there were more Black patients in 2020 (28% vs. 23%).
Overall, in communities with low to high rates of death from COVID-19, the rate of return of spontaneous circulation was 18% lower in that early pandemic period than in the same time in the previous year (23% vs. 29.8%; adjusted rate ratio, 0.82).
The rates of return of spontaneous circulation were also lower in communities with a low rate of COVID-19 mortality, but to a lesser extent (11%-15% lower in 2020 vs. 2019).
In the subset of emergency medical agencies with complete data on hospital survival, overall rates of survival to discharge were 17% lower during the studied pandemic period versus the same time a year earlier (6.6% vs. 9.8%; adjusted RR, 0.83).
This drop in survival was greater in communities with moderate to high COVID-19 mortality.
These outcomes were not explained by differences in emergency medical services arrival or treatment times, rates of bystander CPR, or initial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rhythm.
Dr. Chan was a coauthor of an interim guidance issued April 9, 2020, by the AHA and several other medical societies for ways to protect frontline workers from contracting COVID-19 while they were performing CPR.
Communities that were not heavily affected by COVID-19 could have also been following the recommendations, which might have affected outcomes, he speculated.
For example, “when we pause chest compressions it can potentially worsen survival even if it’s for a short period of time. That might explain the lower rates of return of circulation.”
“That guidance was really meant for heavily affected communities,” Dr. Chan added. “Of course, as we speak, the pandemic is pretty much everywhere in the United States. It’s not just in the northeast; it’s not just in Arizona, Florida, California, Texas like it was in the summer. You are seeing surges in 46 of the 50 states.
“If your community is heavily affected by COVID-19 in terms of deaths at this time, paramedics will need to take caution to also help protect themselves, and the guidance may apply at that point,” he said.
In-hospital cardiac arrest, March Through May 2020
The early studies of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19 showed “concerningly low rates” of return of spontaneous circulation and survival, said Dr. Mitchell.
“The first was a study from Wuhan, which demonstrated a 2.9% 30-day survival and the second was a small cohort from NYC with 0% survival to hospital discharge,” he said. “This raised concerns that offering CPR to patients who had a cardiac arrest from COVID-19 might only hold a low probability of success.”
To investigate this, the researchers formed a COVID study group comprising two hospitals in New York and nine hospitals in the Northeast and West Coast.
They identified 260 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who had in-hospital cardiac arrest between March 1 and May 31, 2020. The patients had a median age of 69 years, and 72% were male. Most had preexisting comorbidities. Most of the cardiac arrests were in the ICU (64%), and almost all were witnessed (91%).
Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 22% of the patients, and 12% had survived 30 days later. Of the 260 cardiac arrests, most (204) occurred in the New York hospitals.
There was a huge variation in outcomes. The rate of sustained return of spontaneous circulation was much lower in the two hospitals in New York compared with elsewhere (11% vs. 64%), as was 30-day survival (6% vs. 36%).
“Variation in outcomes from [in-hospital cardiac arrest] has been well described prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Mitchell, “and is felt to be due to a range of factors, including variation in detection and prevention of cardiac arrest, management of patients during the cardiac arrest, and differences in postarrest care – including targeted temperature management and neuroprognostication.”
“We hypothesize that the strains of the COVID-19 pandemic may have amplified these variations (although we were unable to compare hospital performance before and after the pandemic),” he said.
Nevertheless, “in contrast to [earlier] studies, we have found that survival with a good neurological status is possible after in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with COVID-19, which is certainly reassuring for those of us on the front line.”
Dr. Chan has received research support from the American Heart Association (which helps fund CARES); the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Optum Rx. Dr. Abella has received honoraria from NeuroproteXeon, Becton Dickinson, and Physio-Control, and research grants from Medtronic, PCORI, Physio-Control, Stryker, and TerSera. Dr. Mitchell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHA 2020