CHEST Physician

Food insecurity is not knowing how you will get your next meal. This pandemic has led to a lot of it, especially as a result of massive unemployment. Now imagine being in that situation with a food-allergic child. It would be frightening.

There is always a level of anxiety for parents of food-allergic children, but the Food and Drug Administration–mandated labeling of food allergens has helped to allay some of those concerns. Shopping can feel safer, even if it’s not foolproof.

Now, that fear for the safety of food-allergic children is going to be compounded by the FDA’s latest announcement, made at the behest of the food industry.

Disruptions in the food supply chain caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have created some problems for the food industry. The industry sought – and received – relief from the FDA; they are now allowing some ingredient substitutions without mandating a change in labeling. These changes were made without opportunity for public comment, according to the FDA, because of the exigency of the situation. Furthermore, the changes may stay in effect for an indeterminate period of time after the pandemic is deemed under control.

Labeling of gluten and the major eight allergens (peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, soy, wheat, fish, and crustacean shellfish) cannot change under the new guidelines. The FDA also advised “consideration” of major food allergens recognized in other countries (sesame, celery, lupin, buckwheat, molluscan shellfish, and mustard). Of these, lupin is known to cross-react with peanut, and sesame seed allergy is increasingly prevalent. In fact, the FDA has considered adding it to the list of major allergens.

Meanwhile, according to this temporary FDA policy, substitutions should be limited to no more than 2% of the weight of the final product unless it is a variety of the same ingredient. The example provided is substitution of one type of mushroom for another, but even that could be an issue for the rare patient. And what if this is misinterpreted – as will surely happen somewhere – and one seed is substituted for another?

A friend of mine is a pediatrician and mother of a child who is allergic to sesame, peanuts, tree nuts, and garbanzo beans. Naturally, she had grave concerns about these changes. She also wondered what the liability would be for the food manufacturing company in the current situation despite the FDA notice, which seems like a valid point. It is worth noting that, at the very top of this FDA notice, are the words “contains nonbinding recommendations,” so manufacturers may want to think twice about how they approach this. A minority of companies have pledged to relabel foods if necessary. Meanwhile, without any alert in advance, it is now up to patients and their physicians to sort out the attendant risks.

The FDA should have advised or mandated that food manufacturers give notice to online and physical retailers of ingredient changes. A simple sign in front of a display or alert online would be a very reasonable solution and pose no burden to those involved. It should be self-evident that mistakes always happen, especially under duress, and that the loosening of these regulations will have unintended consequences. To the severe problem of food insecurity, we can add one more concern for the parents of allergic children: food-allergen insecurity.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Food insecurity is not knowing how you will get your next meal. This pandemic has led to a lot of it, especially as a result of massive unemployment. Now imagine being in that situation with a food-allergic child. It would be frightening.

There is always a level of anxiety for parents of food-allergic children, but the Food and Drug Administration–mandated labeling of food allergens has helped to allay some of those concerns. Shopping can feel safer, even if it’s not foolproof.

Now, that fear for the safety of food-allergic children is going to be compounded by the FDA’s latest announcement, made at the behest of the food industry.

Disruptions in the food supply chain caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have created some problems for the food industry. The industry sought – and received – relief from the FDA; they are now allowing some ingredient substitutions without mandating a change in labeling. These changes were made without opportunity for public comment, according to the FDA, because of the exigency of the situation. Furthermore, the changes may stay in effect for an indeterminate period of time after the pandemic is deemed under control.

Labeling of gluten and the major eight allergens (peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, soy, wheat, fish, and crustacean shellfish) cannot change under the new guidelines. The FDA also advised “consideration” of major food allergens recognized in other countries (sesame, celery, lupin, buckwheat, molluscan shellfish, and mustard). Of these, lupin is known to cross-react with peanut, and sesame seed allergy is increasingly prevalent. In fact, the FDA has considered adding it to the list of major allergens.

Meanwhile, according to this temporary FDA policy, substitutions should be limited to no more than 2% of the weight of the final product unless it is a variety of the same ingredient. The example provided is substitution of one type of mushroom for another, but even that could be an issue for the rare patient. And what if this is misinterpreted – as will surely happen somewhere – and one seed is substituted for another?

A friend of mine is a pediatrician and mother of a child who is allergic to sesame, peanuts, tree nuts, and garbanzo beans. Naturally, she had grave concerns about these changes. She also wondered what the liability would be for the food manufacturing company in the current situation despite the FDA notice, which seems like a valid point. It is worth noting that, at the very top of this FDA notice, are the words “contains nonbinding recommendations,” so manufacturers may want to think twice about how they approach this. A minority of companies have pledged to relabel foods if necessary. Meanwhile, without any alert in advance, it is now up to patients and their physicians to sort out the attendant risks.

The FDA should have advised or mandated that food manufacturers give notice to online and physical retailers of ingredient changes. A simple sign in front of a display or alert online would be a very reasonable solution and pose no burden to those involved. It should be self-evident that mistakes always happen, especially under duress, and that the loosening of these regulations will have unintended consequences. To the severe problem of food insecurity, we can add one more concern for the parents of allergic children: food-allergen insecurity.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Food insecurity is not knowing how you will get your next meal. This pandemic has led to a lot of it, especially as a result of massive unemployment. Now imagine being in that situation with a food-allergic child. It would be frightening.

There is always a level of anxiety for parents of food-allergic children, but the Food and Drug Administration–mandated labeling of food allergens has helped to allay some of those concerns. Shopping can feel safer, even if it’s not foolproof.

Now, that fear for the safety of food-allergic children is going to be compounded by the FDA’s latest announcement, made at the behest of the food industry.

Disruptions in the food supply chain caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have created some problems for the food industry. The industry sought – and received – relief from the FDA; they are now allowing some ingredient substitutions without mandating a change in labeling. These changes were made without opportunity for public comment, according to the FDA, because of the exigency of the situation. Furthermore, the changes may stay in effect for an indeterminate period of time after the pandemic is deemed under control.

Labeling of gluten and the major eight allergens (peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, soy, wheat, fish, and crustacean shellfish) cannot change under the new guidelines. The FDA also advised “consideration” of major food allergens recognized in other countries (sesame, celery, lupin, buckwheat, molluscan shellfish, and mustard). Of these, lupin is known to cross-react with peanut, and sesame seed allergy is increasingly prevalent. In fact, the FDA has considered adding it to the list of major allergens.

Meanwhile, according to this temporary FDA policy, substitutions should be limited to no more than 2% of the weight of the final product unless it is a variety of the same ingredient. The example provided is substitution of one type of mushroom for another, but even that could be an issue for the rare patient. And what if this is misinterpreted – as will surely happen somewhere – and one seed is substituted for another?

A friend of mine is a pediatrician and mother of a child who is allergic to sesame, peanuts, tree nuts, and garbanzo beans. Naturally, she had grave concerns about these changes. She also wondered what the liability would be for the food manufacturing company in the current situation despite the FDA notice, which seems like a valid point. It is worth noting that, at the very top of this FDA notice, are the words “contains nonbinding recommendations,” so manufacturers may want to think twice about how they approach this. A minority of companies have pledged to relabel foods if necessary. Meanwhile, without any alert in advance, it is now up to patients and their physicians to sort out the attendant risks.

The FDA should have advised or mandated that food manufacturers give notice to online and physical retailers of ingredient changes. A simple sign in front of a display or alert online would be a very reasonable solution and pose no burden to those involved. It should be self-evident that mistakes always happen, especially under duress, and that the loosening of these regulations will have unintended consequences. To the severe problem of food insecurity, we can add one more concern for the parents of allergic children: food-allergen insecurity.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an elevated risk of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but methotrexate does not accentuate that risk and may in fact be protective, new data show. These were among key findings of a pair of studies reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Although a guideline-recommended cornerstone in the management of RA, methotrexate has been associated with both hypersensitivity pneumonitis and diffuse lung disease. However, its involvement in the development of ILD among patients with RA is unclear.

A Danish study of more than 30,000 RA patients reported at the congress found that their risk of ILD was about three to five times that of the general population. However, risk did not differ significantly whether they had filled a methotrexate prescription or not.

In addition, a multinational case-control study of more than 1,000 RA patients also reported at the congress found that, compared with never-users of methotrexate, ever-users actually had a 59% lower likelihood of developing ILD.

However, both studies were limited by their retrospective design, Elizabeth R. Volkmann, MD, codirector of the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles, cautioned in an interview. Hence, there was likely systematic bias and confounding.

“I would interpret the conclusions of both studies with caution,” she maintained. “To understand how a particular intervention, such as methotrexate use, affects the outcome of ILD development, a prospective design is needed, which adequately adjusts for known ILD risk factors, such as male sex and smoking.”

As to whether the new findings are practice changing and how they might affect patient counseling, “the answers to these questions are not straightforward and depend on other patient-related factors,” according to Dr. Volkmann.
 

Danish nationwide study

René Cordtz, MD, a clinical assistant at the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet‐Gentofte, Copenhagen, and colleagues conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study using registry data from 1997 to 2015 to assess lung disease among patients with RA by prescriptions filled.

Results based on 30,512 RA patients showed that, compared with peers filling no methotrexate prescriptions, patients filling at least one did not have a significantly elevated risk of ILD at either 1 year of follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.03) or 5 years of follow-up (HR, 1.00). (Findings were similar for sulfasalazine, with respective nonsignificant HRs of 0.88 and 1.14.)

In addition, patients with RA had a similarly sharply elevated 5-year risk of ILD relative to the general population regardless of whether they had filled neither methotrexate nor sulfasalazine prescriptions (standardized incidence ratio, 3.38) or had filled prescriptions for methotrexate only (SIR, 3.63), sulfasalazine only (SIR, 4.12), or both (SIR, 5.45).

“RA patients have an increased risk of ILD, compared to the general population, which was not surprising, but very importantly, that risk was not further exacerbated in those treated with methotrexate,” Dr. Cordtz concluded. “We do acknowledge that purchasing your medicine is different from taking your medicine, which is why we found it extra reassuring that when requiring at least two methotrexate prescriptions to be considered exposed, it did not change our results.”

Multinational study

Pierre-Antoine Juge, MD, a rheumatologist at Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, and colleagues performed a case-control study among 482 RA patients with ILD and 741 RA patients without ILD in three cohorts: a French discovery cohort, a multinational (Brazilian, Italian, Mexican, United Kingdom, and United States) replication cohort, and a combined cohort. Those with methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis were excluded.

Results showed that relative to peers without ILD, patients with ILD had a lower prevalence of ever having used methotrexate and had received a lower cumulative methotrexate dose, findings that were consistent across all three cohorts.

Methotrexate ever-use was associated with a significantly lower adjusted likelihood of ILD in the discovery cohort (odds ratio, 0.46), the replication cohort (OR, 0.38), and the combined cohort (OR, 0.41). Furthermore, ever-users were less commonly represented among patients with ILD regardless of chest high-resolution CT pattern (usual interstitial pneumonia pattern vs. not).

Finally, methotrexate use appeared to delay the adjusted time to onset of ILD by 3.5 years in the discovery cohort (P = .001), by 3.2 years in the replication cohort (P < .0001), and by 3.5 years in the combined cohort (P < .0001).

“Outside of methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis, methotrexate was not a risk factor for RA-associated ILD in our study. We observed an inverse relationship that was similar whatever the high-resolution CT pattern,” Dr. Juge commented. “But this possible protective effect should be confirmed through a dedicated prospective, randomized, controlled trial.”

“Methotrexate should not be considered as a causal factor for RA-associated ILD, and its [discontinuation] should be discussed through a multidisciplinary discussion,” he recommended. In addition, “this study does not investigate the impact of methotrexate use on RA-associated ILD prognosis.”

The Danish study did not receive any specific funding, and none of its authors reported having any financial disclosures. The multinational study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Juge disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest, but many of his coauthors reported financial relationships with industry. Dr. Volkmann disclosed consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Forbius, and receiving grant support from Forbius and Corbus.

SOURCES: Cordtz R et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:147-8, Abstract OP0232; Juge P-A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:25, Abstract OP0236.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an elevated risk of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but methotrexate does not accentuate that risk and may in fact be protective, new data show. These were among key findings of a pair of studies reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Although a guideline-recommended cornerstone in the management of RA, methotrexate has been associated with both hypersensitivity pneumonitis and diffuse lung disease. However, its involvement in the development of ILD among patients with RA is unclear.

A Danish study of more than 30,000 RA patients reported at the congress found that their risk of ILD was about three to five times that of the general population. However, risk did not differ significantly whether they had filled a methotrexate prescription or not.

In addition, a multinational case-control study of more than 1,000 RA patients also reported at the congress found that, compared with never-users of methotrexate, ever-users actually had a 59% lower likelihood of developing ILD.

However, both studies were limited by their retrospective design, Elizabeth R. Volkmann, MD, codirector of the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles, cautioned in an interview. Hence, there was likely systematic bias and confounding.

“I would interpret the conclusions of both studies with caution,” she maintained. “To understand how a particular intervention, such as methotrexate use, affects the outcome of ILD development, a prospective design is needed, which adequately adjusts for known ILD risk factors, such as male sex and smoking.”

As to whether the new findings are practice changing and how they might affect patient counseling, “the answers to these questions are not straightforward and depend on other patient-related factors,” according to Dr. Volkmann.
 

Danish nationwide study

René Cordtz, MD, a clinical assistant at the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet‐Gentofte, Copenhagen, and colleagues conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study using registry data from 1997 to 2015 to assess lung disease among patients with RA by prescriptions filled.

Results based on 30,512 RA patients showed that, compared with peers filling no methotrexate prescriptions, patients filling at least one did not have a significantly elevated risk of ILD at either 1 year of follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.03) or 5 years of follow-up (HR, 1.00). (Findings were similar for sulfasalazine, with respective nonsignificant HRs of 0.88 and 1.14.)

In addition, patients with RA had a similarly sharply elevated 5-year risk of ILD relative to the general population regardless of whether they had filled neither methotrexate nor sulfasalazine prescriptions (standardized incidence ratio, 3.38) or had filled prescriptions for methotrexate only (SIR, 3.63), sulfasalazine only (SIR, 4.12), or both (SIR, 5.45).

“RA patients have an increased risk of ILD, compared to the general population, which was not surprising, but very importantly, that risk was not further exacerbated in those treated with methotrexate,” Dr. Cordtz concluded. “We do acknowledge that purchasing your medicine is different from taking your medicine, which is why we found it extra reassuring that when requiring at least two methotrexate prescriptions to be considered exposed, it did not change our results.”

Multinational study

Pierre-Antoine Juge, MD, a rheumatologist at Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, and colleagues performed a case-control study among 482 RA patients with ILD and 741 RA patients without ILD in three cohorts: a French discovery cohort, a multinational (Brazilian, Italian, Mexican, United Kingdom, and United States) replication cohort, and a combined cohort. Those with methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis were excluded.

Results showed that relative to peers without ILD, patients with ILD had a lower prevalence of ever having used methotrexate and had received a lower cumulative methotrexate dose, findings that were consistent across all three cohorts.

Methotrexate ever-use was associated with a significantly lower adjusted likelihood of ILD in the discovery cohort (odds ratio, 0.46), the replication cohort (OR, 0.38), and the combined cohort (OR, 0.41). Furthermore, ever-users were less commonly represented among patients with ILD regardless of chest high-resolution CT pattern (usual interstitial pneumonia pattern vs. not).

Finally, methotrexate use appeared to delay the adjusted time to onset of ILD by 3.5 years in the discovery cohort (P = .001), by 3.2 years in the replication cohort (P < .0001), and by 3.5 years in the combined cohort (P < .0001).

“Outside of methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis, methotrexate was not a risk factor for RA-associated ILD in our study. We observed an inverse relationship that was similar whatever the high-resolution CT pattern,” Dr. Juge commented. “But this possible protective effect should be confirmed through a dedicated prospective, randomized, controlled trial.”

“Methotrexate should not be considered as a causal factor for RA-associated ILD, and its [discontinuation] should be discussed through a multidisciplinary discussion,” he recommended. In addition, “this study does not investigate the impact of methotrexate use on RA-associated ILD prognosis.”

The Danish study did not receive any specific funding, and none of its authors reported having any financial disclosures. The multinational study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Juge disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest, but many of his coauthors reported financial relationships with industry. Dr. Volkmann disclosed consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Forbius, and receiving grant support from Forbius and Corbus.

SOURCES: Cordtz R et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:147-8, Abstract OP0232; Juge P-A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:25, Abstract OP0236.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an elevated risk of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but methotrexate does not accentuate that risk and may in fact be protective, new data show. These were among key findings of a pair of studies reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Although a guideline-recommended cornerstone in the management of RA, methotrexate has been associated with both hypersensitivity pneumonitis and diffuse lung disease. However, its involvement in the development of ILD among patients with RA is unclear.

A Danish study of more than 30,000 RA patients reported at the congress found that their risk of ILD was about three to five times that of the general population. However, risk did not differ significantly whether they had filled a methotrexate prescription or not.

In addition, a multinational case-control study of more than 1,000 RA patients also reported at the congress found that, compared with never-users of methotrexate, ever-users actually had a 59% lower likelihood of developing ILD.

However, both studies were limited by their retrospective design, Elizabeth R. Volkmann, MD, codirector of the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles, cautioned in an interview. Hence, there was likely systematic bias and confounding.

“I would interpret the conclusions of both studies with caution,” she maintained. “To understand how a particular intervention, such as methotrexate use, affects the outcome of ILD development, a prospective design is needed, which adequately adjusts for known ILD risk factors, such as male sex and smoking.”

As to whether the new findings are practice changing and how they might affect patient counseling, “the answers to these questions are not straightforward and depend on other patient-related factors,” according to Dr. Volkmann.
 

Danish nationwide study

René Cordtz, MD, a clinical assistant at the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet‐Gentofte, Copenhagen, and colleagues conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study using registry data from 1997 to 2015 to assess lung disease among patients with RA by prescriptions filled.

Results based on 30,512 RA patients showed that, compared with peers filling no methotrexate prescriptions, patients filling at least one did not have a significantly elevated risk of ILD at either 1 year of follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.03) or 5 years of follow-up (HR, 1.00). (Findings were similar for sulfasalazine, with respective nonsignificant HRs of 0.88 and 1.14.)

In addition, patients with RA had a similarly sharply elevated 5-year risk of ILD relative to the general population regardless of whether they had filled neither methotrexate nor sulfasalazine prescriptions (standardized incidence ratio, 3.38) or had filled prescriptions for methotrexate only (SIR, 3.63), sulfasalazine only (SIR, 4.12), or both (SIR, 5.45).

“RA patients have an increased risk of ILD, compared to the general population, which was not surprising, but very importantly, that risk was not further exacerbated in those treated with methotrexate,” Dr. Cordtz concluded. “We do acknowledge that purchasing your medicine is different from taking your medicine, which is why we found it extra reassuring that when requiring at least two methotrexate prescriptions to be considered exposed, it did not change our results.”

Multinational study

Pierre-Antoine Juge, MD, a rheumatologist at Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, and colleagues performed a case-control study among 482 RA patients with ILD and 741 RA patients without ILD in three cohorts: a French discovery cohort, a multinational (Brazilian, Italian, Mexican, United Kingdom, and United States) replication cohort, and a combined cohort. Those with methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis were excluded.

Results showed that relative to peers without ILD, patients with ILD had a lower prevalence of ever having used methotrexate and had received a lower cumulative methotrexate dose, findings that were consistent across all three cohorts.

Methotrexate ever-use was associated with a significantly lower adjusted likelihood of ILD in the discovery cohort (odds ratio, 0.46), the replication cohort (OR, 0.38), and the combined cohort (OR, 0.41). Furthermore, ever-users were less commonly represented among patients with ILD regardless of chest high-resolution CT pattern (usual interstitial pneumonia pattern vs. not).

Finally, methotrexate use appeared to delay the adjusted time to onset of ILD by 3.5 years in the discovery cohort (P = .001), by 3.2 years in the replication cohort (P < .0001), and by 3.5 years in the combined cohort (P < .0001).

“Outside of methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis, methotrexate was not a risk factor for RA-associated ILD in our study. We observed an inverse relationship that was similar whatever the high-resolution CT pattern,” Dr. Juge commented. “But this possible protective effect should be confirmed through a dedicated prospective, randomized, controlled trial.”

“Methotrexate should not be considered as a causal factor for RA-associated ILD, and its [discontinuation] should be discussed through a multidisciplinary discussion,” he recommended. In addition, “this study does not investigate the impact of methotrexate use on RA-associated ILD prognosis.”

The Danish study did not receive any specific funding, and none of its authors reported having any financial disclosures. The multinational study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Juge disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest, but many of his coauthors reported financial relationships with industry. Dr. Volkmann disclosed consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Forbius, and receiving grant support from Forbius and Corbus.

SOURCES: Cordtz R et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:147-8, Abstract OP0232; Juge P-A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:25, Abstract OP0236.

The use of electronic nicotine delivery systems is associated with increased risk of cigarette smoking relapse among former smokers, results from a large longitudinal cohort study demonstrated.

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

“For the many clinicians treating former smokers who have successfully quit all nicotine products, the implications are that use of [electronic nicotine delivery systems] should be discouraged, just as use of all other tobacco products is discouraged,” researchers led by Colm D. Everard, PhD, reported in a study published in JAMA Network Open (2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4813).

Dr. Everard, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues based their comments on results from a survey of adult former smokers who participated in Waves 1-4 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013-2018). They limited the analysis to 2,273 former cigarette smokers who self-reported reported no tobacco product use at Wave 1, and categorized them as recent former smokers (defined as having last smoked within the past 12 previous months) or as long-term former smokers (defined as having last smoked for longer ago than in the previous 12 months). The main outcome of interest was the self-reported current use of cigarettes at follow-up interviews, which was defined as every day or some days. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) comprised e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes, and e-hookahs. Other tobacco products included cigars, pipe tobacco, hookahs, snus tobacco, other smokeless tobacco, and dissolvable tobacco.

Of the 2,273 adult former smokers, 52% were women, 60% were older than age 50, and 80% were non-Hispanic white. Adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) analysis revealed that the use of ENDS was associated with significant risk of cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.63) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.79). The use of other tobacco products was associated with significant risk for cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.97) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.82).

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it did not assess different ENDS devices, different e-liquid nicotine levels, or frequency of ENDS use and their associations with cigarette smoking relapse. It also did not explore the mechanism by which ENDS use may lead to reestablishing or reinforcing nicotine-seeking behavior among former cigarette users. “Determining pharmacologic, behavioral, or some other explanation for these findings may require laboratory-based research,” they wrote.

The PATH Study is supported with federal funds from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration and Department of Health and Human Services under a contract to Westat. One of the study authors, Wilson M. Compton, MD, reported having long-term stock holdings in General Electric, 3M, and Pfizer. The other authors reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The use of electronic nicotine delivery systems is associated with increased risk of cigarette smoking relapse among former smokers, results from a large longitudinal cohort study demonstrated.

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

“For the many clinicians treating former smokers who have successfully quit all nicotine products, the implications are that use of [electronic nicotine delivery systems] should be discouraged, just as use of all other tobacco products is discouraged,” researchers led by Colm D. Everard, PhD, reported in a study published in JAMA Network Open (2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4813).

Dr. Everard, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues based their comments on results from a survey of adult former smokers who participated in Waves 1-4 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013-2018). They limited the analysis to 2,273 former cigarette smokers who self-reported reported no tobacco product use at Wave 1, and categorized them as recent former smokers (defined as having last smoked within the past 12 previous months) or as long-term former smokers (defined as having last smoked for longer ago than in the previous 12 months). The main outcome of interest was the self-reported current use of cigarettes at follow-up interviews, which was defined as every day or some days. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) comprised e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes, and e-hookahs. Other tobacco products included cigars, pipe tobacco, hookahs, snus tobacco, other smokeless tobacco, and dissolvable tobacco.

Of the 2,273 adult former smokers, 52% were women, 60% were older than age 50, and 80% were non-Hispanic white. Adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) analysis revealed that the use of ENDS was associated with significant risk of cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.63) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.79). The use of other tobacco products was associated with significant risk for cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.97) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.82).

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it did not assess different ENDS devices, different e-liquid nicotine levels, or frequency of ENDS use and their associations with cigarette smoking relapse. It also did not explore the mechanism by which ENDS use may lead to reestablishing or reinforcing nicotine-seeking behavior among former cigarette users. “Determining pharmacologic, behavioral, or some other explanation for these findings may require laboratory-based research,” they wrote.

The PATH Study is supported with federal funds from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration and Department of Health and Human Services under a contract to Westat. One of the study authors, Wilson M. Compton, MD, reported having long-term stock holdings in General Electric, 3M, and Pfizer. The other authors reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The use of electronic nicotine delivery systems is associated with increased risk of cigarette smoking relapse among former smokers, results from a large longitudinal cohort study demonstrated.

ArminStautBerlin/Thinkstock

“For the many clinicians treating former smokers who have successfully quit all nicotine products, the implications are that use of [electronic nicotine delivery systems] should be discouraged, just as use of all other tobacco products is discouraged,” researchers led by Colm D. Everard, PhD, reported in a study published in JAMA Network Open (2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4813).

Dr. Everard, of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues based their comments on results from a survey of adult former smokers who participated in Waves 1-4 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013-2018). They limited the analysis to 2,273 former cigarette smokers who self-reported reported no tobacco product use at Wave 1, and categorized them as recent former smokers (defined as having last smoked within the past 12 previous months) or as long-term former smokers (defined as having last smoked for longer ago than in the previous 12 months). The main outcome of interest was the self-reported current use of cigarettes at follow-up interviews, which was defined as every day or some days. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) comprised e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes, and e-hookahs. Other tobacco products included cigars, pipe tobacco, hookahs, snus tobacco, other smokeless tobacco, and dissolvable tobacco.

Of the 2,273 adult former smokers, 52% were women, 60% were older than age 50, and 80% were non-Hispanic white. Adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) analysis revealed that the use of ENDS was associated with significant risk of cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.63) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.79). The use of other tobacco products was associated with significant risk for cigarette smoking relapse among recent former smokers (AHR 1.97) and among long-term former smokers (AHR 3.82).

The authors acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it did not assess different ENDS devices, different e-liquid nicotine levels, or frequency of ENDS use and their associations with cigarette smoking relapse. It also did not explore the mechanism by which ENDS use may lead to reestablishing or reinforcing nicotine-seeking behavior among former cigarette users. “Determining pharmacologic, behavioral, or some other explanation for these findings may require laboratory-based research,” they wrote.

The PATH Study is supported with federal funds from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration and Department of Health and Human Services under a contract to Westat. One of the study authors, Wilson M. Compton, MD, reported having long-term stock holdings in General Electric, 3M, and Pfizer. The other authors reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

A World Health Organization (WHO) official is walking back her comments characterizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals as “rare.”

Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said.

Suppressing symptomatic cases, on the other hand, would result in a “drastic reduction” in transmission, she noted. “But from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” she said.

But on June 9 – following a day of confusion and criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.”

Between 6% and 41% of individuals may be asymptomatic based on estimates, she acknowledged.“What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove also emphasized that her initial comments were made in response to a question raised at the press conference, and called it a misunderstanding. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that,” she said. “I was just trying to articulate what we know.”

The phrase “very rare” referred to a subset of studies and reports WHO had received from its member states following asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. “I was referring to some detailed investigations, cluster investigations, case contact tracing, where we had reports from member states saying that, when we follow asymptomatic cases, it’s very rare – and I used the phrase very rare – that we found a secondary transmission,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial comments drew criticism from medical and public health professionals, who said the statement was “confusing” and communicated poorly.

Eric J. Topol, MD, tweeted that WHO had “engendered considerable confusion” with the comments about asymptomatic individuals rarely transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Topol, the author of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine that suggested as many as 40%-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, said that it was not possible to determine whether asymptomatic individuals in the cohorts he studied were capable of spread like pre-symptomatic individuals. “We only know the viral loads are similar from multiple reports. And we do know some spread occurs from [asymptomatic] people,” he said.

Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a tweet that he believed WHO made “an irresponsible statement even though it was based on legitimate observations.” Reports by Member States do not reach a “bar of rigor,” he said.

Natalie E. Dean, PhD, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, tweeted that the initial comments by the WHO seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between asymptomatic individuals who never develop symptoms, and presymptomatic individuals who present as asymptomatic, but later develop symptoms. Finding that asymptomatic cases rarely transmit the virus could change how people exposed to those asymptomatic individuals are monitored, but “it seems more of scientific than practical interest,” she noted. “People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove's initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is "not correct." 

This article was updated 6/10/20.

A World Health Organization (WHO) official is walking back her comments characterizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals as “rare.”

Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said.

Suppressing symptomatic cases, on the other hand, would result in a “drastic reduction” in transmission, she noted. “But from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” she said.

But on June 9 – following a day of confusion and criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.”

Between 6% and 41% of individuals may be asymptomatic based on estimates, she acknowledged.“What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove also emphasized that her initial comments were made in response to a question raised at the press conference, and called it a misunderstanding. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that,” she said. “I was just trying to articulate what we know.”

The phrase “very rare” referred to a subset of studies and reports WHO had received from its member states following asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. “I was referring to some detailed investigations, cluster investigations, case contact tracing, where we had reports from member states saying that, when we follow asymptomatic cases, it’s very rare – and I used the phrase very rare – that we found a secondary transmission,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial comments drew criticism from medical and public health professionals, who said the statement was “confusing” and communicated poorly.

Eric J. Topol, MD, tweeted that WHO had “engendered considerable confusion” with the comments about asymptomatic individuals rarely transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Topol, the author of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine that suggested as many as 40%-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, said that it was not possible to determine whether asymptomatic individuals in the cohorts he studied were capable of spread like pre-symptomatic individuals. “We only know the viral loads are similar from multiple reports. And we do know some spread occurs from [asymptomatic] people,” he said.

Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a tweet that he believed WHO made “an irresponsible statement even though it was based on legitimate observations.” Reports by Member States do not reach a “bar of rigor,” he said.

Natalie E. Dean, PhD, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, tweeted that the initial comments by the WHO seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between asymptomatic individuals who never develop symptoms, and presymptomatic individuals who present as asymptomatic, but later develop symptoms. Finding that asymptomatic cases rarely transmit the virus could change how people exposed to those asymptomatic individuals are monitored, but “it seems more of scientific than practical interest,” she noted. “People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove's initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is "not correct." 

This article was updated 6/10/20.

A World Health Organization (WHO) official is walking back her comments characterizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by asymptomatic individuals as “rare.”

Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO’s COVID-19 technical lead and an infectious disease epidemiologist, caused a stir June 8 when she said that countries are reporting that many of their asymptomatic cases develop into cases of mild disease. For patients with truly asymptomatic disease, countries are “not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,” she said.

Suppressing symptomatic cases, on the other hand, would result in a “drastic reduction” in transmission, she noted. “But from the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” she said.

But on June 9 – following a day of confusion and criticism – Dr. Van Kerkhove sought to clarify her comments on asymptomatic transmission during a live social media Q&A. She noted that while “the majority of transmission that we know about” is through individuals with symptoms, “there are a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms – we don’t actually have that answer yet.”

Between 6% and 41% of individuals may be asymptomatic based on estimates, she acknowledged.“What we need to better understand is how many of the people in the population don’t have symptoms, and separately, how many of those individuals go on to transmit to others,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove also emphasized that her initial comments were made in response to a question raised at the press conference, and called it a misunderstanding. “I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that,” she said. “I was just trying to articulate what we know.”

The phrase “very rare” referred to a subset of studies and reports WHO had received from its member states following asymptomatic individuals with COVID-19. “I was referring to some detailed investigations, cluster investigations, case contact tracing, where we had reports from member states saying that, when we follow asymptomatic cases, it’s very rare – and I used the phrase very rare – that we found a secondary transmission,” she said.

Dr. Van Kerkhove’s initial comments drew criticism from medical and public health professionals, who said the statement was “confusing” and communicated poorly.

Eric J. Topol, MD, tweeted that WHO had “engendered considerable confusion” with the comments about asymptomatic individuals rarely transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Topol, the author of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine that suggested as many as 40%-45% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, said that it was not possible to determine whether asymptomatic individuals in the cohorts he studied were capable of spread like pre-symptomatic individuals. “We only know the viral loads are similar from multiple reports. And we do know some spread occurs from [asymptomatic] people,” he said.

Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a tweet that he believed WHO made “an irresponsible statement even though it was based on legitimate observations.” Reports by Member States do not reach a “bar of rigor,” he said.

Natalie E. Dean, PhD, assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, tweeted that the initial comments by the WHO seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between asymptomatic individuals who never develop symptoms, and presymptomatic individuals who present as asymptomatic, but later develop symptoms. Finding that asymptomatic cases rarely transmit the virus could change how people exposed to those asymptomatic individuals are monitored, but “it seems more of scientific than practical interest,” she noted. “People without current symptoms could be infectious. Act accordingly.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also weighed in on the controversial WHO comments, telling Good Morning America on June 10 that Dr. Van Kerkhove's initial statement that asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a rare event is "not correct." 

This article was updated 6/10/20.

The MET inhibitor tepotinib produced responses in about half of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with confirmed MET exon 14–skipping mutations in an open-label, phase 2 study.

The objective response rate was 46.5% among the 99 patients followed for 9 or more months, as assessed by independent reviewers. There were no complete responders, according to the reviewers.

However, the response rate according to investigator assessment was 55.6%, including two responses that were judged to be complete.

The median duration of response was 11.1 months according to reviewers and 14 months according to investigators.

“The success of this trial, alongside other studies on the same class of drugs, establishes MET exon 14 as an actionable target for non–small cell lung cancer,” said senior author Xiuning Le, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Dr. Le presented results from this trial as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program. Results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial, dubbed VISION, already won tepotinib approval in Japan to treat NSCLC patients with MET exon 14–skipping mutations. The Food and Drug Administration has granted tepotinib breakthrough status, and Merck, the drug’s manufacturer, plans to submit tepotinib for review this year.

The VISION trial enrolled 152 patients with NSCLC – 99 with at least 9 months of follow-up and 53 with shorter follow-up. The patients’ MET exon 14 mutations were confirmed by liquid or tissue biopsy.

The patients’ median age at baseline was 74 years, 54% were men, and almost half had no smoking history. Patients received tepotinib at 500 mg daily until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

Overall, the VISION results “compare favorably” with those from studies of other MET inhibitors, the investigators wrote.

The 46.5% objective response rate (per independent reviewers) included the 99 patients with follow-up of at least 9 months who were liquid- or tissue-biopsy positive (combined group). The response rate was 48.5% among the 66 patients with positive liquid biopsies and 50% among the 60 patients with positive tissue biopsies.

The median progression-free survival was 8.5 months in the combined group, 8.5 months in the liquid-biopsy group, and 11 months in the tissue-biopsy group. The median overall survival was 17.1 months, 15.8 months, and 22.3 months, respectively.

The 11 patients with brain metastases at baseline had results that were in line with the other patients’ results. Patients with brain metastases had an objective response rate of 54.5%, a median response duration of 9.5 months, and a median progression-free survival of 10.9 months.

Overall, 88.8% of patients reported adverse events related to treatment, including peripheral edema in 63.2%, nausea in 25.7%, and diarrhea in 21.7%.

Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 27% of patients. Peripheral edema was the most common of these events, reported in 7.2% of patients.

“Proactive monitoring for peripheral edema is recommended and can be managed with temporary discontinuation of tepotinib or dose reduction,” the investigators wrote.

The death of a 79-year-old patient with respiratory failure and dyspnea, secondary to interstitial lung disease, was the only death considered to be treatment related.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Le and other investigators disclosed relationships, including employment, with the company.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Le X et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9556.

The MET inhibitor tepotinib produced responses in about half of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with confirmed MET exon 14–skipping mutations in an open-label, phase 2 study.

The objective response rate was 46.5% among the 99 patients followed for 9 or more months, as assessed by independent reviewers. There were no complete responders, according to the reviewers.

However, the response rate according to investigator assessment was 55.6%, including two responses that were judged to be complete.

The median duration of response was 11.1 months according to reviewers and 14 months according to investigators.

“The success of this trial, alongside other studies on the same class of drugs, establishes MET exon 14 as an actionable target for non–small cell lung cancer,” said senior author Xiuning Le, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Dr. Le presented results from this trial as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program. Results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial, dubbed VISION, already won tepotinib approval in Japan to treat NSCLC patients with MET exon 14–skipping mutations. The Food and Drug Administration has granted tepotinib breakthrough status, and Merck, the drug’s manufacturer, plans to submit tepotinib for review this year.

The VISION trial enrolled 152 patients with NSCLC – 99 with at least 9 months of follow-up and 53 with shorter follow-up. The patients’ MET exon 14 mutations were confirmed by liquid or tissue biopsy.

The patients’ median age at baseline was 74 years, 54% were men, and almost half had no smoking history. Patients received tepotinib at 500 mg daily until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

Overall, the VISION results “compare favorably” with those from studies of other MET inhibitors, the investigators wrote.

The 46.5% objective response rate (per independent reviewers) included the 99 patients with follow-up of at least 9 months who were liquid- or tissue-biopsy positive (combined group). The response rate was 48.5% among the 66 patients with positive liquid biopsies and 50% among the 60 patients with positive tissue biopsies.

The median progression-free survival was 8.5 months in the combined group, 8.5 months in the liquid-biopsy group, and 11 months in the tissue-biopsy group. The median overall survival was 17.1 months, 15.8 months, and 22.3 months, respectively.

The 11 patients with brain metastases at baseline had results that were in line with the other patients’ results. Patients with brain metastases had an objective response rate of 54.5%, a median response duration of 9.5 months, and a median progression-free survival of 10.9 months.

Overall, 88.8% of patients reported adverse events related to treatment, including peripheral edema in 63.2%, nausea in 25.7%, and diarrhea in 21.7%.

Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 27% of patients. Peripheral edema was the most common of these events, reported in 7.2% of patients.

“Proactive monitoring for peripheral edema is recommended and can be managed with temporary discontinuation of tepotinib or dose reduction,” the investigators wrote.

The death of a 79-year-old patient with respiratory failure and dyspnea, secondary to interstitial lung disease, was the only death considered to be treatment related.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Le and other investigators disclosed relationships, including employment, with the company.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Le X et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9556.

The MET inhibitor tepotinib produced responses in about half of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with confirmed MET exon 14–skipping mutations in an open-label, phase 2 study.

The objective response rate was 46.5% among the 99 patients followed for 9 or more months, as assessed by independent reviewers. There were no complete responders, according to the reviewers.

However, the response rate according to investigator assessment was 55.6%, including two responses that were judged to be complete.

The median duration of response was 11.1 months according to reviewers and 14 months according to investigators.

“The success of this trial, alongside other studies on the same class of drugs, establishes MET exon 14 as an actionable target for non–small cell lung cancer,” said senior author Xiuning Le, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Dr. Le presented results from this trial as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program. Results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial, dubbed VISION, already won tepotinib approval in Japan to treat NSCLC patients with MET exon 14–skipping mutations. The Food and Drug Administration has granted tepotinib breakthrough status, and Merck, the drug’s manufacturer, plans to submit tepotinib for review this year.

The VISION trial enrolled 152 patients with NSCLC – 99 with at least 9 months of follow-up and 53 with shorter follow-up. The patients’ MET exon 14 mutations were confirmed by liquid or tissue biopsy.

The patients’ median age at baseline was 74 years, 54% were men, and almost half had no smoking history. Patients received tepotinib at 500 mg daily until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

Overall, the VISION results “compare favorably” with those from studies of other MET inhibitors, the investigators wrote.

The 46.5% objective response rate (per independent reviewers) included the 99 patients with follow-up of at least 9 months who were liquid- or tissue-biopsy positive (combined group). The response rate was 48.5% among the 66 patients with positive liquid biopsies and 50% among the 60 patients with positive tissue biopsies.

The median progression-free survival was 8.5 months in the combined group, 8.5 months in the liquid-biopsy group, and 11 months in the tissue-biopsy group. The median overall survival was 17.1 months, 15.8 months, and 22.3 months, respectively.

The 11 patients with brain metastases at baseline had results that were in line with the other patients’ results. Patients with brain metastases had an objective response rate of 54.5%, a median response duration of 9.5 months, and a median progression-free survival of 10.9 months.

Overall, 88.8% of patients reported adverse events related to treatment, including peripheral edema in 63.2%, nausea in 25.7%, and diarrhea in 21.7%.

Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 27% of patients. Peripheral edema was the most common of these events, reported in 7.2% of patients.

“Proactive monitoring for peripheral edema is recommended and can be managed with temporary discontinuation of tepotinib or dose reduction,” the investigators wrote.

The death of a 79-year-old patient with respiratory failure and dyspnea, secondary to interstitial lung disease, was the only death considered to be treatment related.

The study was funded by Merck. Dr. Le and other investigators disclosed relationships, including employment, with the company.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Le X et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract 9556.

Being aged older than 65 years was associated with the highest risk of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) needing hospital treatment for COVID-19, according to the first results to be reported from ReCoVery, the German national COVID-19 registry.

Older patients with RMDs were five times more likely than younger patients to be hospitalized if they tested positive for SARS‑CoV‑2 and developed COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4).

The likelihood of hospitalization was also significantly increased by the current or prior use of glucocorticoids (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4) and by the presence of cardiovascular disease (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4).

“The register is a joint initiative of the German Society for Rheumatology and the Justus Liebig University in Giessen,” explained Anne Regierer, MD, during a live session of the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“The current pandemic has changed all of our lives. For patients it brought a lot of uncertainty and fears,” said Dr. Regierer, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin.

“The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRD] is still largely unknown. We still don’t know whether they have a high risk of getting the infection or whether they have a higher risk of a severer case ... therefore there’s an urgent need to have data to generate evidence for the management of our patients.”

Launched at the end of March 2020, the German registry now includes data on 251 patients – 194 of whom have recovered – provided by more than 200 registered rheumatologists. The registry data have now been integrated into the EULAR COVID-19 Database, which is itself part of a global effort to better understand and optimally manage RMD patients during the pandemic.

“The data presented by Dr. Regierer looked at similar outcomes and found quite similar results, which is reassuring,” Kimme Hyrich, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester (England) and a consultant rheumatologist in the Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview.

“We are very grateful for this collaboration [with the German society and others]. Our first publication has looked at hospitalization, but with more data we may have the opportunity to look at less-common outcomes [e.g. death, other COVID complications] or within individual diseases or treatments. So far I don’t think we will come to a different conclusion,” observed Dr. Hyrich, who is on the steering committee for the EULAR COVID-19 Database.

“These initial data are reassuring in that the majority of cases of COVID reported to our database have recovered, including those who were hospitalized,” she said.

Current EULAR advice is to continue treatment with glucocorticoids in patients who are being chronically treated, but to use them at the lowest possible dose.

The objectives of this first analysis of the German registry was to provide a description of the patients who did and did not require hospitalization and those who needed ventilation, as well as look at possible risk factors for hospitalization.

Dr. Regierer reported that, of 192 patients they included – all with a positive lab test for SARS-CoV-2 – 128 (67%) did not require hospital admission. Of those that did (n = 64), 43 (22%) did not need ventilation and 21 (11%) did. Fifteen patients died, all of whom had been hospitalized, and all but one of them had needed ventilation.

Concerning the characteristics of the patients, those who needed hospital treatment with and without ventilation were older than those who were not admitted (70 vs. 65 vs. 54 years, respectively).

“Looking at the sexes, the gender distribution is also interesting. We see 69% females in the nonhospitalized patients, 65% of the inpatients without ventilation, but only 43% females in the ventilated patients. So in this group, the male patients are the majority,” Dr. Regierer observed.

Just over half of all patients in the nonhospitalized and the hospitalized without ventilation groups had IRD in remission, but those in the hospitalized with ventilation group less than one-fifth had their IRD under control.

“Of course we have to keep in mind the small sample sizes,” Dr. Regierer said, but the distribution of patients by disease type was “what you’d expect in clinical care.” The majority of patients in each of the three groups had RA (47%, 56%, and 57%), followed by psoriatic arthritis (19%, 7%, and 14%), axial spondyloarthritis (11%, 5%, and 0%), systemic lupus erythematosus (6%, 2%, and 0%), and vasculitis (1%, 5%, and 5%).

Patients who were hospitalized with and without ventilation were more likely to have more than one comorbidity than those who were not hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The most frequent comorbidity was cardiovascular disease with 58% and 76% in the inpatient groups,” Dr. Regierer reported. One-third of the nonhospitalized patients had a cardiovascular comorbidity.

“If we look at pulmonary disease, we see that 38% of the ventilator patients had an underlying pulmonary disease,” she added. This was in comparison with 19% of the hospitalized without ventilation and 13% of the nonhospitalized patients. Diabetes was another common comorbidity in hospitalized patients with (16%) and without (19%) ventilation versus just 2% of nonhospitalized patients. While these and other comorbidities such as chronic renal insufficiency were associated with higher odds ratios in the multivariate risk factor analysis, they did not reach statistical significance.

With regard to RMD treatments, more than 60% of patients in the hospitalized group had received treatment with glucocorticoids versus 37% of those who did not get admitted. No differences were seen for the other treatments.

Interestingly, “female sex, remission, and use of NSAIDs have an odds ratio smaller than 1. So there might be a lower risk of hospitalization associated with these factors,” Dr. Regierer said.

Dr. Regierer has received grant support and is part of speaker’s bureaus for a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hyrich disclosed grant income from Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, and Pfizer, and receiving speaker fees from AbbVie.

Being aged older than 65 years was associated with the highest risk of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) needing hospital treatment for COVID-19, according to the first results to be reported from ReCoVery, the German national COVID-19 registry.

Older patients with RMDs were five times more likely than younger patients to be hospitalized if they tested positive for SARS‑CoV‑2 and developed COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4).

The likelihood of hospitalization was also significantly increased by the current or prior use of glucocorticoids (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4) and by the presence of cardiovascular disease (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4).

“The register is a joint initiative of the German Society for Rheumatology and the Justus Liebig University in Giessen,” explained Anne Regierer, MD, during a live session of the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“The current pandemic has changed all of our lives. For patients it brought a lot of uncertainty and fears,” said Dr. Regierer, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin.

“The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRD] is still largely unknown. We still don’t know whether they have a high risk of getting the infection or whether they have a higher risk of a severer case ... therefore there’s an urgent need to have data to generate evidence for the management of our patients.”

Launched at the end of March 2020, the German registry now includes data on 251 patients – 194 of whom have recovered – provided by more than 200 registered rheumatologists. The registry data have now been integrated into the EULAR COVID-19 Database, which is itself part of a global effort to better understand and optimally manage RMD patients during the pandemic.

“The data presented by Dr. Regierer looked at similar outcomes and found quite similar results, which is reassuring,” Kimme Hyrich, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester (England) and a consultant rheumatologist in the Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview.

“We are very grateful for this collaboration [with the German society and others]. Our first publication has looked at hospitalization, but with more data we may have the opportunity to look at less-common outcomes [e.g. death, other COVID complications] or within individual diseases or treatments. So far I don’t think we will come to a different conclusion,” observed Dr. Hyrich, who is on the steering committee for the EULAR COVID-19 Database.

“These initial data are reassuring in that the majority of cases of COVID reported to our database have recovered, including those who were hospitalized,” she said.

Current EULAR advice is to continue treatment with glucocorticoids in patients who are being chronically treated, but to use them at the lowest possible dose.

The objectives of this first analysis of the German registry was to provide a description of the patients who did and did not require hospitalization and those who needed ventilation, as well as look at possible risk factors for hospitalization.

Dr. Regierer reported that, of 192 patients they included – all with a positive lab test for SARS-CoV-2 – 128 (67%) did not require hospital admission. Of those that did (n = 64), 43 (22%) did not need ventilation and 21 (11%) did. Fifteen patients died, all of whom had been hospitalized, and all but one of them had needed ventilation.

Concerning the characteristics of the patients, those who needed hospital treatment with and without ventilation were older than those who were not admitted (70 vs. 65 vs. 54 years, respectively).

“Looking at the sexes, the gender distribution is also interesting. We see 69% females in the nonhospitalized patients, 65% of the inpatients without ventilation, but only 43% females in the ventilated patients. So in this group, the male patients are the majority,” Dr. Regierer observed.

Just over half of all patients in the nonhospitalized and the hospitalized without ventilation groups had IRD in remission, but those in the hospitalized with ventilation group less than one-fifth had their IRD under control.

“Of course we have to keep in mind the small sample sizes,” Dr. Regierer said, but the distribution of patients by disease type was “what you’d expect in clinical care.” The majority of patients in each of the three groups had RA (47%, 56%, and 57%), followed by psoriatic arthritis (19%, 7%, and 14%), axial spondyloarthritis (11%, 5%, and 0%), systemic lupus erythematosus (6%, 2%, and 0%), and vasculitis (1%, 5%, and 5%).

Patients who were hospitalized with and without ventilation were more likely to have more than one comorbidity than those who were not hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The most frequent comorbidity was cardiovascular disease with 58% and 76% in the inpatient groups,” Dr. Regierer reported. One-third of the nonhospitalized patients had a cardiovascular comorbidity.

“If we look at pulmonary disease, we see that 38% of the ventilator patients had an underlying pulmonary disease,” she added. This was in comparison with 19% of the hospitalized without ventilation and 13% of the nonhospitalized patients. Diabetes was another common comorbidity in hospitalized patients with (16%) and without (19%) ventilation versus just 2% of nonhospitalized patients. While these and other comorbidities such as chronic renal insufficiency were associated with higher odds ratios in the multivariate risk factor analysis, they did not reach statistical significance.

With regard to RMD treatments, more than 60% of patients in the hospitalized group had received treatment with glucocorticoids versus 37% of those who did not get admitted. No differences were seen for the other treatments.

Interestingly, “female sex, remission, and use of NSAIDs have an odds ratio smaller than 1. So there might be a lower risk of hospitalization associated with these factors,” Dr. Regierer said.

Dr. Regierer has received grant support and is part of speaker’s bureaus for a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hyrich disclosed grant income from Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, and Pfizer, and receiving speaker fees from AbbVie.

Being aged older than 65 years was associated with the highest risk of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) needing hospital treatment for COVID-19, according to the first results to be reported from ReCoVery, the German national COVID-19 registry.

Older patients with RMDs were five times more likely than younger patients to be hospitalized if they tested positive for SARS‑CoV‑2 and developed COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4).

The likelihood of hospitalization was also significantly increased by the current or prior use of glucocorticoids (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4) and by the presence of cardiovascular disease (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4).

“The register is a joint initiative of the German Society for Rheumatology and the Justus Liebig University in Giessen,” explained Anne Regierer, MD, during a live session of the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“The current pandemic has changed all of our lives. For patients it brought a lot of uncertainty and fears,” said Dr. Regierer, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin.

“The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRD] is still largely unknown. We still don’t know whether they have a high risk of getting the infection or whether they have a higher risk of a severer case ... therefore there’s an urgent need to have data to generate evidence for the management of our patients.”

Launched at the end of March 2020, the German registry now includes data on 251 patients – 194 of whom have recovered – provided by more than 200 registered rheumatologists. The registry data have now been integrated into the EULAR COVID-19 Database, which is itself part of a global effort to better understand and optimally manage RMD patients during the pandemic.

“The data presented by Dr. Regierer looked at similar outcomes and found quite similar results, which is reassuring,” Kimme Hyrich, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester (England) and a consultant rheumatologist in the Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview.

“We are very grateful for this collaboration [with the German society and others]. Our first publication has looked at hospitalization, but with more data we may have the opportunity to look at less-common outcomes [e.g. death, other COVID complications] or within individual diseases or treatments. So far I don’t think we will come to a different conclusion,” observed Dr. Hyrich, who is on the steering committee for the EULAR COVID-19 Database.

“These initial data are reassuring in that the majority of cases of COVID reported to our database have recovered, including those who were hospitalized,” she said.

Current EULAR advice is to continue treatment with glucocorticoids in patients who are being chronically treated, but to use them at the lowest possible dose.

The objectives of this first analysis of the German registry was to provide a description of the patients who did and did not require hospitalization and those who needed ventilation, as well as look at possible risk factors for hospitalization.

Dr. Regierer reported that, of 192 patients they included – all with a positive lab test for SARS-CoV-2 – 128 (67%) did not require hospital admission. Of those that did (n = 64), 43 (22%) did not need ventilation and 21 (11%) did. Fifteen patients died, all of whom had been hospitalized, and all but one of them had needed ventilation.

Concerning the characteristics of the patients, those who needed hospital treatment with and without ventilation were older than those who were not admitted (70 vs. 65 vs. 54 years, respectively).

“Looking at the sexes, the gender distribution is also interesting. We see 69% females in the nonhospitalized patients, 65% of the inpatients without ventilation, but only 43% females in the ventilated patients. So in this group, the male patients are the majority,” Dr. Regierer observed.

Just over half of all patients in the nonhospitalized and the hospitalized without ventilation groups had IRD in remission, but those in the hospitalized with ventilation group less than one-fifth had their IRD under control.

“Of course we have to keep in mind the small sample sizes,” Dr. Regierer said, but the distribution of patients by disease type was “what you’d expect in clinical care.” The majority of patients in each of the three groups had RA (47%, 56%, and 57%), followed by psoriatic arthritis (19%, 7%, and 14%), axial spondyloarthritis (11%, 5%, and 0%), systemic lupus erythematosus (6%, 2%, and 0%), and vasculitis (1%, 5%, and 5%).

Patients who were hospitalized with and without ventilation were more likely to have more than one comorbidity than those who were not hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The most frequent comorbidity was cardiovascular disease with 58% and 76% in the inpatient groups,” Dr. Regierer reported. One-third of the nonhospitalized patients had a cardiovascular comorbidity.

“If we look at pulmonary disease, we see that 38% of the ventilator patients had an underlying pulmonary disease,” she added. This was in comparison with 19% of the hospitalized without ventilation and 13% of the nonhospitalized patients. Diabetes was another common comorbidity in hospitalized patients with (16%) and without (19%) ventilation versus just 2% of nonhospitalized patients. While these and other comorbidities such as chronic renal insufficiency were associated with higher odds ratios in the multivariate risk factor analysis, they did not reach statistical significance.

With regard to RMD treatments, more than 60% of patients in the hospitalized group had received treatment with glucocorticoids versus 37% of those who did not get admitted. No differences were seen for the other treatments.

Interestingly, “female sex, remission, and use of NSAIDs have an odds ratio smaller than 1. So there might be a lower risk of hospitalization associated with these factors,” Dr. Regierer said.

Dr. Regierer has received grant support and is part of speaker’s bureaus for a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hyrich disclosed grant income from Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, and Pfizer, and receiving speaker fees from AbbVie.

The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support.

“Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, which has teaching affiliations with three senior communities.

Nursing home leaders are debating how to best use testing to guide transmission-based precautions and isolation strategies and how to keep residents safe while allowing some socialization after months of conflicting guidance from public health officials (on testing and on sites of care for patients discharged from the hospital, for instance), with a lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and with nursing home resident deaths estimated to account for at least one-quarter of the total COVID-19–related mortality in the United States.

“COVID is not going away [over the next couple of years],” said Michael Wasserman, MD, medical director of the Eisenberg Village at the Los Angeles Jewish Home and president of the California Association of Long-Term Care Medicine.

Dr. Wasserman and other experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following:

• Full-time, well-trained “infection preventionists” – infection prevention managers, in essence – who can lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control (IPC)
• Medical directors who are well qualified and engaged
• A survey/inspection process that is educational and not solely punitive
• More resources and attention to structural reform

“If this pandemic doesn’t create significant change in the nursing home industry, nothing ever will,” Dr. Wasserman said.
 

Prepandemic experience

When Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, began working with nursing homes in early March to prevent and contain COVID-19 outbreaks, her focus was on PPE.

Nursing home staff were intimately familiar with standard precautions, and many had used contact precautions to prevent transmission of infections like Clostridioides difficile and Candida auris, as well as droplet precautions for influenza. With the threat of COVID-19, nursing homes “had a brand-new requirement to do both contact and droplet precautions – with a new need for eye protection – and in some situations, respiratory precautions with N95 masks,” said Dr. Dumyati, professor of medicine and director of communicable disease surveillance and prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “And on top of that, [staff] had to learn to conserve and reuse PPE.”

Staff had not been fit-tested for use of N95 respirators, she noted. “The only time an N95 was used in the nursing home prior to COVID-19,” she said, “was for a suspected tuberculosis patient [before hospital admission].”

Similarly, nursing homes had experience in quarantining units to prevent transmission of illnesses like influenza or norovirus – keeping residents in their rooms with no visitations or social activity, for instance – but never did they have to arrange “massive movements of residents to completely new units or parts of a unit,” said Dr. Dumyati, who also has led hospital and nursing home collaborative programs in Rochester to beat back C. difficile, and is now helping to formulate COVID-19 recommendations and guidance for members of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus began its spread through the United States, efforts to strengthen IPC programs in nursing homes in Rochester and elsewhere had been focused largely on multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and antibiotic stewardship – not on pandemic preparedness.

Reducing antibiotic use had become a national priority, and a 2016 rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services required nursing homes to develop, over a 3-year period, an IPC program that included an antibiotic stewardship component and employment of a trained infection preventionist on at least a half-time basis. Emergency preparedness (e.g., having alternate energy sources for a facility) was also included in the rule, but it was only in 2019 when CMS updated its “Requirements for Participation” rule to stipulate that emergency preparedness include planning for “emerging infectious diseases.”

Courtesy Dr. Patricia Stone

“The 2016 regulations came about because infections were so problematic in nursing homes,” especially urinary tract infections, C. difficile, and drug-resistant infections, said Patricia Stone, PhD, RN, of the Center for Health Policy at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, who has published widely on infection prevention and control in nursing homes.

An analysis of IPC practices in 2014 and in 2018 suggests that the IPC-focused rules were helping, mainly with antibiotic stewardship programs but also with respect to some of the practices aimed at outbreak control, such as having policies in place for grouping infected residents together, instructing infected staff to stay home, and quarantining units on which outbreaks occur, Dr. Stone said. Policies for confining residents to rooms were reported by approximately 74% of nursing homes in 2014, and by approximately 87% in 2018, for instance. Overall, nursing homes were “getting better policies in place,” she said. The analysis compared data from two cross-sectional surveys of nursing homes conducted in 2014 and 2018 (945 and 888 facilities, respectively).

Nursing homes “have a long way to go,” however, with respect to the training of infection preventionists, Dr. Stone said. In 2014, her analysis shows, almost 65% of infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training and less than 3% were Certified in Infection Control (CIC) – a credential awarded by the Certification Board of Infection Control & Epidemiology. Of the 35% who had some form of official training, most completed state or local training courses.

The numbers improved slightly in 2018, with 7% of nursing homes reporting their infection preventionists had the highest-level certification, and 44% reporting that their infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training. Research has shown that infection-control training of any kind has a “strong effect” on IPC-related outcomes. While not demonstrated in research thus far, it seems plausible that “facilities with certified [infection preventionists] will have better processes in place,” said Dr. Stone, whose research has documented the need for more monitoring of staff compliance with hand-washing and other IPC procedures.

Infection preventionists in nursing homes typically have been directors of nursing or assistant directors of nursing who fold IPC responsibilities into a multitude of other responsibilities. Before the 2016 rules, some smaller facilities hired off-site consultants to do the job.

CMS upped the ante after several months of COVID-19, recommending in mid-May that nursing homes assign at least one individual with training in infection control “to provide on-site management of the IPC program.” The infection preventionists should be a “full-time role” in facilities that have more than 100 residents, the CMS guidance said. (Prior to the pandemic, CMS issued proposed regulations in 2019 that would modify the time an infection preventionist must devote to a facility from “part time” to “sufficient time.”)

However, neither the 2016 rule nor the most recent guidance on infection preventionists define the length or content of training.

Swati Gaur, MD, chair of the Infection Advisory Committee of AMDA and a certified medical director of two skilled nursing facilities in Gainesville, Ga., said that the pandemic “has really started to crystallize some of the limitations of having a very vague role, not just in terms of what an [infection preventionists] does [in the nursing home] but also the training,”

Fortunately, Dr. Gaur said, when SARS-CoV-2 struck, she had just transitioned her facilities’ designated infection preventionist to work full-time on the role. She had worked closely with her infection preventionist on IPC issues but wishes she had arranged for more rigorous independent training. “The role of the [infection preventionist] is huge and complicated,” now involving employee health, contract tracing, cohorting, isolation, and compliance with precautions and use of PPE, in addition to surveillance, data reporting, and communication with public health officials, she said.

“Facilities are finding out now that [the infection preventionist] cannot be an afterthought. And it won’t end with COVID. We have other respiratory illnesses like flu and other viruses that we struggle with all the time,” said Dr. Gaur, who is working alongside Dr. Dumyati and two other long-term care experts on AMDA’s COVID-19 guidance. The nursing homes that Dr. Gaur directs are part of the Northeast Georgia Health Care System and together include 271 beds.
 

Moving forward

IPC practices often collide with facilities’ role as a home, especially to those receiving long-term care. “We always have to measure what we do [to prevent and control infections] against patient autonomy and residents’ rights,” said Dr. Gaur. “We have struggled with these issues, prior to the pandemic. If patients are positive for multidrug resistant organisms [for instance], how long can they be isolated in their own rooms? You can’t for days and months put someone in a single room and create isolation. That’s where the science of infection prevention can collide with residents’ rights.”

Over the years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this discordance, leaving it to facilities to decide, for instance, whether to actively screen for colonization with MDROs. In 2019, to help nursing homes prevent the transmission of MDROs from residents who are colonized but not actively infected, the CDC introduced new “enhanced barrier precautions” that require the use of gowns and gloves for specific resident activities identified as having a high risk of MDRO transmission. The new category of precautions is less restrictive than traditional contact precautions, which keep residents in their rooms.

Infection control in nursing homes “isn’t where it needs to be ... but we’re always going to have in nursing homes a situation where there’s a high potential for rapid transmission of infectious disease,” said Christopher Crnich, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who chairs the long-term care special interest group of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and has offered COVID-19 advice to his state’s department of public health.

“Anytime you have a congregative community, particularly one that involves susceptible hosts, there will be an intrinsically susceptible environment ... I’m a bit disturbed by the emphasis on saying, ‘This nursing home had a COVID-19 outbreak, therefore this nursing home did something wrong,’ ” Dr. Crnich said.

“How we mitigate the size of the outbreaks is where we need to focus our attention,” he said. The goal with SARS-CoV-2, he said, is to recognize its introduction “as rapidly as possible” and stop its spread through empiric symptom- and exposure-based isolation, multiple waves of targeted testing, widespread use of contact and droplet precautions, and isolating staff as necessary.

As awareness grew this year among long-term care leaders that relying too heavily on symptom-based strategies may not be effective to prevent introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a study published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine cemented the need for a testing strategy not limited to symptomatic individuals.

The study documented that more than half of residents in a nursing home who had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and that most went on to develop symptoms. The study was conducted after one case of COVID-19 had been identified.

Some states issued calls this spring for “universal testing” of all nursing home patients and staff, and the CMS recommendations issued to state and local officials in mid-May for phased nursing home “reopening” call for baseline testing of all residents and staff, followed by retesting all residents weekly until all residents test negative and by retesting all staff continuing every week.

However, the experts contacted for this story said that, without a highly accurate and accessible point-of-care test (and even with one, considering the virus’ incubation period), a universal approach that includes all nursing home residents may have more limited value than is being touted. In many scenarios, they said, it is most meaningful to focus still-limited testing supplies on the staff, many of whom work at more than one facility and are believed to be primary vectors of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Ouslander, Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders have been discussing testing at length, trying to reach consensus on best policies. “I don’t think there’s any uniform approach or uniform agreement,” said Dr. Ouslander. “For me, under ideal circumstances what needs to be done to protect older people in nursing homes is to get access to as many accurate viral tests as possible and test staff at least once a week or every 10 days.”

In some facilities, there may be an unspoken barrier to the frequent testing of staff: Fear that staff who test positive will need to be quarantined, with no one to take their place on the front line. Dr. Ouslander said he knows of one county health department that has discouraged nursing homes from testing asymptomatic staff. “It’s insane and truly shocking,” he said.

At the University of Rochester Medical Center, Dr. Dumyati said, staffing agencies are running short of nurse aide substitutes, and staffing issues have become the “biggest challenge” facing a regional multidisciplinary group of medical directors, hospital leaders, and health department officials who are working to troubleshoot COVID-19 issues. “Some of our nursing homes have ended up sending some of their residents to other nursing homes or to the hospital [because of the loss of staff],” she said.

Currently in the state of New York, she noted, COVID-19 patients may not be discharged to nursing homes until they test negative for the virus through PCR testing. “And some people don’t clear by PCR for 4-6 weeks.”


 

The barriers

Staffing shortages – real in some locales, and anticipated in others as economic reopening grows – are reflective of underlying structural and financial factors that work against optimal IPC, experts said. It’s not uncommon for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be assigned to 10-15 residents. And according to AMDA, 30%-46% of CNAs are reported to receive some form of public assistance. Low wages force many CNAs to work other jobs, including shifts at other nursing homes.

Turnover of nursing home leadership also creates problems. Dr. Crnich calls it “one of the biggest barriers” to effective IPC in nursing homes. “Facilities can tolerate some turnover in their front line staff,” he said, “as long as their leadership structure remains relatively stable.” Dr. Stone and her coinvestigators have documented at least yearly turnover in top positions: They found that, in 2018, approximately one-quarter of facilities reported employing three or more infection preventionists, three or more administrators, and three or more directors of nursing during the prior 3 years.

Medical directors, moreover, are not uniformly qualified, engaged with their facilities, or supported by nursing home administrators. “It’s an open secret, I think, that a lot of facilities want a medical director who is a good referral source,” said Dr. Gaur. “A medical director needs to be completely engaged in [quality improvement and] infection control practices.”

Some nursing home chains, she noted, “have realized the value of the medical director, and have changed the way they’re paying them. They’re actually holding them accountable [for quality and outcomes].”

Medical directors such as Dr. Wasserman, who previously oversaw a 74-facility nursing home chain in California as chief medical officer and then chief executive officer and has worked on nursing home quality improvement processes for his state, said there is much that can be done clinically to prevent the spread of infections, such as more frequent use of telemedicine, more attention to “deprescribing” unnecessary medications (which reduces the number of medication passes and, thus, the number of “transmission opportunities”), and the use of continuous remote monitoring. He has been trying to secure Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximetry and temperature monitoring for the Los Angeles Jewish Home and other facilities.

Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders believe that a more educational inspection process would also lead to improvements in IPC. “The punitive nature of the survey process is morally deflating to frontline staff [and] penalties take money away from operations,” Dr. Wasserman said. “It’s not a productive approach to quality improvement.”

Dr. Stone agreed. Infection control is now the primary focus of CMS’s inspection process, and she said that increased regulatory scrutiny of IPC beyond COVID-19 is a “good thing.” Her research has shown that most deficiencies identified by inspectors are infection control deficiencies, and that in 2014 and 2018, approximately one-third of nursing homes had infection control citations. (CMS recently increased penalties and fines for identified deficiencies.)

“But my hope would be that the survey process would be more educational [as it is for hospitals],” she said. “We need to be supporting nursing homes to do a better job.”

A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Dr. Stone sees it, is that nursing homes may be more engaged with data reporting and infection surveillance going forward. Nursing homes are now required to report their COVID-19 cases to the CDC through its hospital-dominant National Healthcare Safety Network, and the CDC has made technical changes that now make it “easier [than it was in the past] for nursing homes to join and participate,” she said. “Now that all nursing homes are engaged, will they be engaged post-COVID, too? I hope so. Surveillance [of infections] is a first step toward better outcomes.”

For now, said Dr. Crnich, the intensive prevention and mitigation efforts that are being required of nursing homes to minimize COVID-19’s impact is “a big deal and will tax the resources of most nursing homes and exceed the resources of many” without outside support, Dr. Crnich said. “This has been the most illuminating part of all this, and will probably require us to reconsider how we’re resourcing our nursing homes moving forward into the future.”

The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support.

“Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, which has teaching affiliations with three senior communities.

Nursing home leaders are debating how to best use testing to guide transmission-based precautions and isolation strategies and how to keep residents safe while allowing some socialization after months of conflicting guidance from public health officials (on testing and on sites of care for patients discharged from the hospital, for instance), with a lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and with nursing home resident deaths estimated to account for at least one-quarter of the total COVID-19–related mortality in the United States.

“COVID is not going away [over the next couple of years],” said Michael Wasserman, MD, medical director of the Eisenberg Village at the Los Angeles Jewish Home and president of the California Association of Long-Term Care Medicine.

Dr. Wasserman and other experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following:

• Full-time, well-trained “infection preventionists” – infection prevention managers, in essence – who can lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control (IPC)
• Medical directors who are well qualified and engaged
• A survey/inspection process that is educational and not solely punitive
• More resources and attention to structural reform

“If this pandemic doesn’t create significant change in the nursing home industry, nothing ever will,” Dr. Wasserman said.
 

Prepandemic experience

When Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, began working with nursing homes in early March to prevent and contain COVID-19 outbreaks, her focus was on PPE.

Nursing home staff were intimately familiar with standard precautions, and many had used contact precautions to prevent transmission of infections like Clostridioides difficile and Candida auris, as well as droplet precautions for influenza. With the threat of COVID-19, nursing homes “had a brand-new requirement to do both contact and droplet precautions – with a new need for eye protection – and in some situations, respiratory precautions with N95 masks,” said Dr. Dumyati, professor of medicine and director of communicable disease surveillance and prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “And on top of that, [staff] had to learn to conserve and reuse PPE.”

Staff had not been fit-tested for use of N95 respirators, she noted. “The only time an N95 was used in the nursing home prior to COVID-19,” she said, “was for a suspected tuberculosis patient [before hospital admission].”

Similarly, nursing homes had experience in quarantining units to prevent transmission of illnesses like influenza or norovirus – keeping residents in their rooms with no visitations or social activity, for instance – but never did they have to arrange “massive movements of residents to completely new units or parts of a unit,” said Dr. Dumyati, who also has led hospital and nursing home collaborative programs in Rochester to beat back C. difficile, and is now helping to formulate COVID-19 recommendations and guidance for members of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus began its spread through the United States, efforts to strengthen IPC programs in nursing homes in Rochester and elsewhere had been focused largely on multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and antibiotic stewardship – not on pandemic preparedness.

Reducing antibiotic use had become a national priority, and a 2016 rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services required nursing homes to develop, over a 3-year period, an IPC program that included an antibiotic stewardship component and employment of a trained infection preventionist on at least a half-time basis. Emergency preparedness (e.g., having alternate energy sources for a facility) was also included in the rule, but it was only in 2019 when CMS updated its “Requirements for Participation” rule to stipulate that emergency preparedness include planning for “emerging infectious diseases.”

Courtesy Dr. Patricia Stone

“The 2016 regulations came about because infections were so problematic in nursing homes,” especially urinary tract infections, C. difficile, and drug-resistant infections, said Patricia Stone, PhD, RN, of the Center for Health Policy at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, who has published widely on infection prevention and control in nursing homes.

An analysis of IPC practices in 2014 and in 2018 suggests that the IPC-focused rules were helping, mainly with antibiotic stewardship programs but also with respect to some of the practices aimed at outbreak control, such as having policies in place for grouping infected residents together, instructing infected staff to stay home, and quarantining units on which outbreaks occur, Dr. Stone said. Policies for confining residents to rooms were reported by approximately 74% of nursing homes in 2014, and by approximately 87% in 2018, for instance. Overall, nursing homes were “getting better policies in place,” she said. The analysis compared data from two cross-sectional surveys of nursing homes conducted in 2014 and 2018 (945 and 888 facilities, respectively).

Nursing homes “have a long way to go,” however, with respect to the training of infection preventionists, Dr. Stone said. In 2014, her analysis shows, almost 65% of infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training and less than 3% were Certified in Infection Control (CIC) – a credential awarded by the Certification Board of Infection Control & Epidemiology. Of the 35% who had some form of official training, most completed state or local training courses.

The numbers improved slightly in 2018, with 7% of nursing homes reporting their infection preventionists had the highest-level certification, and 44% reporting that their infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training. Research has shown that infection-control training of any kind has a “strong effect” on IPC-related outcomes. While not demonstrated in research thus far, it seems plausible that “facilities with certified [infection preventionists] will have better processes in place,” said Dr. Stone, whose research has documented the need for more monitoring of staff compliance with hand-washing and other IPC procedures.

Infection preventionists in nursing homes typically have been directors of nursing or assistant directors of nursing who fold IPC responsibilities into a multitude of other responsibilities. Before the 2016 rules, some smaller facilities hired off-site consultants to do the job.

CMS upped the ante after several months of COVID-19, recommending in mid-May that nursing homes assign at least one individual with training in infection control “to provide on-site management of the IPC program.” The infection preventionists should be a “full-time role” in facilities that have more than 100 residents, the CMS guidance said. (Prior to the pandemic, CMS issued proposed regulations in 2019 that would modify the time an infection preventionist must devote to a facility from “part time” to “sufficient time.”)

However, neither the 2016 rule nor the most recent guidance on infection preventionists define the length or content of training.

Swati Gaur, MD, chair of the Infection Advisory Committee of AMDA and a certified medical director of two skilled nursing facilities in Gainesville, Ga., said that the pandemic “has really started to crystallize some of the limitations of having a very vague role, not just in terms of what an [infection preventionists] does [in the nursing home] but also the training,”

Fortunately, Dr. Gaur said, when SARS-CoV-2 struck, she had just transitioned her facilities’ designated infection preventionist to work full-time on the role. She had worked closely with her infection preventionist on IPC issues but wishes she had arranged for more rigorous independent training. “The role of the [infection preventionist] is huge and complicated,” now involving employee health, contract tracing, cohorting, isolation, and compliance with precautions and use of PPE, in addition to surveillance, data reporting, and communication with public health officials, she said.

“Facilities are finding out now that [the infection preventionist] cannot be an afterthought. And it won’t end with COVID. We have other respiratory illnesses like flu and other viruses that we struggle with all the time,” said Dr. Gaur, who is working alongside Dr. Dumyati and two other long-term care experts on AMDA’s COVID-19 guidance. The nursing homes that Dr. Gaur directs are part of the Northeast Georgia Health Care System and together include 271 beds.
 

Moving forward

IPC practices often collide with facilities’ role as a home, especially to those receiving long-term care. “We always have to measure what we do [to prevent and control infections] against patient autonomy and residents’ rights,” said Dr. Gaur. “We have struggled with these issues, prior to the pandemic. If patients are positive for multidrug resistant organisms [for instance], how long can they be isolated in their own rooms? You can’t for days and months put someone in a single room and create isolation. That’s where the science of infection prevention can collide with residents’ rights.”

Over the years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this discordance, leaving it to facilities to decide, for instance, whether to actively screen for colonization with MDROs. In 2019, to help nursing homes prevent the transmission of MDROs from residents who are colonized but not actively infected, the CDC introduced new “enhanced barrier precautions” that require the use of gowns and gloves for specific resident activities identified as having a high risk of MDRO transmission. The new category of precautions is less restrictive than traditional contact precautions, which keep residents in their rooms.

Infection control in nursing homes “isn’t where it needs to be ... but we’re always going to have in nursing homes a situation where there’s a high potential for rapid transmission of infectious disease,” said Christopher Crnich, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who chairs the long-term care special interest group of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and has offered COVID-19 advice to his state’s department of public health.

“Anytime you have a congregative community, particularly one that involves susceptible hosts, there will be an intrinsically susceptible environment ... I’m a bit disturbed by the emphasis on saying, ‘This nursing home had a COVID-19 outbreak, therefore this nursing home did something wrong,’ ” Dr. Crnich said.

“How we mitigate the size of the outbreaks is where we need to focus our attention,” he said. The goal with SARS-CoV-2, he said, is to recognize its introduction “as rapidly as possible” and stop its spread through empiric symptom- and exposure-based isolation, multiple waves of targeted testing, widespread use of contact and droplet precautions, and isolating staff as necessary.

As awareness grew this year among long-term care leaders that relying too heavily on symptom-based strategies may not be effective to prevent introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a study published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine cemented the need for a testing strategy not limited to symptomatic individuals.

The study documented that more than half of residents in a nursing home who had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and that most went on to develop symptoms. The study was conducted after one case of COVID-19 had been identified.

Some states issued calls this spring for “universal testing” of all nursing home patients and staff, and the CMS recommendations issued to state and local officials in mid-May for phased nursing home “reopening” call for baseline testing of all residents and staff, followed by retesting all residents weekly until all residents test negative and by retesting all staff continuing every week.

However, the experts contacted for this story said that, without a highly accurate and accessible point-of-care test (and even with one, considering the virus’ incubation period), a universal approach that includes all nursing home residents may have more limited value than is being touted. In many scenarios, they said, it is most meaningful to focus still-limited testing supplies on the staff, many of whom work at more than one facility and are believed to be primary vectors of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Ouslander, Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders have been discussing testing at length, trying to reach consensus on best policies. “I don’t think there’s any uniform approach or uniform agreement,” said Dr. Ouslander. “For me, under ideal circumstances what needs to be done to protect older people in nursing homes is to get access to as many accurate viral tests as possible and test staff at least once a week or every 10 days.”

In some facilities, there may be an unspoken barrier to the frequent testing of staff: Fear that staff who test positive will need to be quarantined, with no one to take their place on the front line. Dr. Ouslander said he knows of one county health department that has discouraged nursing homes from testing asymptomatic staff. “It’s insane and truly shocking,” he said.

At the University of Rochester Medical Center, Dr. Dumyati said, staffing agencies are running short of nurse aide substitutes, and staffing issues have become the “biggest challenge” facing a regional multidisciplinary group of medical directors, hospital leaders, and health department officials who are working to troubleshoot COVID-19 issues. “Some of our nursing homes have ended up sending some of their residents to other nursing homes or to the hospital [because of the loss of staff],” she said.

Currently in the state of New York, she noted, COVID-19 patients may not be discharged to nursing homes until they test negative for the virus through PCR testing. “And some people don’t clear by PCR for 4-6 weeks.”


 

The barriers

Staffing shortages – real in some locales, and anticipated in others as economic reopening grows – are reflective of underlying structural and financial factors that work against optimal IPC, experts said. It’s not uncommon for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be assigned to 10-15 residents. And according to AMDA, 30%-46% of CNAs are reported to receive some form of public assistance. Low wages force many CNAs to work other jobs, including shifts at other nursing homes.

Turnover of nursing home leadership also creates problems. Dr. Crnich calls it “one of the biggest barriers” to effective IPC in nursing homes. “Facilities can tolerate some turnover in their front line staff,” he said, “as long as their leadership structure remains relatively stable.” Dr. Stone and her coinvestigators have documented at least yearly turnover in top positions: They found that, in 2018, approximately one-quarter of facilities reported employing three or more infection preventionists, three or more administrators, and three or more directors of nursing during the prior 3 years.

Medical directors, moreover, are not uniformly qualified, engaged with their facilities, or supported by nursing home administrators. “It’s an open secret, I think, that a lot of facilities want a medical director who is a good referral source,” said Dr. Gaur. “A medical director needs to be completely engaged in [quality improvement and] infection control practices.”

Some nursing home chains, she noted, “have realized the value of the medical director, and have changed the way they’re paying them. They’re actually holding them accountable [for quality and outcomes].”

Medical directors such as Dr. Wasserman, who previously oversaw a 74-facility nursing home chain in California as chief medical officer and then chief executive officer and has worked on nursing home quality improvement processes for his state, said there is much that can be done clinically to prevent the spread of infections, such as more frequent use of telemedicine, more attention to “deprescribing” unnecessary medications (which reduces the number of medication passes and, thus, the number of “transmission opportunities”), and the use of continuous remote monitoring. He has been trying to secure Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximetry and temperature monitoring for the Los Angeles Jewish Home and other facilities.

Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders believe that a more educational inspection process would also lead to improvements in IPC. “The punitive nature of the survey process is morally deflating to frontline staff [and] penalties take money away from operations,” Dr. Wasserman said. “It’s not a productive approach to quality improvement.”

Dr. Stone agreed. Infection control is now the primary focus of CMS’s inspection process, and she said that increased regulatory scrutiny of IPC beyond COVID-19 is a “good thing.” Her research has shown that most deficiencies identified by inspectors are infection control deficiencies, and that in 2014 and 2018, approximately one-third of nursing homes had infection control citations. (CMS recently increased penalties and fines for identified deficiencies.)

“But my hope would be that the survey process would be more educational [as it is for hospitals],” she said. “We need to be supporting nursing homes to do a better job.”

A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Dr. Stone sees it, is that nursing homes may be more engaged with data reporting and infection surveillance going forward. Nursing homes are now required to report their COVID-19 cases to the CDC through its hospital-dominant National Healthcare Safety Network, and the CDC has made technical changes that now make it “easier [than it was in the past] for nursing homes to join and participate,” she said. “Now that all nursing homes are engaged, will they be engaged post-COVID, too? I hope so. Surveillance [of infections] is a first step toward better outcomes.”

For now, said Dr. Crnich, the intensive prevention and mitigation efforts that are being required of nursing homes to minimize COVID-19’s impact is “a big deal and will tax the resources of most nursing homes and exceed the resources of many” without outside support, Dr. Crnich said. “This has been the most illuminating part of all this, and will probably require us to reconsider how we’re resourcing our nursing homes moving forward into the future.”

The toll that COVID-19 has taken on nursing homes and their postacute and long-term care residents has a multilayered backstory involving underresourced organizational structures, inherent susceptibilities, minimally trained infection prevention staff, variable abilities to isolate and quarantine large numbers of patients and residents, and a lack of governmental support.

“Nursing homes have been trying their best to combat this pandemic using the best infection control procedures they have, but blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs,” said Joseph G. Ouslander, MD, professor of geriatric medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, which has teaching affiliations with three senior communities.

Nursing home leaders are debating how to best use testing to guide transmission-based precautions and isolation strategies and how to keep residents safe while allowing some socialization after months of conflicting guidance from public health officials (on testing and on sites of care for patients discharged from the hospital, for instance), with a lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing supplies, and with nursing home resident deaths estimated to account for at least one-quarter of the total COVID-19–related mortality in the United States.

“COVID is not going away [over the next couple of years],” said Michael Wasserman, MD, medical director of the Eisenberg Village at the Los Angeles Jewish Home and president of the California Association of Long-Term Care Medicine.

Dr. Wasserman and other experts in both long-term care and infectious disease said in interviews that, through the rest of the pandemic and beyond, nursing homes need the following:

• Full-time, well-trained “infection preventionists” – infection prevention managers, in essence – who can lead improvements in emergency preparedness and infection prevention and control (IPC)
• Medical directors who are well qualified and engaged
• A survey/inspection process that is educational and not solely punitive
• More resources and attention to structural reform

“If this pandemic doesn’t create significant change in the nursing home industry, nothing ever will,” Dr. Wasserman said.
 

Prepandemic experience

When Ghinwa Dumyati, MD, began working with nursing homes in early March to prevent and contain COVID-19 outbreaks, her focus was on PPE.

Nursing home staff were intimately familiar with standard precautions, and many had used contact precautions to prevent transmission of infections like Clostridioides difficile and Candida auris, as well as droplet precautions for influenza. With the threat of COVID-19, nursing homes “had a brand-new requirement to do both contact and droplet precautions – with a new need for eye protection – and in some situations, respiratory precautions with N95 masks,” said Dr. Dumyati, professor of medicine and director of communicable disease surveillance and prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. “And on top of that, [staff] had to learn to conserve and reuse PPE.”

Staff had not been fit-tested for use of N95 respirators, she noted. “The only time an N95 was used in the nursing home prior to COVID-19,” she said, “was for a suspected tuberculosis patient [before hospital admission].”

Similarly, nursing homes had experience in quarantining units to prevent transmission of illnesses like influenza or norovirus – keeping residents in their rooms with no visitations or social activity, for instance – but never did they have to arrange “massive movements of residents to completely new units or parts of a unit,” said Dr. Dumyati, who also has led hospital and nursing home collaborative programs in Rochester to beat back C. difficile, and is now helping to formulate COVID-19 recommendations and guidance for members of AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care.

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus began its spread through the United States, efforts to strengthen IPC programs in nursing homes in Rochester and elsewhere had been focused largely on multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) and antibiotic stewardship – not on pandemic preparedness.

Reducing antibiotic use had become a national priority, and a 2016 rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services required nursing homes to develop, over a 3-year period, an IPC program that included an antibiotic stewardship component and employment of a trained infection preventionist on at least a half-time basis. Emergency preparedness (e.g., having alternate energy sources for a facility) was also included in the rule, but it was only in 2019 when CMS updated its “Requirements for Participation” rule to stipulate that emergency preparedness include planning for “emerging infectious diseases.”

Courtesy Dr. Patricia Stone

“The 2016 regulations came about because infections were so problematic in nursing homes,” especially urinary tract infections, C. difficile, and drug-resistant infections, said Patricia Stone, PhD, RN, of the Center for Health Policy at the Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, who has published widely on infection prevention and control in nursing homes.

An analysis of IPC practices in 2014 and in 2018 suggests that the IPC-focused rules were helping, mainly with antibiotic stewardship programs but also with respect to some of the practices aimed at outbreak control, such as having policies in place for grouping infected residents together, instructing infected staff to stay home, and quarantining units on which outbreaks occur, Dr. Stone said. Policies for confining residents to rooms were reported by approximately 74% of nursing homes in 2014, and by approximately 87% in 2018, for instance. Overall, nursing homes were “getting better policies in place,” she said. The analysis compared data from two cross-sectional surveys of nursing homes conducted in 2014 and 2018 (945 and 888 facilities, respectively).

Nursing homes “have a long way to go,” however, with respect to the training of infection preventionists, Dr. Stone said. In 2014, her analysis shows, almost 65% of infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training and less than 3% were Certified in Infection Control (CIC) – a credential awarded by the Certification Board of Infection Control & Epidemiology. Of the 35% who had some form of official training, most completed state or local training courses.

The numbers improved slightly in 2018, with 7% of nursing homes reporting their infection preventionists had the highest-level certification, and 44% reporting that their infection preventionists had no specific infection-control training. Research has shown that infection-control training of any kind has a “strong effect” on IPC-related outcomes. While not demonstrated in research thus far, it seems plausible that “facilities with certified [infection preventionists] will have better processes in place,” said Dr. Stone, whose research has documented the need for more monitoring of staff compliance with hand-washing and other IPC procedures.

Infection preventionists in nursing homes typically have been directors of nursing or assistant directors of nursing who fold IPC responsibilities into a multitude of other responsibilities. Before the 2016 rules, some smaller facilities hired off-site consultants to do the job.

CMS upped the ante after several months of COVID-19, recommending in mid-May that nursing homes assign at least one individual with training in infection control “to provide on-site management of the IPC program.” The infection preventionists should be a “full-time role” in facilities that have more than 100 residents, the CMS guidance said. (Prior to the pandemic, CMS issued proposed regulations in 2019 that would modify the time an infection preventionist must devote to a facility from “part time” to “sufficient time.”)

However, neither the 2016 rule nor the most recent guidance on infection preventionists define the length or content of training.

Swati Gaur, MD, chair of the Infection Advisory Committee of AMDA and a certified medical director of two skilled nursing facilities in Gainesville, Ga., said that the pandemic “has really started to crystallize some of the limitations of having a very vague role, not just in terms of what an [infection preventionists] does [in the nursing home] but also the training,”

Fortunately, Dr. Gaur said, when SARS-CoV-2 struck, she had just transitioned her facilities’ designated infection preventionist to work full-time on the role. She had worked closely with her infection preventionist on IPC issues but wishes she had arranged for more rigorous independent training. “The role of the [infection preventionist] is huge and complicated,” now involving employee health, contract tracing, cohorting, isolation, and compliance with precautions and use of PPE, in addition to surveillance, data reporting, and communication with public health officials, she said.

“Facilities are finding out now that [the infection preventionist] cannot be an afterthought. And it won’t end with COVID. We have other respiratory illnesses like flu and other viruses that we struggle with all the time,” said Dr. Gaur, who is working alongside Dr. Dumyati and two other long-term care experts on AMDA’s COVID-19 guidance. The nursing homes that Dr. Gaur directs are part of the Northeast Georgia Health Care System and together include 271 beds.
 

Moving forward

IPC practices often collide with facilities’ role as a home, especially to those receiving long-term care. “We always have to measure what we do [to prevent and control infections] against patient autonomy and residents’ rights,” said Dr. Gaur. “We have struggled with these issues, prior to the pandemic. If patients are positive for multidrug resistant organisms [for instance], how long can they be isolated in their own rooms? You can’t for days and months put someone in a single room and create isolation. That’s where the science of infection prevention can collide with residents’ rights.”

Over the years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged this discordance, leaving it to facilities to decide, for instance, whether to actively screen for colonization with MDROs. In 2019, to help nursing homes prevent the transmission of MDROs from residents who are colonized but not actively infected, the CDC introduced new “enhanced barrier precautions” that require the use of gowns and gloves for specific resident activities identified as having a high risk of MDRO transmission. The new category of precautions is less restrictive than traditional contact precautions, which keep residents in their rooms.

Infection control in nursing homes “isn’t where it needs to be ... but we’re always going to have in nursing homes a situation where there’s a high potential for rapid transmission of infectious disease,” said Christopher Crnich, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who chairs the long-term care special interest group of the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America and has offered COVID-19 advice to his state’s department of public health.

“Anytime you have a congregative community, particularly one that involves susceptible hosts, there will be an intrinsically susceptible environment ... I’m a bit disturbed by the emphasis on saying, ‘This nursing home had a COVID-19 outbreak, therefore this nursing home did something wrong,’ ” Dr. Crnich said.

“How we mitigate the size of the outbreaks is where we need to focus our attention,” he said. The goal with SARS-CoV-2, he said, is to recognize its introduction “as rapidly as possible” and stop its spread through empiric symptom- and exposure-based isolation, multiple waves of targeted testing, widespread use of contact and droplet precautions, and isolating staff as necessary.

As awareness grew this year among long-term care leaders that relying too heavily on symptom-based strategies may not be effective to prevent introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a study published in April in the New England Journal of Medicine cemented the need for a testing strategy not limited to symptomatic individuals.

The study documented that more than half of residents in a nursing home who had positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing, and that most went on to develop symptoms. The study was conducted after one case of COVID-19 had been identified.

Some states issued calls this spring for “universal testing” of all nursing home patients and staff, and the CMS recommendations issued to state and local officials in mid-May for phased nursing home “reopening” call for baseline testing of all residents and staff, followed by retesting all residents weekly until all residents test negative and by retesting all staff continuing every week.

However, the experts contacted for this story said that, without a highly accurate and accessible point-of-care test (and even with one, considering the virus’ incubation period), a universal approach that includes all nursing home residents may have more limited value than is being touted. In many scenarios, they said, it is most meaningful to focus still-limited testing supplies on the staff, many of whom work at more than one facility and are believed to be primary vectors of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Ouslander, Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders have been discussing testing at length, trying to reach consensus on best policies. “I don’t think there’s any uniform approach or uniform agreement,” said Dr. Ouslander. “For me, under ideal circumstances what needs to be done to protect older people in nursing homes is to get access to as many accurate viral tests as possible and test staff at least once a week or every 10 days.”

In some facilities, there may be an unspoken barrier to the frequent testing of staff: Fear that staff who test positive will need to be quarantined, with no one to take their place on the front line. Dr. Ouslander said he knows of one county health department that has discouraged nursing homes from testing asymptomatic staff. “It’s insane and truly shocking,” he said.

At the University of Rochester Medical Center, Dr. Dumyati said, staffing agencies are running short of nurse aide substitutes, and staffing issues have become the “biggest challenge” facing a regional multidisciplinary group of medical directors, hospital leaders, and health department officials who are working to troubleshoot COVID-19 issues. “Some of our nursing homes have ended up sending some of their residents to other nursing homes or to the hospital [because of the loss of staff],” she said.

Currently in the state of New York, she noted, COVID-19 patients may not be discharged to nursing homes until they test negative for the virus through PCR testing. “And some people don’t clear by PCR for 4-6 weeks.”


 

The barriers

Staffing shortages – real in some locales, and anticipated in others as economic reopening grows – are reflective of underlying structural and financial factors that work against optimal IPC, experts said. It’s not uncommon for certified nurse assistants (CNAs) to be assigned to 10-15 residents. And according to AMDA, 30%-46% of CNAs are reported to receive some form of public assistance. Low wages force many CNAs to work other jobs, including shifts at other nursing homes.

Turnover of nursing home leadership also creates problems. Dr. Crnich calls it “one of the biggest barriers” to effective IPC in nursing homes. “Facilities can tolerate some turnover in their front line staff,” he said, “as long as their leadership structure remains relatively stable.” Dr. Stone and her coinvestigators have documented at least yearly turnover in top positions: They found that, in 2018, approximately one-quarter of facilities reported employing three or more infection preventionists, three or more administrators, and three or more directors of nursing during the prior 3 years.

Medical directors, moreover, are not uniformly qualified, engaged with their facilities, or supported by nursing home administrators. “It’s an open secret, I think, that a lot of facilities want a medical director who is a good referral source,” said Dr. Gaur. “A medical director needs to be completely engaged in [quality improvement and] infection control practices.”

Some nursing home chains, she noted, “have realized the value of the medical director, and have changed the way they’re paying them. They’re actually holding them accountable [for quality and outcomes].”

Medical directors such as Dr. Wasserman, who previously oversaw a 74-facility nursing home chain in California as chief medical officer and then chief executive officer and has worked on nursing home quality improvement processes for his state, said there is much that can be done clinically to prevent the spread of infections, such as more frequent use of telemedicine, more attention to “deprescribing” unnecessary medications (which reduces the number of medication passes and, thus, the number of “transmission opportunities”), and the use of continuous remote monitoring. He has been trying to secure Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximetry and temperature monitoring for the Los Angeles Jewish Home and other facilities.

Dr. Wasserman and other long-term care leaders believe that a more educational inspection process would also lead to improvements in IPC. “The punitive nature of the survey process is morally deflating to frontline staff [and] penalties take money away from operations,” Dr. Wasserman said. “It’s not a productive approach to quality improvement.”

Dr. Stone agreed. Infection control is now the primary focus of CMS’s inspection process, and she said that increased regulatory scrutiny of IPC beyond COVID-19 is a “good thing.” Her research has shown that most deficiencies identified by inspectors are infection control deficiencies, and that in 2014 and 2018, approximately one-third of nursing homes had infection control citations. (CMS recently increased penalties and fines for identified deficiencies.)

“But my hope would be that the survey process would be more educational [as it is for hospitals],” she said. “We need to be supporting nursing homes to do a better job.”

A silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Dr. Stone sees it, is that nursing homes may be more engaged with data reporting and infection surveillance going forward. Nursing homes are now required to report their COVID-19 cases to the CDC through its hospital-dominant National Healthcare Safety Network, and the CDC has made technical changes that now make it “easier [than it was in the past] for nursing homes to join and participate,” she said. “Now that all nursing homes are engaged, will they be engaged post-COVID, too? I hope so. Surveillance [of infections] is a first step toward better outcomes.”

For now, said Dr. Crnich, the intensive prevention and mitigation efforts that are being required of nursing homes to minimize COVID-19’s impact is “a big deal and will tax the resources of most nursing homes and exceed the resources of many” without outside support, Dr. Crnich said. “This has been the most illuminating part of all this, and will probably require us to reconsider how we’re resourcing our nursing homes moving forward into the future.”

On Thursday, April 30, 2020, CMS released a new interim final rule. During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, the Interim Final Rule makes several new, important temporary changes to Medicare regulations and payments. One important change retroactively (to March 1, 2020) increased payments for telephone-only visits to established patients:

• CPT 99441: a 5- to 10-minute telephone visit, in lieu of a face-to-face office visit, will be reimbursed at a similar rate to a 99212, about $46 (99441 is usually reimbursed at about $14).
• CPT 99442: an 11- to 20-minute telephone visit, in lieu of a face-to-face office visit, will be reimbursed at a similar rate to a 99213, about $76 (99442 is usually reimbursed at about $28).
• CPT 99443: a 21- to 30-minute telephone visit, in lieu of a face-to-face office visit, will be reimbursed at a similar rate to a 99212, about $110 (99443 is usually reimbursed at about $41).

These telephone codes may be used when addressing a new or old problem for established patients. Choose the code to reflect only the billing provider time communicating with the patient. There should not be another patient encounter for 7 calendar days before or after the telephone visit.

In addition, the new Interim Final Rule now allows attending physicians at teaching institutions providing supervision under the Primary Care Exception to report for telephone (using 99441-99443) or video (using 99212-99215) telemedicine encounters by residents, when the supervision is provided immediately after the resident encounter, rather than during the telephone or video visit. However, most chest physicians at teaching institutions do not supervise residents or fellows under the Primary Care Exception.

A CMS press release about the rule is available at cms.gov.

On Thursday, April 30, 2020, CMS released a new interim final rule. During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, the Interim Final Rule makes several new, important temporary changes to Medicare regulations and payments. One important change retroactively (to March 1, 2020) increased payments for telephone-only visits to established patients:

• CPT 99441: a 5- to 10-minute telephone visit, in lieu of a face-to-face office visit, will be reimbursed at a similar rate to a 99212, about $46 (99441 is usually reimbursed at about $14).
• CPT 99442: an 11- to 20-minute telephone visit, in lieu of a face-to-face office visit, will be reimbursed at a similar rate to a 99213, about $76 (99442 is usually reimbursed at about $28).
• CPT 99443: a 21- to 30-minute telephone visit, in lieu of a face-to-face office visit, will be reimbursed at a similar rate to a 99212, about $110 (99443 is usually reimbursed at about $41).

These telephone codes may be used when addressing a new or old problem for established patients. Choose the code to reflect only the billing provider time communicating with the patient. There should not be another patient encounter for 7 calendar days before or after the telephone visit.

In addition, the new Interim Final Rule now allows attending physicians at teaching institutions providing supervision under the Primary Care Exception to report for telephone (using 99441-99443) or video (using 99212-99215) telemedicine encounters by residents, when the supervision is provided immediately after the resident encounter, rather than during the telephone or video visit. However, most chest physicians at teaching institutions do not supervise residents or fellows under the Primary Care Exception.

A CMS press release about the rule is available at cms.gov.

On Thursday, April 30, 2020, CMS released a new interim final rule. During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, the Interim Final Rule makes several new, important temporary changes to Medicare regulations and payments. One important change retroactively (to March 1, 2020) increased payments for telephone-only visits to established patients:

• CPT 99441: a 5- to 10-minute telephone visit, in lieu of a face-to-face office visit, will be reimbursed at a similar rate to a 99212, about $46 (99441 is usually reimbursed at about $14).
• CPT 99442: an 11- to 20-minute telephone visit, in lieu of a face-to-face office visit, will be reimbursed at a similar rate to a 99213, about $76 (99442 is usually reimbursed at about $28).
• CPT 99443: a 21- to 30-minute telephone visit, in lieu of a face-to-face office visit, will be reimbursed at a similar rate to a 99212, about $110 (99443 is usually reimbursed at about $41).

These telephone codes may be used when addressing a new or old problem for established patients. Choose the code to reflect only the billing provider time communicating with the patient. There should not be another patient encounter for 7 calendar days before or after the telephone visit.

In addition, the new Interim Final Rule now allows attending physicians at teaching institutions providing supervision under the Primary Care Exception to report for telephone (using 99441-99443) or video (using 99212-99215) telemedicine encounters by residents, when the supervision is provided immediately after the resident encounter, rather than during the telephone or video visit. However, most chest physicians at teaching institutions do not supervise residents or fellows under the Primary Care Exception.

A CMS press release about the rule is available at cms.gov.

The entire world has been affected by the COVID-19 crisis, yet many of our most vulnerable continue to suffer in silence. The CHEST Foundation is diligently working to help give voice to these all-too-often isolated and forgotten patients. Make a donation today, and help those who need it most: our family, friends, neighbors, and those most vulnerable to this devastating disease.

In addition to providing reliable and educational resources that address COVID-19 for both clinicians and patients, the CHEST Foundation is:

• Launching a series of public service announcement videos to empower patients and caregivers living with COPD and interstitial lung disease by providing information on necessary skills, such as cleaning medical equipment, and helping them stay safe and healthy while coping with isolation;
• Partnering with AMITA Health in Chicago to bring telehealth opportunities to patients and support groups; and
• Providing grant funding, in partnership with the Feldman Family Foundation, that supports projects such as providing supplies and groceries to patients and caregivers, expediting training and the means to get caregivers to NYC, and providing needed technology to continue hosting support group meetings in local communities.

The CHEST Foundation has rebranded and relaunched its website in an effort to make it more user-friendly, patient-focused, and clinician-centered. We’ve upgraded our current content, written new pieces, and carefully curated a complete collection of tools that will help patients, caregivers, and clinicians better navigate the complexities of lung disease. Information on all of the content previously listed will be available on the CHEST Foundation’s website at chestfoundation.org.

Thank you for helping as we fulfill the urgent needs of our community during this crisis. Help support your community by making a donation today.

The entire world has been affected by the COVID-19 crisis, yet many of our most vulnerable continue to suffer in silence. The CHEST Foundation is diligently working to help give voice to these all-too-often isolated and forgotten patients. Make a donation today, and help those who need it most: our family, friends, neighbors, and those most vulnerable to this devastating disease.

In addition to providing reliable and educational resources that address COVID-19 for both clinicians and patients, the CHEST Foundation is:

• Launching a series of public service announcement videos to empower patients and caregivers living with COPD and interstitial lung disease by providing information on necessary skills, such as cleaning medical equipment, and helping them stay safe and healthy while coping with isolation;
• Partnering with AMITA Health in Chicago to bring telehealth opportunities to patients and support groups; and
• Providing grant funding, in partnership with the Feldman Family Foundation, that supports projects such as providing supplies and groceries to patients and caregivers, expediting training and the means to get caregivers to NYC, and providing needed technology to continue hosting support group meetings in local communities.

The CHEST Foundation has rebranded and relaunched its website in an effort to make it more user-friendly, patient-focused, and clinician-centered. We’ve upgraded our current content, written new pieces, and carefully curated a complete collection of tools that will help patients, caregivers, and clinicians better navigate the complexities of lung disease. Information on all of the content previously listed will be available on the CHEST Foundation’s website at chestfoundation.org.

Thank you for helping as we fulfill the urgent needs of our community during this crisis. Help support your community by making a donation today.

The entire world has been affected by the COVID-19 crisis, yet many of our most vulnerable continue to suffer in silence. The CHEST Foundation is diligently working to help give voice to these all-too-often isolated and forgotten patients. Make a donation today, and help those who need it most: our family, friends, neighbors, and those most vulnerable to this devastating disease.

In addition to providing reliable and educational resources that address COVID-19 for both clinicians and patients, the CHEST Foundation is:

• Launching a series of public service announcement videos to empower patients and caregivers living with COPD and interstitial lung disease by providing information on necessary skills, such as cleaning medical equipment, and helping them stay safe and healthy while coping with isolation;
• Partnering with AMITA Health in Chicago to bring telehealth opportunities to patients and support groups; and
• Providing grant funding, in partnership with the Feldman Family Foundation, that supports projects such as providing supplies and groceries to patients and caregivers, expediting training and the means to get caregivers to NYC, and providing needed technology to continue hosting support group meetings in local communities.

The CHEST Foundation has rebranded and relaunched its website in an effort to make it more user-friendly, patient-focused, and clinician-centered. We’ve upgraded our current content, written new pieces, and carefully curated a complete collection of tools that will help patients, caregivers, and clinicians better navigate the complexities of lung disease. Information on all of the content previously listed will be available on the CHEST Foundation’s website at chestfoundation.org.

Thank you for helping as we fulfill the urgent needs of our community during this crisis. Help support your community by making a donation today.

I am often overheard encouraging colleagues to become involved with CHEST. I am a strong believer that you get far more out of participation than you will ever put into it. I have now been fortunate to have many leadership roles within CHEST and currently serve on the Board of Regents and as Chair of the Council of NetWorks. I have been able to work with a growing number of people, including faculty and CHEST staff. The more invested I have become, the more CHEST truly feels like family.

I understand that while it may be easy for me to tell members to get involved, it often feels much more difficult to actually get appointed to a leadership position. Early in my career, I was given the advice, “When you are given a task, make sure you blow it out of the water. That will only open more doors for you.” Making the most of a position on a NetWork or committee can create future opportunities. We recently had self-nominations for leadership positions within the NetWork steering committees and committees at large. Some positions have one to two openings for 20 applications. It can be frustrating not to get a position the first time around. However, it is common for members to have to apply numerous times prior to being appointed. When applying to these positions, be sure to highlight any prior CHEST involvement, as this may weigh in on an appointment to specific positions. Some of the decisions to appoint a nominee are based on prior engagement with CHEST.

So how can one get involved without holding a leadership position? My first piece of advice is to ensure you are getting CHEST emails. Check them regularly to so that you do not miss any opportunities. Next, be a member of at least one NetWork that is of interest to you. The NetWorks provide a smaller community within CHEST for special interests within our field. You will get emailed updates throughout the year that include any projects in which input is needed. At the CHEST annual meeting, each NetWork holds an Open Forum that functions as their annual face-to-face business meeting. These meetings are open to everyone. This is an excellent way to meet the current steering committee members and become involved in plans for the upcoming year. This year, we have made the dates and times of the NetWork steering committee calls public on the CHEST website. Any NetWork member can join these calls, even if they are not officially on the steering committee. All ongoing projects are discussed on these calls, so participation on the call offers an excellent opportunity to volunteer. You can also get involved with the NetWorks on social media by using the appropriate NetWork hashtags, along with tagging @accpchest to communicate with your NetWork colleagues.

I am often overheard encouraging colleagues to become involved with CHEST. I am a strong believer that you get far more out of participation than you will ever put into it. I have now been fortunate to have many leadership roles within CHEST and currently serve on the Board of Regents and as Chair of the Council of NetWorks. I have been able to work with a growing number of people, including faculty and CHEST staff. The more invested I have become, the more CHEST truly feels like family.

I understand that while it may be easy for me to tell members to get involved, it often feels much more difficult to actually get appointed to a leadership position. Early in my career, I was given the advice, “When you are given a task, make sure you blow it out of the water. That will only open more doors for you.” Making the most of a position on a NetWork or committee can create future opportunities. We recently had self-nominations for leadership positions within the NetWork steering committees and committees at large. Some positions have one to two openings for 20 applications. It can be frustrating not to get a position the first time around. However, it is common for members to have to apply numerous times prior to being appointed. When applying to these positions, be sure to highlight any prior CHEST involvement, as this may weigh in on an appointment to specific positions. Some of the decisions to appoint a nominee are based on prior engagement with CHEST.

So how can one get involved without holding a leadership position? My first piece of advice is to ensure you are getting CHEST emails. Check them regularly to so that you do not miss any opportunities. Next, be a member of at least one NetWork that is of interest to you. The NetWorks provide a smaller community within CHEST for special interests within our field. You will get emailed updates throughout the year that include any projects in which input is needed. At the CHEST annual meeting, each NetWork holds an Open Forum that functions as their annual face-to-face business meeting. These meetings are open to everyone. This is an excellent way to meet the current steering committee members and become involved in plans for the upcoming year. This year, we have made the dates and times of the NetWork steering committee calls public on the CHEST website. Any NetWork member can join these calls, even if they are not officially on the steering committee. All ongoing projects are discussed on these calls, so participation on the call offers an excellent opportunity to volunteer. You can also get involved with the NetWorks on social media by using the appropriate NetWork hashtags, along with tagging @accpchest to communicate with your NetWork colleagues.

I am often overheard encouraging colleagues to become involved with CHEST. I am a strong believer that you get far more out of participation than you will ever put into it. I have now been fortunate to have many leadership roles within CHEST and currently serve on the Board of Regents and as Chair of the Council of NetWorks. I have been able to work with a growing number of people, including faculty and CHEST staff. The more invested I have become, the more CHEST truly feels like family.

I understand that while it may be easy for me to tell members to get involved, it often feels much more difficult to actually get appointed to a leadership position. Early in my career, I was given the advice, “When you are given a task, make sure you blow it out of the water. That will only open more doors for you.” Making the most of a position on a NetWork or committee can create future opportunities. We recently had self-nominations for leadership positions within the NetWork steering committees and committees at large. Some positions have one to two openings for 20 applications. It can be frustrating not to get a position the first time around. However, it is common for members to have to apply numerous times prior to being appointed. When applying to these positions, be sure to highlight any prior CHEST involvement, as this may weigh in on an appointment to specific positions. Some of the decisions to appoint a nominee are based on prior engagement with CHEST.

So how can one get involved without holding a leadership position? My first piece of advice is to ensure you are getting CHEST emails. Check them regularly to so that you do not miss any opportunities. Next, be a member of at least one NetWork that is of interest to you. The NetWorks provide a smaller community within CHEST for special interests within our field. You will get emailed updates throughout the year that include any projects in which input is needed. At the CHEST annual meeting, each NetWork holds an Open Forum that functions as their annual face-to-face business meeting. These meetings are open to everyone. This is an excellent way to meet the current steering committee members and become involved in plans for the upcoming year. This year, we have made the dates and times of the NetWork steering committee calls public on the CHEST website. Any NetWork member can join these calls, even if they are not officially on the steering committee. All ongoing projects are discussed on these calls, so participation on the call offers an excellent opportunity to volunteer. You can also get involved with the NetWorks on social media by using the appropriate NetWork hashtags, along with tagging @accpchest to communicate with your NetWork colleagues.