CHEST Physician

“All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.” Paracelsus once said.

A bit of history

Oxygen was discovered in 1775 and was since noted to be both vital and poisonous. It was much later in 1899 that it was demonstrated that partial pressures of oxygen up to 75% led to both severe lung injury and death as compared with levels of 40% to 50%. While the administration of oxygen in hypoxic patients is beneficial, this intervention in healthy subjects leads to a reduction in heart rate, cardiac index, and an increase in mean arterial pressure, systemic vascular resistance, and large artery stiffness.

While oxygen itself is not toxic, the reactive oxygen species that form as a result of oxygen metabolism are. A study showed that supplementation of oxygen in patients with COPD, or in women undergoing C-section with the use of spinal anesthesia, leads to an increase in reactive oxygen species (Winslow RM. Transfusion. 2013;53[2]:424).

Hyperoxia has multiple clinical effects on lung physiology and gas exchange that include worsening hypoxemia secondary to absorptive atelectasis and damage to the airways and lung parenchyma (Sackner MA, et al. Ann Intern Med. 1975;82[1]:40).

High levels of inspired oxygen could also lead to accentuation of hypercapnia as explained by the Haldane effect; a reduction of the affinity for carbon dioxide leading to an increase in PaC02. High oxygen levels can also decrease the hypoxic drive for ventilation leading to worsening hypercapnia.

Hyperoxia is a situation routinely encountered in clinical practice, as well, often resulting from an overzealous attempt to prevent or reverse hypoxia. ICU physicians, though aware of potential threats of hyperoxia, often fail to translate such concerns in their clinical practice (Helmerhorst HJ, et al. Ann Intensive Care. 2014;4:23).
 

Effects of hyperoxia in CNS and cardiovascular disease

The last 2 decades have seen several studies looking into the effects of hyperoxia in specific clinical scenarios. Arterial hyperoxia was found to be independently associated with in-hospital death in ventilated stroke patients in the ICU, as compared with either arterial normoxia or hypoxia (Rincon F, et al. Crit Care Med. 2014;42[2]:387). The AVOID trial showed that supplemental oxygen therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, but without hypoxia, increased early myocardial injury with risk of larger myocardial infarct size at 6 months. (Stub D, et al. Circulation. 2015;131[24]:2143).

Hyperoxia in the ICU

Although the potential risks of hyperoxia in conditions such as stroke and cardiac arrest had been observed, the jury was still out on its effects on a critically ill, mixed population, as routinely encountered in the ICU. Oxygen-ICU, a single center trial published in 2016, was one of the first looking at a mixed ICU population, while assessing the effects of a conservative oxygen delivery strategy against a conventional one (Girardis M, et al. JAMA. 2016;316[15]:1583). The researchers noted a significant mortality difference favoring conservative oxygen therapy, particularly in intubated patients. The IOTA group’s systematic review and meta-analysis of 16,000 patients, showed an increased relative risk of death in-hospital with hyperoxia, that persisted over a prolonged period while conferring no obvious advantages (Chu DK, et al. Lancet. 2018;391[10131]:1693).

With the growing body of evidence, the need of the hour was an ICU-based randomized trial that may settle the debate. The 21 center, 1,000 patient ICU-ROX trial promised to deliver on that (Mackle D, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903297). The study design was more reflective of real-life clinical scenarios than some of its predecessors, with the control group exposed to usual-oxygen therapy instead of liberal hyperoxia. Both groups had a lower saturation threshold of 91% while the conservative-oxygen group had an upper limit of 97% along with a conscious effort made to drop the FIO₂ to 21%. Though both groups had similar median PaO₂ levels, the conservative group spent much greater time (median 29 hours) at 21% FIO₂ than the usual group (median 1 hour). SpO₂ targets also allowed frequent changes to oxygen delivery without the need for blood gases.

Are the detrimental effects of hyperoxia limited to certain disease-specific groups or generally applicable?

The evidence is substantial inpatients with cardiac arrest/myocardial injury. A prespecified subgroup analysis in ICU-ROX indicated a higher number of ventilator-free days with conservative oxygen therapy in patients with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. When asked, Dr. Paul Young, one of the investigators of the ICU-ROX group, states, “These are actually pretty small subgroups, and the number of mortality events is quite small. My belief is that these data are best viewed as hypothesis generating rather than practice changing”
 

Where do we stand?

While we look for further answers regarding the consequences of hyperoxia, it is established that conservative oxygen therapy aimed at reducing delivered FIO2 is a safe practice without any adverse outcomes. The conservative oxygen group in ICU-ROX allowed SpO₂ levels as low as 91% with no serious hypoxic events. On the other hand, the IOTA group in their data analysis suggested a possible increase in mortality risk, which was dose-dependent on the magnitude of increase in SpO₂, in the range of 94% to 96%. Based on the available evidence, it is reasonable to encourage targeting lowest FIO₂ values needed to maintain SpO₂ between 91% and 96% in our ICU patients. There would always be a small fraction of patients, such as those with ARDS or severe hypoxic respiratory failure, in whom this may not be achievable given fluctuating and unreliable SpO₂ levels in the setting of profound hypoxia.
 

What lies ahead?

As the debate rages on, in an effort to answer this question for once and for all, the researchers of ICU-ROX are planning to conduct a multinational, multicenter RCT, the MEGA-ROX. An ICU trial of this size has not been attempted before and, given the sample size, Dr. Young feels the MEGA-ROX will be powered to detect an absolute mortality difference as low as 1.5%, if it does exist. There is a distinct possibility that conservative oxygen therapy will be best for patients with some diagnoses while liberal oxygen will be best for patients with other diagnoses. “We are conducting a number of parallel nested trials within the overall 40,000 participant trial sample. Each of these nested trials will evaluate a prespecified hypothesis in a specific cohort of critically ill patients and is accompanied by an appropriate power calculation. This will be able to address any heterogeneity of treatment effect among the different subgroups,” he concluded. As we eagerly await the results of MEGA-ROX, there may be a growing belief among intensivists that when it comes to oxygen in the ICU, less may be truly more.
 

Dr. Chaaban and Dr. Sen are with the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky.

Correction, 4/10/20: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Sen's name
 

“All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.” Paracelsus once said.

A bit of history

Oxygen was discovered in 1775 and was since noted to be both vital and poisonous. It was much later in 1899 that it was demonstrated that partial pressures of oxygen up to 75% led to both severe lung injury and death as compared with levels of 40% to 50%. While the administration of oxygen in hypoxic patients is beneficial, this intervention in healthy subjects leads to a reduction in heart rate, cardiac index, and an increase in mean arterial pressure, systemic vascular resistance, and large artery stiffness.

While oxygen itself is not toxic, the reactive oxygen species that form as a result of oxygen metabolism are. A study showed that supplementation of oxygen in patients with COPD, or in women undergoing C-section with the use of spinal anesthesia, leads to an increase in reactive oxygen species (Winslow RM. Transfusion. 2013;53[2]:424).

Hyperoxia has multiple clinical effects on lung physiology and gas exchange that include worsening hypoxemia secondary to absorptive atelectasis and damage to the airways and lung parenchyma (Sackner MA, et al. Ann Intern Med. 1975;82[1]:40).

High levels of inspired oxygen could also lead to accentuation of hypercapnia as explained by the Haldane effect; a reduction of the affinity for carbon dioxide leading to an increase in PaC02. High oxygen levels can also decrease the hypoxic drive for ventilation leading to worsening hypercapnia.

Hyperoxia is a situation routinely encountered in clinical practice, as well, often resulting from an overzealous attempt to prevent or reverse hypoxia. ICU physicians, though aware of potential threats of hyperoxia, often fail to translate such concerns in their clinical practice (Helmerhorst HJ, et al. Ann Intensive Care. 2014;4:23).
 

Effects of hyperoxia in CNS and cardiovascular disease

The last 2 decades have seen several studies looking into the effects of hyperoxia in specific clinical scenarios. Arterial hyperoxia was found to be independently associated with in-hospital death in ventilated stroke patients in the ICU, as compared with either arterial normoxia or hypoxia (Rincon F, et al. Crit Care Med. 2014;42[2]:387). The AVOID trial showed that supplemental oxygen therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, but without hypoxia, increased early myocardial injury with risk of larger myocardial infarct size at 6 months. (Stub D, et al. Circulation. 2015;131[24]:2143).

Hyperoxia in the ICU

Although the potential risks of hyperoxia in conditions such as stroke and cardiac arrest had been observed, the jury was still out on its effects on a critically ill, mixed population, as routinely encountered in the ICU. Oxygen-ICU, a single center trial published in 2016, was one of the first looking at a mixed ICU population, while assessing the effects of a conservative oxygen delivery strategy against a conventional one (Girardis M, et al. JAMA. 2016;316[15]:1583). The researchers noted a significant mortality difference favoring conservative oxygen therapy, particularly in intubated patients. The IOTA group’s systematic review and meta-analysis of 16,000 patients, showed an increased relative risk of death in-hospital with hyperoxia, that persisted over a prolonged period while conferring no obvious advantages (Chu DK, et al. Lancet. 2018;391[10131]:1693).

With the growing body of evidence, the need of the hour was an ICU-based randomized trial that may settle the debate. The 21 center, 1,000 patient ICU-ROX trial promised to deliver on that (Mackle D, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903297). The study design was more reflective of real-life clinical scenarios than some of its predecessors, with the control group exposed to usual-oxygen therapy instead of liberal hyperoxia. Both groups had a lower saturation threshold of 91% while the conservative-oxygen group had an upper limit of 97% along with a conscious effort made to drop the FIO₂ to 21%. Though both groups had similar median PaO₂ levels, the conservative group spent much greater time (median 29 hours) at 21% FIO₂ than the usual group (median 1 hour). SpO₂ targets also allowed frequent changes to oxygen delivery without the need for blood gases.

Are the detrimental effects of hyperoxia limited to certain disease-specific groups or generally applicable?

The evidence is substantial inpatients with cardiac arrest/myocardial injury. A prespecified subgroup analysis in ICU-ROX indicated a higher number of ventilator-free days with conservative oxygen therapy in patients with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. When asked, Dr. Paul Young, one of the investigators of the ICU-ROX group, states, “These are actually pretty small subgroups, and the number of mortality events is quite small. My belief is that these data are best viewed as hypothesis generating rather than practice changing”
 

Where do we stand?

While we look for further answers regarding the consequences of hyperoxia, it is established that conservative oxygen therapy aimed at reducing delivered FIO2 is a safe practice without any adverse outcomes. The conservative oxygen group in ICU-ROX allowed SpO₂ levels as low as 91% with no serious hypoxic events. On the other hand, the IOTA group in their data analysis suggested a possible increase in mortality risk, which was dose-dependent on the magnitude of increase in SpO₂, in the range of 94% to 96%. Based on the available evidence, it is reasonable to encourage targeting lowest FIO₂ values needed to maintain SpO₂ between 91% and 96% in our ICU patients. There would always be a small fraction of patients, such as those with ARDS or severe hypoxic respiratory failure, in whom this may not be achievable given fluctuating and unreliable SpO₂ levels in the setting of profound hypoxia.
 

What lies ahead?

As the debate rages on, in an effort to answer this question for once and for all, the researchers of ICU-ROX are planning to conduct a multinational, multicenter RCT, the MEGA-ROX. An ICU trial of this size has not been attempted before and, given the sample size, Dr. Young feels the MEGA-ROX will be powered to detect an absolute mortality difference as low as 1.5%, if it does exist. There is a distinct possibility that conservative oxygen therapy will be best for patients with some diagnoses while liberal oxygen will be best for patients with other diagnoses. “We are conducting a number of parallel nested trials within the overall 40,000 participant trial sample. Each of these nested trials will evaluate a prespecified hypothesis in a specific cohort of critically ill patients and is accompanied by an appropriate power calculation. This will be able to address any heterogeneity of treatment effect among the different subgroups,” he concluded. As we eagerly await the results of MEGA-ROX, there may be a growing belief among intensivists that when it comes to oxygen in the ICU, less may be truly more.
 

Dr. Chaaban and Dr. Sen are with the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky.

Correction, 4/10/20: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Sen's name
 

“All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.” Paracelsus once said.

A bit of history

Oxygen was discovered in 1775 and was since noted to be both vital and poisonous. It was much later in 1899 that it was demonstrated that partial pressures of oxygen up to 75% led to both severe lung injury and death as compared with levels of 40% to 50%. While the administration of oxygen in hypoxic patients is beneficial, this intervention in healthy subjects leads to a reduction in heart rate, cardiac index, and an increase in mean arterial pressure, systemic vascular resistance, and large artery stiffness.

While oxygen itself is not toxic, the reactive oxygen species that form as a result of oxygen metabolism are. A study showed that supplementation of oxygen in patients with COPD, or in women undergoing C-section with the use of spinal anesthesia, leads to an increase in reactive oxygen species (Winslow RM. Transfusion. 2013;53[2]:424).

Hyperoxia has multiple clinical effects on lung physiology and gas exchange that include worsening hypoxemia secondary to absorptive atelectasis and damage to the airways and lung parenchyma (Sackner MA, et al. Ann Intern Med. 1975;82[1]:40).

High levels of inspired oxygen could also lead to accentuation of hypercapnia as explained by the Haldane effect; a reduction of the affinity for carbon dioxide leading to an increase in PaC02. High oxygen levels can also decrease the hypoxic drive for ventilation leading to worsening hypercapnia.

Hyperoxia is a situation routinely encountered in clinical practice, as well, often resulting from an overzealous attempt to prevent or reverse hypoxia. ICU physicians, though aware of potential threats of hyperoxia, often fail to translate such concerns in their clinical practice (Helmerhorst HJ, et al. Ann Intensive Care. 2014;4:23).
 

Effects of hyperoxia in CNS and cardiovascular disease

The last 2 decades have seen several studies looking into the effects of hyperoxia in specific clinical scenarios. Arterial hyperoxia was found to be independently associated with in-hospital death in ventilated stroke patients in the ICU, as compared with either arterial normoxia or hypoxia (Rincon F, et al. Crit Care Med. 2014;42[2]:387). The AVOID trial showed that supplemental oxygen therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, but without hypoxia, increased early myocardial injury with risk of larger myocardial infarct size at 6 months. (Stub D, et al. Circulation. 2015;131[24]:2143).

Hyperoxia in the ICU

Although the potential risks of hyperoxia in conditions such as stroke and cardiac arrest had been observed, the jury was still out on its effects on a critically ill, mixed population, as routinely encountered in the ICU. Oxygen-ICU, a single center trial published in 2016, was one of the first looking at a mixed ICU population, while assessing the effects of a conservative oxygen delivery strategy against a conventional one (Girardis M, et al. JAMA. 2016;316[15]:1583). The researchers noted a significant mortality difference favoring conservative oxygen therapy, particularly in intubated patients. The IOTA group’s systematic review and meta-analysis of 16,000 patients, showed an increased relative risk of death in-hospital with hyperoxia, that persisted over a prolonged period while conferring no obvious advantages (Chu DK, et al. Lancet. 2018;391[10131]:1693).

With the growing body of evidence, the need of the hour was an ICU-based randomized trial that may settle the debate. The 21 center, 1,000 patient ICU-ROX trial promised to deliver on that (Mackle D, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903297). The study design was more reflective of real-life clinical scenarios than some of its predecessors, with the control group exposed to usual-oxygen therapy instead of liberal hyperoxia. Both groups had a lower saturation threshold of 91% while the conservative-oxygen group had an upper limit of 97% along with a conscious effort made to drop the FIO₂ to 21%. Though both groups had similar median PaO₂ levels, the conservative group spent much greater time (median 29 hours) at 21% FIO₂ than the usual group (median 1 hour). SpO₂ targets also allowed frequent changes to oxygen delivery without the need for blood gases.

Are the detrimental effects of hyperoxia limited to certain disease-specific groups or generally applicable?

The evidence is substantial inpatients with cardiac arrest/myocardial injury. A prespecified subgroup analysis in ICU-ROX indicated a higher number of ventilator-free days with conservative oxygen therapy in patients with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. When asked, Dr. Paul Young, one of the investigators of the ICU-ROX group, states, “These are actually pretty small subgroups, and the number of mortality events is quite small. My belief is that these data are best viewed as hypothesis generating rather than practice changing”
 

Where do we stand?

While we look for further answers regarding the consequences of hyperoxia, it is established that conservative oxygen therapy aimed at reducing delivered FIO2 is a safe practice without any adverse outcomes. The conservative oxygen group in ICU-ROX allowed SpO₂ levels as low as 91% with no serious hypoxic events. On the other hand, the IOTA group in their data analysis suggested a possible increase in mortality risk, which was dose-dependent on the magnitude of increase in SpO₂, in the range of 94% to 96%. Based on the available evidence, it is reasonable to encourage targeting lowest FIO₂ values needed to maintain SpO₂ between 91% and 96% in our ICU patients. There would always be a small fraction of patients, such as those with ARDS or severe hypoxic respiratory failure, in whom this may not be achievable given fluctuating and unreliable SpO₂ levels in the setting of profound hypoxia.
 

What lies ahead?

As the debate rages on, in an effort to answer this question for once and for all, the researchers of ICU-ROX are planning to conduct a multinational, multicenter RCT, the MEGA-ROX. An ICU trial of this size has not been attempted before and, given the sample size, Dr. Young feels the MEGA-ROX will be powered to detect an absolute mortality difference as low as 1.5%, if it does exist. There is a distinct possibility that conservative oxygen therapy will be best for patients with some diagnoses while liberal oxygen will be best for patients with other diagnoses. “We are conducting a number of parallel nested trials within the overall 40,000 participant trial sample. Each of these nested trials will evaluate a prespecified hypothesis in a specific cohort of critically ill patients and is accompanied by an appropriate power calculation. This will be able to address any heterogeneity of treatment effect among the different subgroups,” he concluded. As we eagerly await the results of MEGA-ROX, there may be a growing belief among intensivists that when it comes to oxygen in the ICU, less may be truly more.
 

Dr. Chaaban and Dr. Sen are with the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky.

Correction, 4/10/20: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Sen's name
 

Lung transplants are increasing, with 2,562 performed in the United States in 2018 – a 31% increase over the preceding 5 years. With this increased demand for donor lungs, waitlist mortality in the United States is 9.4 deaths per 100 waitlist-years for obstructive lung diseases and as high as 29.7 deaths per 100 waitlist-years for restrictive lung diseases (Valapour M, et al. Lung. Am J Transplant. 2020;20[suppl s1]:427). Conversely, lungs are utilized from eligible multiorgan donors only 15% to 20% of the time, usually due to concerns over donor history or organ quality (Young KA, et al. Chest. 2019;155[3]:465). In light of this imbalance of supply and demand, lung transplant specialists are making significant efforts to expand the donor pool of available organs. Three of these strategies include: (1) applications of ex-vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) technology; (2) use of lungs from hepatitis C-positive donors for hep-C negative recipients; and (3) increasing utilization of donation after cardiac death.

Normothermic ex-vivo lung perfusion is a technology which allows donor lungs to be perfused and ventilated after removal from the donor but before transplant into the recipient. This is in contrast to the traditional method of cold static preservation. The proposed advantage of using this technology is to allow time for a more thorough assessment of graft quality and to improve function of grafts not meeting established criteria for transplant, all-the-while decreasing organ ischemia despite an increased cross-clamp time. There are currently four commercial systems available capable of EVLP. Broadly speaking, three EVLP management protocols exist (Toronto, Lund, and OCS), which differ in perfusate composition, target flow, pulmonary arterial pressure, left atrial pressure, and ventilatory settings. Notably, the Toronto protocol uses a closed left atrium, whereas the Lund and OCS protocol use an open left atrium. There are excellent published reviews of the different systems (Possoz J, et al. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11[4]:1635). EVLP has now been studied for two different goals: (1) to allow an extended evaluation of lungs of questionable quality before transplant; or (2) for routine use in all lung transplantations in place of cold static preservation.

In most studies concerning the use of EVLP for reconditioning of donor lungs, “high risk” or “extended criteria” refers to one or more of the following: P/F ratios < 300 on arterial blood gas, macroscopic abnormalities (eg, pulmonary edema, poor lung compliance), donation after circulatory death, or high-risk history (eg, aspiration). The largest cohort with the longest follow-up addressing the role of EVLP for donation of lungs with extended criteria was published from the Toronto Lung Transplant Group. Their results have demonstrated equivalent graft survival and rates of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) up to 9 years posttransplant compared with standard criteria donor lungs, despite utilizing lower quality lungs and having a longer median preservation (Divithotawela C, et al. JAMA Surg. 2019;154[12]:1143). The group’s subsequent lung transplant rates have increased over the past decade.

A separate study addressed the same question but differed in that it was a single-arm, multicenter, international trial that tracked the outcomes of 93 extended criteria lungs placed on EVLP (including a large proportion acquired via donation after circulatory death) (Loor G, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7[11]:975). Among these, 87% of eligible lungs were transplanted, and outcomes were excellent, albeit shorter in follow-up compared with the Toronto cohort (eg, primary graft dysfunction grade 3 (PGD3) within 72 hours was 44% and 1-year survival was 91%). Based on these trials and many other retrospective reports, it has been concluded by many experts in the field that EVLP-treated extended criteria donor lungs perform equally well to standard criteria donor lungs.

Two RCTs have been conducted to evaluate whether EVLP is noninferior to static cold storage with donor lungs meeting “standard criteria” for transplant. The first was a single center study at the Medical University of Vienna, that looked at 80 recipient/donor pairs. Lungs in the EVLP arm underwent 4 hours of perfusion with frequent reassessment of quality before transplant, whereas the lungs in the control arm went directly to transplant. This study met noninferiority criteria looking at primary outcomes of PGD grade >1 and 30-day survival (Slama A, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36[7]:744). The second study was a phase 3, multicenter, international trial that included 320 recipient/donor pairs randomized to either EVLP (without a prespecified time on the EVLP system) or static cold storage. This trial met noninferiority for safety endpoints (lung graft-related adverse events within 30 days) and a composite primary outcome of PGD grade 3 incidence within 72 hours and 30-day survival (Warnecke G, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6[5]:357). The authors also tested and found superiority of EVLP in lower PGD grade 3 frequency compared with control. While these RCTs may suggest a role for EVLP in the procurement process of standard criteria organs in addition to extended criteria organs in the future, major criticisms for these trials include the lack of a demonstrable clinical benefit over cold storage beyond the lower PGD3 rates.

In the era of direct-acting antiviral agents available to treat HCV infection, there has been efforts to study the early use of anti-HCV medications to prevent infection as a result of heart or lung transplant from HCV viremic donors to HCV-negative recipients. In one major trial on efficacy, it was found that 4 weeks of sofosbuvir and velpatasvir, when started within a few hours of transplant, was sufficient to achieve a sustained (undetectable) virologic response at 12 weeks after completion of the antiviral regimen (Woolley AE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380[17]:1606). Therefore, many transplant centers have adopted protocols to increase the donor pool (by CDC estimates about 4% of solid organ donors are HCV-positive) by accepting HCV nucleic acid amplification test (NAT)-positive donors for HCV-negative recipients, after appropriate informed consent.

Donation after cardiac death (DCD), which is alternatively known as donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD), generally refers to organ procurement taking place after cessation of circulation, often after inpatient withdrawal of support. This is in contrast to the much more common practice of donation after brain death (DBD). Addressing concerns over the quality of lungs donated in the context of DCD compared with DBD, analyses of ISHLT registry data have demonstrated no differences in hospital length of stay or survival at 1 or 5 years (Van Raemdonck D, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019;38[12]:1235). Outcomes comparing specific mechanisms of donor death in DCD remain relatively unknown, such as outcomes from donors withdrawn from life support vs donors who had an uncontrolled cardiac death.

These methods for expanding the donor pool are not mutually exclusive, and, in fact, application of EVLP for lungs obtained in the context of DCD seems to be increasingly common. Optimization of protocols with collaboration between lung transplant centers will be paramount as we move forward in advancing this field. As we do so, efforts to successfully increase the donor pool will serve to provide a life-saving therapy to an ever-growing number of patients with end-stage lung disease.

Dr. Sala and Dr. Tomic are with the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.

Lung transplants are increasing, with 2,562 performed in the United States in 2018 – a 31% increase over the preceding 5 years. With this increased demand for donor lungs, waitlist mortality in the United States is 9.4 deaths per 100 waitlist-years for obstructive lung diseases and as high as 29.7 deaths per 100 waitlist-years for restrictive lung diseases (Valapour M, et al. Lung. Am J Transplant. 2020;20[suppl s1]:427). Conversely, lungs are utilized from eligible multiorgan donors only 15% to 20% of the time, usually due to concerns over donor history or organ quality (Young KA, et al. Chest. 2019;155[3]:465). In light of this imbalance of supply and demand, lung transplant specialists are making significant efforts to expand the donor pool of available organs. Three of these strategies include: (1) applications of ex-vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) technology; (2) use of lungs from hepatitis C-positive donors for hep-C negative recipients; and (3) increasing utilization of donation after cardiac death.

Normothermic ex-vivo lung perfusion is a technology which allows donor lungs to be perfused and ventilated after removal from the donor but before transplant into the recipient. This is in contrast to the traditional method of cold static preservation. The proposed advantage of using this technology is to allow time for a more thorough assessment of graft quality and to improve function of grafts not meeting established criteria for transplant, all-the-while decreasing organ ischemia despite an increased cross-clamp time. There are currently four commercial systems available capable of EVLP. Broadly speaking, three EVLP management protocols exist (Toronto, Lund, and OCS), which differ in perfusate composition, target flow, pulmonary arterial pressure, left atrial pressure, and ventilatory settings. Notably, the Toronto protocol uses a closed left atrium, whereas the Lund and OCS protocol use an open left atrium. There are excellent published reviews of the different systems (Possoz J, et al. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11[4]:1635). EVLP has now been studied for two different goals: (1) to allow an extended evaluation of lungs of questionable quality before transplant; or (2) for routine use in all lung transplantations in place of cold static preservation.

In most studies concerning the use of EVLP for reconditioning of donor lungs, “high risk” or “extended criteria” refers to one or more of the following: P/F ratios < 300 on arterial blood gas, macroscopic abnormalities (eg, pulmonary edema, poor lung compliance), donation after circulatory death, or high-risk history (eg, aspiration). The largest cohort with the longest follow-up addressing the role of EVLP for donation of lungs with extended criteria was published from the Toronto Lung Transplant Group. Their results have demonstrated equivalent graft survival and rates of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) up to 9 years posttransplant compared with standard criteria donor lungs, despite utilizing lower quality lungs and having a longer median preservation (Divithotawela C, et al. JAMA Surg. 2019;154[12]:1143). The group’s subsequent lung transplant rates have increased over the past decade.

A separate study addressed the same question but differed in that it was a single-arm, multicenter, international trial that tracked the outcomes of 93 extended criteria lungs placed on EVLP (including a large proportion acquired via donation after circulatory death) (Loor G, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7[11]:975). Among these, 87% of eligible lungs were transplanted, and outcomes were excellent, albeit shorter in follow-up compared with the Toronto cohort (eg, primary graft dysfunction grade 3 (PGD3) within 72 hours was 44% and 1-year survival was 91%). Based on these trials and many other retrospective reports, it has been concluded by many experts in the field that EVLP-treated extended criteria donor lungs perform equally well to standard criteria donor lungs.

Two RCTs have been conducted to evaluate whether EVLP is noninferior to static cold storage with donor lungs meeting “standard criteria” for transplant. The first was a single center study at the Medical University of Vienna, that looked at 80 recipient/donor pairs. Lungs in the EVLP arm underwent 4 hours of perfusion with frequent reassessment of quality before transplant, whereas the lungs in the control arm went directly to transplant. This study met noninferiority criteria looking at primary outcomes of PGD grade >1 and 30-day survival (Slama A, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36[7]:744). The second study was a phase 3, multicenter, international trial that included 320 recipient/donor pairs randomized to either EVLP (without a prespecified time on the EVLP system) or static cold storage. This trial met noninferiority for safety endpoints (lung graft-related adverse events within 30 days) and a composite primary outcome of PGD grade 3 incidence within 72 hours and 30-day survival (Warnecke G, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6[5]:357). The authors also tested and found superiority of EVLP in lower PGD grade 3 frequency compared with control. While these RCTs may suggest a role for EVLP in the procurement process of standard criteria organs in addition to extended criteria organs in the future, major criticisms for these trials include the lack of a demonstrable clinical benefit over cold storage beyond the lower PGD3 rates.

In the era of direct-acting antiviral agents available to treat HCV infection, there has been efforts to study the early use of anti-HCV medications to prevent infection as a result of heart or lung transplant from HCV viremic donors to HCV-negative recipients. In one major trial on efficacy, it was found that 4 weeks of sofosbuvir and velpatasvir, when started within a few hours of transplant, was sufficient to achieve a sustained (undetectable) virologic response at 12 weeks after completion of the antiviral regimen (Woolley AE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380[17]:1606). Therefore, many transplant centers have adopted protocols to increase the donor pool (by CDC estimates about 4% of solid organ donors are HCV-positive) by accepting HCV nucleic acid amplification test (NAT)-positive donors for HCV-negative recipients, after appropriate informed consent.

Donation after cardiac death (DCD), which is alternatively known as donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD), generally refers to organ procurement taking place after cessation of circulation, often after inpatient withdrawal of support. This is in contrast to the much more common practice of donation after brain death (DBD). Addressing concerns over the quality of lungs donated in the context of DCD compared with DBD, analyses of ISHLT registry data have demonstrated no differences in hospital length of stay or survival at 1 or 5 years (Van Raemdonck D, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019;38[12]:1235). Outcomes comparing specific mechanisms of donor death in DCD remain relatively unknown, such as outcomes from donors withdrawn from life support vs donors who had an uncontrolled cardiac death.

These methods for expanding the donor pool are not mutually exclusive, and, in fact, application of EVLP for lungs obtained in the context of DCD seems to be increasingly common. Optimization of protocols with collaboration between lung transplant centers will be paramount as we move forward in advancing this field. As we do so, efforts to successfully increase the donor pool will serve to provide a life-saving therapy to an ever-growing number of patients with end-stage lung disease.

Dr. Sala and Dr. Tomic are with the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.

Lung transplants are increasing, with 2,562 performed in the United States in 2018 – a 31% increase over the preceding 5 years. With this increased demand for donor lungs, waitlist mortality in the United States is 9.4 deaths per 100 waitlist-years for obstructive lung diseases and as high as 29.7 deaths per 100 waitlist-years for restrictive lung diseases (Valapour M, et al. Lung. Am J Transplant. 2020;20[suppl s1]:427). Conversely, lungs are utilized from eligible multiorgan donors only 15% to 20% of the time, usually due to concerns over donor history or organ quality (Young KA, et al. Chest. 2019;155[3]:465). In light of this imbalance of supply and demand, lung transplant specialists are making significant efforts to expand the donor pool of available organs. Three of these strategies include: (1) applications of ex-vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) technology; (2) use of lungs from hepatitis C-positive donors for hep-C negative recipients; and (3) increasing utilization of donation after cardiac death.

Normothermic ex-vivo lung perfusion is a technology which allows donor lungs to be perfused and ventilated after removal from the donor but before transplant into the recipient. This is in contrast to the traditional method of cold static preservation. The proposed advantage of using this technology is to allow time for a more thorough assessment of graft quality and to improve function of grafts not meeting established criteria for transplant, all-the-while decreasing organ ischemia despite an increased cross-clamp time. There are currently four commercial systems available capable of EVLP. Broadly speaking, three EVLP management protocols exist (Toronto, Lund, and OCS), which differ in perfusate composition, target flow, pulmonary arterial pressure, left atrial pressure, and ventilatory settings. Notably, the Toronto protocol uses a closed left atrium, whereas the Lund and OCS protocol use an open left atrium. There are excellent published reviews of the different systems (Possoz J, et al. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11[4]:1635). EVLP has now been studied for two different goals: (1) to allow an extended evaluation of lungs of questionable quality before transplant; or (2) for routine use in all lung transplantations in place of cold static preservation.

In most studies concerning the use of EVLP for reconditioning of donor lungs, “high risk” or “extended criteria” refers to one or more of the following: P/F ratios < 300 on arterial blood gas, macroscopic abnormalities (eg, pulmonary edema, poor lung compliance), donation after circulatory death, or high-risk history (eg, aspiration). The largest cohort with the longest follow-up addressing the role of EVLP for donation of lungs with extended criteria was published from the Toronto Lung Transplant Group. Their results have demonstrated equivalent graft survival and rates of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) up to 9 years posttransplant compared with standard criteria donor lungs, despite utilizing lower quality lungs and having a longer median preservation (Divithotawela C, et al. JAMA Surg. 2019;154[12]:1143). The group’s subsequent lung transplant rates have increased over the past decade.

A separate study addressed the same question but differed in that it was a single-arm, multicenter, international trial that tracked the outcomes of 93 extended criteria lungs placed on EVLP (including a large proportion acquired via donation after circulatory death) (Loor G, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7[11]:975). Among these, 87% of eligible lungs were transplanted, and outcomes were excellent, albeit shorter in follow-up compared with the Toronto cohort (eg, primary graft dysfunction grade 3 (PGD3) within 72 hours was 44% and 1-year survival was 91%). Based on these trials and many other retrospective reports, it has been concluded by many experts in the field that EVLP-treated extended criteria donor lungs perform equally well to standard criteria donor lungs.

Two RCTs have been conducted to evaluate whether EVLP is noninferior to static cold storage with donor lungs meeting “standard criteria” for transplant. The first was a single center study at the Medical University of Vienna, that looked at 80 recipient/donor pairs. Lungs in the EVLP arm underwent 4 hours of perfusion with frequent reassessment of quality before transplant, whereas the lungs in the control arm went directly to transplant. This study met noninferiority criteria looking at primary outcomes of PGD grade >1 and 30-day survival (Slama A, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36[7]:744). The second study was a phase 3, multicenter, international trial that included 320 recipient/donor pairs randomized to either EVLP (without a prespecified time on the EVLP system) or static cold storage. This trial met noninferiority for safety endpoints (lung graft-related adverse events within 30 days) and a composite primary outcome of PGD grade 3 incidence within 72 hours and 30-day survival (Warnecke G, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6[5]:357). The authors also tested and found superiority of EVLP in lower PGD grade 3 frequency compared with control. While these RCTs may suggest a role for EVLP in the procurement process of standard criteria organs in addition to extended criteria organs in the future, major criticisms for these trials include the lack of a demonstrable clinical benefit over cold storage beyond the lower PGD3 rates.

In the era of direct-acting antiviral agents available to treat HCV infection, there has been efforts to study the early use of anti-HCV medications to prevent infection as a result of heart or lung transplant from HCV viremic donors to HCV-negative recipients. In one major trial on efficacy, it was found that 4 weeks of sofosbuvir and velpatasvir, when started within a few hours of transplant, was sufficient to achieve a sustained (undetectable) virologic response at 12 weeks after completion of the antiviral regimen (Woolley AE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380[17]:1606). Therefore, many transplant centers have adopted protocols to increase the donor pool (by CDC estimates about 4% of solid organ donors are HCV-positive) by accepting HCV nucleic acid amplification test (NAT)-positive donors for HCV-negative recipients, after appropriate informed consent.

Donation after cardiac death (DCD), which is alternatively known as donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD), generally refers to organ procurement taking place after cessation of circulation, often after inpatient withdrawal of support. This is in contrast to the much more common practice of donation after brain death (DBD). Addressing concerns over the quality of lungs donated in the context of DCD compared with DBD, analyses of ISHLT registry data have demonstrated no differences in hospital length of stay or survival at 1 or 5 years (Van Raemdonck D, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019;38[12]:1235). Outcomes comparing specific mechanisms of donor death in DCD remain relatively unknown, such as outcomes from donors withdrawn from life support vs donors who had an uncontrolled cardiac death.

These methods for expanding the donor pool are not mutually exclusive, and, in fact, application of EVLP for lungs obtained in the context of DCD seems to be increasingly common. Optimization of protocols with collaboration between lung transplant centers will be paramount as we move forward in advancing this field. As we do so, efforts to successfully increase the donor pool will serve to provide a life-saving therapy to an ever-growing number of patients with end-stage lung disease.

Dr. Sala and Dr. Tomic are with the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.

There is a highly infectious virus spreading around the world and it is targeting the most vulnerable among us. It is among the most contagious of human diseases, spreading through the air unseen. No, it isn’t the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. It’s measles.

Remember measles? Outbreaks in recent years have brought the disease, which once was declared eliminated in the United States, back into the news and public awareness, but measles never has really gone away. Every year there are millions of cases worldwide – in 2018 alone there were nearly 10 million estimated cases and 142,300 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. The good news is that measles vaccination is highly effective, at about 97% after the recommended two doses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “because of vaccination, more than 21 million lives have been saved and measles deaths have been reduced by 80% since 2000.” This is a tremendous public health success and a cause for celebration. But our work is not done. The recent increases in vaccine hesitancy and refusal in many countries has contributed to the resurgence of measles worldwide.

COVID-19 may be in the forefront of everyone’s minds, but this doesn’t mean that other contagious illnesses like measles have gone away. Influenza still is in full swing with the CDC reporting high activity in 1 states for the week ending April 4th. Seasonal influenza, according to currently available data, has a lower fatality rate than COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean it is harmless. Thus far in the 2019-2020 flu season, there have been at least 24,000 deaths because of influenza in the United States alone, 166 of which were among pediatric patients.*

Like many pediatricians, I have seen firsthand the impact of vaccine-preventable illnesses like influenza, pertussis, and varicella. I have personally cared for an infant with pertussis who had to be intubated and on a ventilator for nearly a week. I have told the family of a child with cancer that they would have to be admitted to the hospital yet again for intravenous antiviral medication because that little rash turned out to be varicella. I have performed CPR on a previously healthy teenager with the flu whose heart was failing despite maximum ventilator support. All these illnesses might have been prevented had these patients or those around them been appropriately vaccinated.

Right now, the United States and governments around the world are taking unprecedented public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, directing the public to stay home, avoid unnecessary contact with other people, practice good hand-washing and infection-control techniques. In order to promote social distancing, many primary care clinics are canceling nonurgent appointments or converting them to virtual visits, including some visits for routine vaccinations for older children, teens, and adults. This is a responsible choice to keep potentially asymptomatic people from spreading COVID-19, but once restrictions begin to lift, we all will need to act to help our patients catch up on these missing vaccinations.

This pandemic has made it more apparent than ever that we all rely upon each other to stay healthy. While this pandemic has disrupted nearly every aspect of daily life, we can’t let it disrupt one of the great successes in health care today: the prevention of serious illnesses. As soon as it is safe to do so, we must help and encourage patients to catch up on missing vaccinations. It’s rare that preventative public health measures and vaccine developments are in the nightly news, so we should use this increased public awareness to ensure patients are well educated and protected from every disease. As part of this, we must continue our efforts to share accurate information on the safety and efficacy of routine vaccination. And when there is a vaccine for COVID-19? Let’s make sure everyone gets that too.

Dr. Leighton is a pediatrician in the ED at Children’s National Hospital and currently is completing her MPH in health policy at George Washington University, both in Washington. She had no relevant financial disclosures.*

* This article was updated 4/10/2020.

There is a highly infectious virus spreading around the world and it is targeting the most vulnerable among us. It is among the most contagious of human diseases, spreading through the air unseen. No, it isn’t the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. It’s measles.

Remember measles? Outbreaks in recent years have brought the disease, which once was declared eliminated in the United States, back into the news and public awareness, but measles never has really gone away. Every year there are millions of cases worldwide – in 2018 alone there were nearly 10 million estimated cases and 142,300 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. The good news is that measles vaccination is highly effective, at about 97% after the recommended two doses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “because of vaccination, more than 21 million lives have been saved and measles deaths have been reduced by 80% since 2000.” This is a tremendous public health success and a cause for celebration. But our work is not done. The recent increases in vaccine hesitancy and refusal in many countries has contributed to the resurgence of measles worldwide.

COVID-19 may be in the forefront of everyone’s minds, but this doesn’t mean that other contagious illnesses like measles have gone away. Influenza still is in full swing with the CDC reporting high activity in 1 states for the week ending April 4th. Seasonal influenza, according to currently available data, has a lower fatality rate than COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean it is harmless. Thus far in the 2019-2020 flu season, there have been at least 24,000 deaths because of influenza in the United States alone, 166 of which were among pediatric patients.*

Like many pediatricians, I have seen firsthand the impact of vaccine-preventable illnesses like influenza, pertussis, and varicella. I have personally cared for an infant with pertussis who had to be intubated and on a ventilator for nearly a week. I have told the family of a child with cancer that they would have to be admitted to the hospital yet again for intravenous antiviral medication because that little rash turned out to be varicella. I have performed CPR on a previously healthy teenager with the flu whose heart was failing despite maximum ventilator support. All these illnesses might have been prevented had these patients or those around them been appropriately vaccinated.

Right now, the United States and governments around the world are taking unprecedented public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, directing the public to stay home, avoid unnecessary contact with other people, practice good hand-washing and infection-control techniques. In order to promote social distancing, many primary care clinics are canceling nonurgent appointments or converting them to virtual visits, including some visits for routine vaccinations for older children, teens, and adults. This is a responsible choice to keep potentially asymptomatic people from spreading COVID-19, but once restrictions begin to lift, we all will need to act to help our patients catch up on these missing vaccinations.

This pandemic has made it more apparent than ever that we all rely upon each other to stay healthy. While this pandemic has disrupted nearly every aspect of daily life, we can’t let it disrupt one of the great successes in health care today: the prevention of serious illnesses. As soon as it is safe to do so, we must help and encourage patients to catch up on missing vaccinations. It’s rare that preventative public health measures and vaccine developments are in the nightly news, so we should use this increased public awareness to ensure patients are well educated and protected from every disease. As part of this, we must continue our efforts to share accurate information on the safety and efficacy of routine vaccination. And when there is a vaccine for COVID-19? Let’s make sure everyone gets that too.

Dr. Leighton is a pediatrician in the ED at Children’s National Hospital and currently is completing her MPH in health policy at George Washington University, both in Washington. She had no relevant financial disclosures.*

* This article was updated 4/10/2020.

There is a highly infectious virus spreading around the world and it is targeting the most vulnerable among us. It is among the most contagious of human diseases, spreading through the air unseen. No, it isn’t the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. It’s measles.

Remember measles? Outbreaks in recent years have brought the disease, which once was declared eliminated in the United States, back into the news and public awareness, but measles never has really gone away. Every year there are millions of cases worldwide – in 2018 alone there were nearly 10 million estimated cases and 142,300 deaths, according to the World Health Organization. The good news is that measles vaccination is highly effective, at about 97% after the recommended two doses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “because of vaccination, more than 21 million lives have been saved and measles deaths have been reduced by 80% since 2000.” This is a tremendous public health success and a cause for celebration. But our work is not done. The recent increases in vaccine hesitancy and refusal in many countries has contributed to the resurgence of measles worldwide.

COVID-19 may be in the forefront of everyone’s minds, but this doesn’t mean that other contagious illnesses like measles have gone away. Influenza still is in full swing with the CDC reporting high activity in 1 states for the week ending April 4th. Seasonal influenza, according to currently available data, has a lower fatality rate than COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean it is harmless. Thus far in the 2019-2020 flu season, there have been at least 24,000 deaths because of influenza in the United States alone, 166 of which were among pediatric patients.*

Like many pediatricians, I have seen firsthand the impact of vaccine-preventable illnesses like influenza, pertussis, and varicella. I have personally cared for an infant with pertussis who had to be intubated and on a ventilator for nearly a week. I have told the family of a child with cancer that they would have to be admitted to the hospital yet again for intravenous antiviral medication because that little rash turned out to be varicella. I have performed CPR on a previously healthy teenager with the flu whose heart was failing despite maximum ventilator support. All these illnesses might have been prevented had these patients or those around them been appropriately vaccinated.

Right now, the United States and governments around the world are taking unprecedented public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, directing the public to stay home, avoid unnecessary contact with other people, practice good hand-washing and infection-control techniques. In order to promote social distancing, many primary care clinics are canceling nonurgent appointments or converting them to virtual visits, including some visits for routine vaccinations for older children, teens, and adults. This is a responsible choice to keep potentially asymptomatic people from spreading COVID-19, but once restrictions begin to lift, we all will need to act to help our patients catch up on these missing vaccinations.

This pandemic has made it more apparent than ever that we all rely upon each other to stay healthy. While this pandemic has disrupted nearly every aspect of daily life, we can’t let it disrupt one of the great successes in health care today: the prevention of serious illnesses. As soon as it is safe to do so, we must help and encourage patients to catch up on missing vaccinations. It’s rare that preventative public health measures and vaccine developments are in the nightly news, so we should use this increased public awareness to ensure patients are well educated and protected from every disease. As part of this, we must continue our efforts to share accurate information on the safety and efficacy of routine vaccination. And when there is a vaccine for COVID-19? Let’s make sure everyone gets that too.

Dr. Leighton is a pediatrician in the ED at Children’s National Hospital and currently is completing her MPH in health policy at George Washington University, both in Washington. She had no relevant financial disclosures.*

* This article was updated 4/10/2020.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine has released an updated practice guideline for patients with opioid use disorder.

The guideline, called a focused update, advances ASAM’s 2015 National Practice Guidelines for the Treament of Opioid Use Disorder. “During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the associated need for social distancing, it is especially important that clinicians and health care providers across the country take steps to ensure that individuals with OUD can continue to receive evidence-based care,” said Paul H. Earley, MD, president of ASAM, in a press release announcing the new guideline.

The guideline specifies that home-based buprenorphine induction is safe and effective for treatment of opioid use disorder and that no individual entering the criminal justice system should be subjected to opioid withdrawal.

“The research is clear, providing methadone or buprenorphine, even without psychosocial treatment, reduces the patient’s risk of death,” said Kyle Kampman, MD, chair of the group’s Guideline Writing Committee, in the release. “Ultimately, keeping patients with the disease of addiction alive and engaged to become ready for recovery is absolutely critical in the context of the deadly overdose epidemic that has struck communities across our country.”

The society released this focused update to reflect new medications and formulations, published evidence, and clinical guidance related to treatment of OUD. This update includes the addition of 13 new recommendations and major revisions to 35 existing recommendations. One concern the society has is how to help patients being treated for OUD who are limited in their ability to leave their homes. Because of these same concerns, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration relaxed regulations on March 16 regarding patient eligibility for take-home medications, such as buprenorphine and methadone, which dovetails with the society’s guidance regarding home-based induction.

The update includes guidance for treating pregnant women as early as possible, continuing on to pharmacologic treatment even if the patient declines recommended psychosocial treatment, keeping naloxone kits available in correctional facilities, and more. Additional information about this update can be found on ASAM’s website.

[email protected]

The American Society of Addiction Medicine has released an updated practice guideline for patients with opioid use disorder.

The guideline, called a focused update, advances ASAM’s 2015 National Practice Guidelines for the Treament of Opioid Use Disorder. “During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the associated need for social distancing, it is especially important that clinicians and health care providers across the country take steps to ensure that individuals with OUD can continue to receive evidence-based care,” said Paul H. Earley, MD, president of ASAM, in a press release announcing the new guideline.

The guideline specifies that home-based buprenorphine induction is safe and effective for treatment of opioid use disorder and that no individual entering the criminal justice system should be subjected to opioid withdrawal.

“The research is clear, providing methadone or buprenorphine, even without psychosocial treatment, reduces the patient’s risk of death,” said Kyle Kampman, MD, chair of the group’s Guideline Writing Committee, in the release. “Ultimately, keeping patients with the disease of addiction alive and engaged to become ready for recovery is absolutely critical in the context of the deadly overdose epidemic that has struck communities across our country.”

The society released this focused update to reflect new medications and formulations, published evidence, and clinical guidance related to treatment of OUD. This update includes the addition of 13 new recommendations and major revisions to 35 existing recommendations. One concern the society has is how to help patients being treated for OUD who are limited in their ability to leave their homes. Because of these same concerns, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration relaxed regulations on March 16 regarding patient eligibility for take-home medications, such as buprenorphine and methadone, which dovetails with the society’s guidance regarding home-based induction.

The update includes guidance for treating pregnant women as early as possible, continuing on to pharmacologic treatment even if the patient declines recommended psychosocial treatment, keeping naloxone kits available in correctional facilities, and more. Additional information about this update can be found on ASAM’s website.

[email protected]

The American Society of Addiction Medicine has released an updated practice guideline for patients with opioid use disorder.

The guideline, called a focused update, advances ASAM’s 2015 National Practice Guidelines for the Treament of Opioid Use Disorder. “During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the associated need for social distancing, it is especially important that clinicians and health care providers across the country take steps to ensure that individuals with OUD can continue to receive evidence-based care,” said Paul H. Earley, MD, president of ASAM, in a press release announcing the new guideline.

The guideline specifies that home-based buprenorphine induction is safe and effective for treatment of opioid use disorder and that no individual entering the criminal justice system should be subjected to opioid withdrawal.

“The research is clear, providing methadone or buprenorphine, even without psychosocial treatment, reduces the patient’s risk of death,” said Kyle Kampman, MD, chair of the group’s Guideline Writing Committee, in the release. “Ultimately, keeping patients with the disease of addiction alive and engaged to become ready for recovery is absolutely critical in the context of the deadly overdose epidemic that has struck communities across our country.”

The society released this focused update to reflect new medications and formulations, published evidence, and clinical guidance related to treatment of OUD. This update includes the addition of 13 new recommendations and major revisions to 35 existing recommendations. One concern the society has is how to help patients being treated for OUD who are limited in their ability to leave their homes. Because of these same concerns, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration relaxed regulations on March 16 regarding patient eligibility for take-home medications, such as buprenorphine and methadone, which dovetails with the society’s guidance regarding home-based induction.

The update includes guidance for treating pregnant women as early as possible, continuing on to pharmacologic treatment even if the patient declines recommended psychosocial treatment, keeping naloxone kits available in correctional facilities, and more. Additional information about this update can be found on ASAM’s website.

[email protected]

In the midst of the rapidly spreading COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals and clinics are running out of masks. Health care workers are going online to beg for more, the hashtags #GetMePPE and #WeNeedPPE are trending on Twitter, and some hospitals have even put out public calls for mask donations. Health providers are working scared: They know that the moment the masks run out, they’re at increased risk for disease. So instead of waiting for mask shipments that may be weeks off, some people are making their own.

At Phoebe Putney Health hospital in Albany, Georgia, staff members and volunteers have been working overtime to make face masks that might provide protection against COVID-19. Using a simple template, they cut green surgical sheeting into half-moons, which they pin and sew before attaching elastic straps. Deaconess Health System in Evansville, Indiana, has posted instructions for fabric masks on their website and asked the public to step up and sew.

Elsewhere, health care workers have turned to diapers, maxi pads and other products to create masks. Social media channels are full of tips and sewing patterns. It’s an innovative strategy that is also contentious. Limited evidence suggests that homemade masks can offer some protection. But the DIY approach has also drawn criticism for providing a false sense of security, potentially putting wearers at risk.

The conflict points to an immediate need for more protective equipment, says Christopher Friese, PhD, RN, professor of nursing and public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Also needed, he says, are new ideas for reducing strain on limited supplies, like adopting gear from other industries and finding innovative ways to provide care so that less protective gear is needed.

“We don’t want clinicians inventing and ‘MacGyvering’ their own device because we don’t want to put them at risk if we can avoid it,” says Friese, referring to the TV character who could build and assemble a vast array of tools/devices. “We have options that have been tested, and we have experience, maybe not in health care, but in other settings. We want to try that first before that frontline doctor, nurse, respiratory therapist decides to take matters into their own hands.

Increasingly, though, health care workers are finding they have no other choice — something even the CDC has acknowledged. In new guidelines, the agency recommends a bandanna, scarf, or other type of covering in cases where face masks are not available.

N95 respirators or surgical masks?

There are two main types of masks generally used in health care. N95 respirators filter out 95% of airborne particles, including bacteria and viruses. The lighter surgical or medical face masks are made to prevent spit and mucous from getting on patients or equipment.

Both types reduce rates of infection among health care workers, though comparisons (at least for influenza) have yet to show that one is superior to the other. One 2020 review by Chinese researchers, for example, analyzed six randomly controlled trials that included more than 9000 participants and found no added benefits of N95 masks over ordinary surgical masks for health care providers treating patients with the flu.

But COVID-19 is not influenza, and evidence suggests it may require more intensive protection, says Friese, who coauthored a blog post for JAMA about the country’s unpreparedness for protecting health care workers during a pandemic. The virus can linger in the air for hours, suggesting that N95 respirators are health care providers’ best option when treating infected patients.

The problem is there’s not enough to go around — of either mask type. In a March 5 survey, National Nurses United reported that just 30% of more than 6500 US respondents said their organizations had enough PPE to respond to a surge in patients. Another 38% did not know if their organizations were prepared. In a tweet, Friese estimated that 12% of nurses and other providers are at risk from reusing equipment or using equipment that is not backed by evidence.

Physicians and providers around the world have been sharing strategies online for how to make their own masks. Techniques vary, as do materials and plans for how to use the homemade equipment. At Phoebe Putney Health, DIY masks are intended to be worn over N95 respirators and then disposed of so that the respirators can be reused more safely, says Amanda Clements, the hospital’s public relations coordinator. Providers might also wear them to greet people at the front door.

Some evidence suggests that homemade masks can help in a pinch, at least for some illnesses. For a 2013 study by researchers in the UK, volunteers made surgical masks from cotton T-shirts, then put them on and coughed into a chamber that measured how much bacterial content got through. The team also assessed the aerosol-filtering ability of a variety of household materials, including scarfs, antimicrobial pillowcases, vacuum-cleaner bags, and tea towels. They tested each material with an aerosol containing two types of bacteria similar in size to influenza.

Commercial surgical masks performed three times better than homemade ones in the filtration test. Surgical masks worked twice as well at blocking droplets on the cough test. But all the makeshift materials — which also included silk, linen, and regular pillowcases — blocked some microbes. Vacuum-cleaner bags blocked the most bacteria, but their stiffness and thickness made them unsuitable for use as masks, the researchers reported. Tea towels showed a similar pattern. But pillowcases and cotton T-shirts were stretchy enough to fit well, thereby reducing the particles that could get through or around them.

Homemade masks should be used only as a last resort if commercial masks become unavailable, the researchers concluded. “Probably something is better than nothing for trained health care workers — for droplet contact avoidance, if nothing else,” says Anna Davies, BSc, a research facilitator at the University of Cambridge, UK, who is a former public health microbiologist and one of the study’s authors.

She recommends that members of the general public donate any stockpiles they have to health care workers, and make their own if they want masks for personal use. She is working with collaborators in the US to develop guidance for how best to do it.

“If people are quarantined and looking for something worthwhile to do, it probably wouldn’t be the worst thing to apply themselves to,” she wrote by email. “My suggestion would be for something soft and cotton, ideally with a bit of stretch (although it’s a pain to sew), and in two layers, marked ‘inside’ and ‘outside.’ ”

The idea that something is better than nothing was also the conclusion of a 2008 study by researchers in the Netherlands and the US. The study enlisted 28 healthy individuals who performed a variety of tasks while wearing N95 masks, surgical masks, or homemade masks sewn from teacloths. Effectiveness varied among individuals, but over a 90-second period, N95 masks worked best, with 25 times more protection than surgical masks and about 50 times more protection than homemade ones. Surgical masks were twice as effective as homemade masks. But the homemade masks offered at least some protection against large droplets.

Researchers emphasize that it’s not yet clear whether those findings are applicable to aerosolized COVID-19. In an influenza pandemic, at least, the authors posit that homemade masks could reduce transmission for the general public enough for some immunity to build. “It is important not to focus on a single intervention in case of a pandemic,” the researchers write, “but to integrate all effective interventions for optimal protection.”

For health care workers on the frontlines of COVID-19, Friese says, homemade masks might do more than nothing but they also might not work. Instead, he would rather see providers using construction or nuclear-engineering masks. And his best suggestion is something many providers are already doing: reducing physical contact with patients through telemedicine and other creative solutions, which is cutting down the overwhelming need for PPE.

Homemade mask production emphasizes the urgent need for more supplies, Friese adds.

“The government needs to step up and do a variety of things to increase production, and that needs to happen now, immediately,” he says. “We don’t we don’t want our clinicians to have to come up with these decisions.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the midst of the rapidly spreading COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals and clinics are running out of masks. Health care workers are going online to beg for more, the hashtags #GetMePPE and #WeNeedPPE are trending on Twitter, and some hospitals have even put out public calls for mask donations. Health providers are working scared: They know that the moment the masks run out, they’re at increased risk for disease. So instead of waiting for mask shipments that may be weeks off, some people are making their own.

At Phoebe Putney Health hospital in Albany, Georgia, staff members and volunteers have been working overtime to make face masks that might provide protection against COVID-19. Using a simple template, they cut green surgical sheeting into half-moons, which they pin and sew before attaching elastic straps. Deaconess Health System in Evansville, Indiana, has posted instructions for fabric masks on their website and asked the public to step up and sew.

Elsewhere, health care workers have turned to diapers, maxi pads and other products to create masks. Social media channels are full of tips and sewing patterns. It’s an innovative strategy that is also contentious. Limited evidence suggests that homemade masks can offer some protection. But the DIY approach has also drawn criticism for providing a false sense of security, potentially putting wearers at risk.

The conflict points to an immediate need for more protective equipment, says Christopher Friese, PhD, RN, professor of nursing and public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Also needed, he says, are new ideas for reducing strain on limited supplies, like adopting gear from other industries and finding innovative ways to provide care so that less protective gear is needed.

“We don’t want clinicians inventing and ‘MacGyvering’ their own device because we don’t want to put them at risk if we can avoid it,” says Friese, referring to the TV character who could build and assemble a vast array of tools/devices. “We have options that have been tested, and we have experience, maybe not in health care, but in other settings. We want to try that first before that frontline doctor, nurse, respiratory therapist decides to take matters into their own hands.

Increasingly, though, health care workers are finding they have no other choice — something even the CDC has acknowledged. In new guidelines, the agency recommends a bandanna, scarf, or other type of covering in cases where face masks are not available.

N95 respirators or surgical masks?

There are two main types of masks generally used in health care. N95 respirators filter out 95% of airborne particles, including bacteria and viruses. The lighter surgical or medical face masks are made to prevent spit and mucous from getting on patients or equipment.

Both types reduce rates of infection among health care workers, though comparisons (at least for influenza) have yet to show that one is superior to the other. One 2020 review by Chinese researchers, for example, analyzed six randomly controlled trials that included more than 9000 participants and found no added benefits of N95 masks over ordinary surgical masks for health care providers treating patients with the flu.

But COVID-19 is not influenza, and evidence suggests it may require more intensive protection, says Friese, who coauthored a blog post for JAMA about the country’s unpreparedness for protecting health care workers during a pandemic. The virus can linger in the air for hours, suggesting that N95 respirators are health care providers’ best option when treating infected patients.

The problem is there’s not enough to go around — of either mask type. In a March 5 survey, National Nurses United reported that just 30% of more than 6500 US respondents said their organizations had enough PPE to respond to a surge in patients. Another 38% did not know if their organizations were prepared. In a tweet, Friese estimated that 12% of nurses and other providers are at risk from reusing equipment or using equipment that is not backed by evidence.

Physicians and providers around the world have been sharing strategies online for how to make their own masks. Techniques vary, as do materials and plans for how to use the homemade equipment. At Phoebe Putney Health, DIY masks are intended to be worn over N95 respirators and then disposed of so that the respirators can be reused more safely, says Amanda Clements, the hospital’s public relations coordinator. Providers might also wear them to greet people at the front door.

Some evidence suggests that homemade masks can help in a pinch, at least for some illnesses. For a 2013 study by researchers in the UK, volunteers made surgical masks from cotton T-shirts, then put them on and coughed into a chamber that measured how much bacterial content got through. The team also assessed the aerosol-filtering ability of a variety of household materials, including scarfs, antimicrobial pillowcases, vacuum-cleaner bags, and tea towels. They tested each material with an aerosol containing two types of bacteria similar in size to influenza.

Commercial surgical masks performed three times better than homemade ones in the filtration test. Surgical masks worked twice as well at blocking droplets on the cough test. But all the makeshift materials — which also included silk, linen, and regular pillowcases — blocked some microbes. Vacuum-cleaner bags blocked the most bacteria, but their stiffness and thickness made them unsuitable for use as masks, the researchers reported. Tea towels showed a similar pattern. But pillowcases and cotton T-shirts were stretchy enough to fit well, thereby reducing the particles that could get through or around them.

Homemade masks should be used only as a last resort if commercial masks become unavailable, the researchers concluded. “Probably something is better than nothing for trained health care workers — for droplet contact avoidance, if nothing else,” says Anna Davies, BSc, a research facilitator at the University of Cambridge, UK, who is a former public health microbiologist and one of the study’s authors.

She recommends that members of the general public donate any stockpiles they have to health care workers, and make their own if they want masks for personal use. She is working with collaborators in the US to develop guidance for how best to do it.

“If people are quarantined and looking for something worthwhile to do, it probably wouldn’t be the worst thing to apply themselves to,” she wrote by email. “My suggestion would be for something soft and cotton, ideally with a bit of stretch (although it’s a pain to sew), and in two layers, marked ‘inside’ and ‘outside.’ ”

The idea that something is better than nothing was also the conclusion of a 2008 study by researchers in the Netherlands and the US. The study enlisted 28 healthy individuals who performed a variety of tasks while wearing N95 masks, surgical masks, or homemade masks sewn from teacloths. Effectiveness varied among individuals, but over a 90-second period, N95 masks worked best, with 25 times more protection than surgical masks and about 50 times more protection than homemade ones. Surgical masks were twice as effective as homemade masks. But the homemade masks offered at least some protection against large droplets.

Researchers emphasize that it’s not yet clear whether those findings are applicable to aerosolized COVID-19. In an influenza pandemic, at least, the authors posit that homemade masks could reduce transmission for the general public enough for some immunity to build. “It is important not to focus on a single intervention in case of a pandemic,” the researchers write, “but to integrate all effective interventions for optimal protection.”

For health care workers on the frontlines of COVID-19, Friese says, homemade masks might do more than nothing but they also might not work. Instead, he would rather see providers using construction or nuclear-engineering masks. And his best suggestion is something many providers are already doing: reducing physical contact with patients through telemedicine and other creative solutions, which is cutting down the overwhelming need for PPE.

Homemade mask production emphasizes the urgent need for more supplies, Friese adds.

“The government needs to step up and do a variety of things to increase production, and that needs to happen now, immediately,” he says. “We don’t we don’t want our clinicians to have to come up with these decisions.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the midst of the rapidly spreading COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals and clinics are running out of masks. Health care workers are going online to beg for more, the hashtags #GetMePPE and #WeNeedPPE are trending on Twitter, and some hospitals have even put out public calls for mask donations. Health providers are working scared: They know that the moment the masks run out, they’re at increased risk for disease. So instead of waiting for mask shipments that may be weeks off, some people are making their own.

At Phoebe Putney Health hospital in Albany, Georgia, staff members and volunteers have been working overtime to make face masks that might provide protection against COVID-19. Using a simple template, they cut green surgical sheeting into half-moons, which they pin and sew before attaching elastic straps. Deaconess Health System in Evansville, Indiana, has posted instructions for fabric masks on their website and asked the public to step up and sew.

Elsewhere, health care workers have turned to diapers, maxi pads and other products to create masks. Social media channels are full of tips and sewing patterns. It’s an innovative strategy that is also contentious. Limited evidence suggests that homemade masks can offer some protection. But the DIY approach has also drawn criticism for providing a false sense of security, potentially putting wearers at risk.

The conflict points to an immediate need for more protective equipment, says Christopher Friese, PhD, RN, professor of nursing and public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Also needed, he says, are new ideas for reducing strain on limited supplies, like adopting gear from other industries and finding innovative ways to provide care so that less protective gear is needed.

“We don’t want clinicians inventing and ‘MacGyvering’ their own device because we don’t want to put them at risk if we can avoid it,” says Friese, referring to the TV character who could build and assemble a vast array of tools/devices. “We have options that have been tested, and we have experience, maybe not in health care, but in other settings. We want to try that first before that frontline doctor, nurse, respiratory therapist decides to take matters into their own hands.

Increasingly, though, health care workers are finding they have no other choice — something even the CDC has acknowledged. In new guidelines, the agency recommends a bandanna, scarf, or other type of covering in cases where face masks are not available.

N95 respirators or surgical masks?

There are two main types of masks generally used in health care. N95 respirators filter out 95% of airborne particles, including bacteria and viruses. The lighter surgical or medical face masks are made to prevent spit and mucous from getting on patients or equipment.

Both types reduce rates of infection among health care workers, though comparisons (at least for influenza) have yet to show that one is superior to the other. One 2020 review by Chinese researchers, for example, analyzed six randomly controlled trials that included more than 9000 participants and found no added benefits of N95 masks over ordinary surgical masks for health care providers treating patients with the flu.

But COVID-19 is not influenza, and evidence suggests it may require more intensive protection, says Friese, who coauthored a blog post for JAMA about the country’s unpreparedness for protecting health care workers during a pandemic. The virus can linger in the air for hours, suggesting that N95 respirators are health care providers’ best option when treating infected patients.

The problem is there’s not enough to go around — of either mask type. In a March 5 survey, National Nurses United reported that just 30% of more than 6500 US respondents said their organizations had enough PPE to respond to a surge in patients. Another 38% did not know if their organizations were prepared. In a tweet, Friese estimated that 12% of nurses and other providers are at risk from reusing equipment or using equipment that is not backed by evidence.

Physicians and providers around the world have been sharing strategies online for how to make their own masks. Techniques vary, as do materials and plans for how to use the homemade equipment. At Phoebe Putney Health, DIY masks are intended to be worn over N95 respirators and then disposed of so that the respirators can be reused more safely, says Amanda Clements, the hospital’s public relations coordinator. Providers might also wear them to greet people at the front door.

Some evidence suggests that homemade masks can help in a pinch, at least for some illnesses. For a 2013 study by researchers in the UK, volunteers made surgical masks from cotton T-shirts, then put them on and coughed into a chamber that measured how much bacterial content got through. The team also assessed the aerosol-filtering ability of a variety of household materials, including scarfs, antimicrobial pillowcases, vacuum-cleaner bags, and tea towels. They tested each material with an aerosol containing two types of bacteria similar in size to influenza.

Commercial surgical masks performed three times better than homemade ones in the filtration test. Surgical masks worked twice as well at blocking droplets on the cough test. But all the makeshift materials — which also included silk, linen, and regular pillowcases — blocked some microbes. Vacuum-cleaner bags blocked the most bacteria, but their stiffness and thickness made them unsuitable for use as masks, the researchers reported. Tea towels showed a similar pattern. But pillowcases and cotton T-shirts were stretchy enough to fit well, thereby reducing the particles that could get through or around them.

Homemade masks should be used only as a last resort if commercial masks become unavailable, the researchers concluded. “Probably something is better than nothing for trained health care workers — for droplet contact avoidance, if nothing else,” says Anna Davies, BSc, a research facilitator at the University of Cambridge, UK, who is a former public health microbiologist and one of the study’s authors.

She recommends that members of the general public donate any stockpiles they have to health care workers, and make their own if they want masks for personal use. She is working with collaborators in the US to develop guidance for how best to do it.

“If people are quarantined and looking for something worthwhile to do, it probably wouldn’t be the worst thing to apply themselves to,” she wrote by email. “My suggestion would be for something soft and cotton, ideally with a bit of stretch (although it’s a pain to sew), and in two layers, marked ‘inside’ and ‘outside.’ ”

The idea that something is better than nothing was also the conclusion of a 2008 study by researchers in the Netherlands and the US. The study enlisted 28 healthy individuals who performed a variety of tasks while wearing N95 masks, surgical masks, or homemade masks sewn from teacloths. Effectiveness varied among individuals, but over a 90-second period, N95 masks worked best, with 25 times more protection than surgical masks and about 50 times more protection than homemade ones. Surgical masks were twice as effective as homemade masks. But the homemade masks offered at least some protection against large droplets.

Researchers emphasize that it’s not yet clear whether those findings are applicable to aerosolized COVID-19. In an influenza pandemic, at least, the authors posit that homemade masks could reduce transmission for the general public enough for some immunity to build. “It is important not to focus on a single intervention in case of a pandemic,” the researchers write, “but to integrate all effective interventions for optimal protection.”

For health care workers on the frontlines of COVID-19, Friese says, homemade masks might do more than nothing but they also might not work. Instead, he would rather see providers using construction or nuclear-engineering masks. And his best suggestion is something many providers are already doing: reducing physical contact with patients through telemedicine and other creative solutions, which is cutting down the overwhelming need for PPE.

Homemade mask production emphasizes the urgent need for more supplies, Friese adds.

“The government needs to step up and do a variety of things to increase production, and that needs to happen now, immediately,” he says. “We don’t we don’t want our clinicians to have to come up with these decisions.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the face of the US COVID-19 pandemic, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has announced policy changes to allow some patients in opioid treatment programs (OTP) to take home their medication.

According to the agency, states may request “blanket exceptions” for all stable patients in an OTP to receive a 28-day supply of take-home doses of medications such as methadone and buprenorphine, which are used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD).

States may request up to 14 days of take-home medication for patients who are less stable but who can, in the judgment of OTP clinicians, safely handle this level of take-home medication.

“SAMHSA recognizes the evolving issues surrounding COVID-19 and the emerging needs OTPs continue to face,” the agency writes in its updated guidance.

“SAMHSA affirms its commitment to supporting OTPs in any way possible during this time. As such, we are expanding our previous guidance to provide increased flexibility,” the agency said.
 

A ‘Lifesaving’ Decision

Commenting on the SAMHSA policy change, Richard Saitz, MD, professor and chair of the department of community health sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, said, the policy “is not only a good idea, it is critical and lifesaving.”

“This approach had to be done now. With the reduction in face-to-face visits, patients with opioid use disorder need a way to access treatment. If they cannot get opioid agonists, they would withdraw and return to illicit opioid use and high overdose risk and it would be cruel,” said Saitz.

“It is possible that there will be some diversion and some risk of overdose or misuse, but even for less stable patients the benefit likely far outweighs the risk,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Saitz believes policy changes like this should have been made before a crisis.

“Honestly, this is perhaps a silver lining of the crisis” and could lead to permanent change in how OUD is treated in the US, he said.

“Just like we are learning what can be done without a medical in-person visit, we will learn that it is perfectly fine to treat patients with addiction more like we treat patients with other chronic diseases who take medication that has risks and benefits,” Saitz said.

Earlier this week, the Drug Enforcement Administration also announced relaxed dispensing restrictions for registered narcotic treatment programs in cases when a patient is quarantined because of coronavirus.

Typically, only licensed practitioners can dispense or administer OUD medications to patients, but during the COVID-19 crisis, treatment program staff members, law enforcement officers, and national guard personnel will be allowed to deliver OUD medications to an approved “lockbox” at the patient’s doorstep. The change applies only while the coronavirus public health emergency lasts.

“This is also an excellent idea,” Saitz said.
 

ASAM Also Responds

In addition, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) released a focused update to its National Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (NPG).

The update is “especially critical in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 emergency, which threatens to curtail patient access to evidence-based treatment,” the organization said in a news release. The new document updates the 2015 NPG. It includes 13 new recommendations and major revisions to 35 existing recommendations.

One new recommendation states that comprehensive assessment of a patient is critical for treatment planning, but completing all assessments should not delay or preclude initiating pharmacotherapy for OUD. Another new recommendation states that there is no recommended time limit for pharmacotherapy.

ASAM continues to recommend that patients’ psychosocial needs be assessed and psychosocial treatment offered. However, if patients can’t access psychosocial treatment because they are in isolation or have other risk factors that preclude external interactions, clinicians should not delay initiation of medication for the treatment of addiction.

Expanding the use of telemedicine might also be appropriate for many patients, ASAM announced.

They note that the NPG is the first to address in a single document all medications currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD and opioid withdrawal, including all available buprenorphine formulations.

“All of the updated recommendations are designed to both improve the quality and consistency of care and reduce barriers to access to care for Americans living with OUD. The updated recommendations aim to support initiation of buprenorphine treatment in the emergency department and other urgent care settings,” the society said in the release.

“In addition, [the recommendations] provide greater flexibility on dosing during the initiation of buprenorphine treatment and for initiation of buprenorphine at home (which is also an important change in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis).”

The full document is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the face of the US COVID-19 pandemic, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has announced policy changes to allow some patients in opioid treatment programs (OTP) to take home their medication.

According to the agency, states may request “blanket exceptions” for all stable patients in an OTP to receive a 28-day supply of take-home doses of medications such as methadone and buprenorphine, which are used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD).

States may request up to 14 days of take-home medication for patients who are less stable but who can, in the judgment of OTP clinicians, safely handle this level of take-home medication.

“SAMHSA recognizes the evolving issues surrounding COVID-19 and the emerging needs OTPs continue to face,” the agency writes in its updated guidance.

“SAMHSA affirms its commitment to supporting OTPs in any way possible during this time. As such, we are expanding our previous guidance to provide increased flexibility,” the agency said.
 

A ‘Lifesaving’ Decision

Commenting on the SAMHSA policy change, Richard Saitz, MD, professor and chair of the department of community health sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, said, the policy “is not only a good idea, it is critical and lifesaving.”

“This approach had to be done now. With the reduction in face-to-face visits, patients with opioid use disorder need a way to access treatment. If they cannot get opioid agonists, they would withdraw and return to illicit opioid use and high overdose risk and it would be cruel,” said Saitz.

“It is possible that there will be some diversion and some risk of overdose or misuse, but even for less stable patients the benefit likely far outweighs the risk,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Saitz believes policy changes like this should have been made before a crisis.

“Honestly, this is perhaps a silver lining of the crisis” and could lead to permanent change in how OUD is treated in the US, he said.

“Just like we are learning what can be done without a medical in-person visit, we will learn that it is perfectly fine to treat patients with addiction more like we treat patients with other chronic diseases who take medication that has risks and benefits,” Saitz said.

Earlier this week, the Drug Enforcement Administration also announced relaxed dispensing restrictions for registered narcotic treatment programs in cases when a patient is quarantined because of coronavirus.

Typically, only licensed practitioners can dispense or administer OUD medications to patients, but during the COVID-19 crisis, treatment program staff members, law enforcement officers, and national guard personnel will be allowed to deliver OUD medications to an approved “lockbox” at the patient’s doorstep. The change applies only while the coronavirus public health emergency lasts.

“This is also an excellent idea,” Saitz said.
 

ASAM Also Responds

In addition, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) released a focused update to its National Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (NPG).

The update is “especially critical in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 emergency, which threatens to curtail patient access to evidence-based treatment,” the organization said in a news release. The new document updates the 2015 NPG. It includes 13 new recommendations and major revisions to 35 existing recommendations.

One new recommendation states that comprehensive assessment of a patient is critical for treatment planning, but completing all assessments should not delay or preclude initiating pharmacotherapy for OUD. Another new recommendation states that there is no recommended time limit for pharmacotherapy.

ASAM continues to recommend that patients’ psychosocial needs be assessed and psychosocial treatment offered. However, if patients can’t access psychosocial treatment because they are in isolation or have other risk factors that preclude external interactions, clinicians should not delay initiation of medication for the treatment of addiction.

Expanding the use of telemedicine might also be appropriate for many patients, ASAM announced.

They note that the NPG is the first to address in a single document all medications currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD and opioid withdrawal, including all available buprenorphine formulations.

“All of the updated recommendations are designed to both improve the quality and consistency of care and reduce barriers to access to care for Americans living with OUD. The updated recommendations aim to support initiation of buprenorphine treatment in the emergency department and other urgent care settings,” the society said in the release.

“In addition, [the recommendations] provide greater flexibility on dosing during the initiation of buprenorphine treatment and for initiation of buprenorphine at home (which is also an important change in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis).”

The full document is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the face of the US COVID-19 pandemic, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has announced policy changes to allow some patients in opioid treatment programs (OTP) to take home their medication.

According to the agency, states may request “blanket exceptions” for all stable patients in an OTP to receive a 28-day supply of take-home doses of medications such as methadone and buprenorphine, which are used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD).

States may request up to 14 days of take-home medication for patients who are less stable but who can, in the judgment of OTP clinicians, safely handle this level of take-home medication.

“SAMHSA recognizes the evolving issues surrounding COVID-19 and the emerging needs OTPs continue to face,” the agency writes in its updated guidance.

“SAMHSA affirms its commitment to supporting OTPs in any way possible during this time. As such, we are expanding our previous guidance to provide increased flexibility,” the agency said.
 

A ‘Lifesaving’ Decision

Commenting on the SAMHSA policy change, Richard Saitz, MD, professor and chair of the department of community health sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, said, the policy “is not only a good idea, it is critical and lifesaving.”

“This approach had to be done now. With the reduction in face-to-face visits, patients with opioid use disorder need a way to access treatment. If they cannot get opioid agonists, they would withdraw and return to illicit opioid use and high overdose risk and it would be cruel,” said Saitz.

“It is possible that there will be some diversion and some risk of overdose or misuse, but even for less stable patients the benefit likely far outweighs the risk,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Saitz believes policy changes like this should have been made before a crisis.

“Honestly, this is perhaps a silver lining of the crisis” and could lead to permanent change in how OUD is treated in the US, he said.

“Just like we are learning what can be done without a medical in-person visit, we will learn that it is perfectly fine to treat patients with addiction more like we treat patients with other chronic diseases who take medication that has risks and benefits,” Saitz said.

Earlier this week, the Drug Enforcement Administration also announced relaxed dispensing restrictions for registered narcotic treatment programs in cases when a patient is quarantined because of coronavirus.

Typically, only licensed practitioners can dispense or administer OUD medications to patients, but during the COVID-19 crisis, treatment program staff members, law enforcement officers, and national guard personnel will be allowed to deliver OUD medications to an approved “lockbox” at the patient’s doorstep. The change applies only while the coronavirus public health emergency lasts.

“This is also an excellent idea,” Saitz said.
 

ASAM Also Responds

In addition, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) released a focused update to its National Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (NPG).

The update is “especially critical in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 emergency, which threatens to curtail patient access to evidence-based treatment,” the organization said in a news release. The new document updates the 2015 NPG. It includes 13 new recommendations and major revisions to 35 existing recommendations.

One new recommendation states that comprehensive assessment of a patient is critical for treatment planning, but completing all assessments should not delay or preclude initiating pharmacotherapy for OUD. Another new recommendation states that there is no recommended time limit for pharmacotherapy.

ASAM continues to recommend that patients’ psychosocial needs be assessed and psychosocial treatment offered. However, if patients can’t access psychosocial treatment because they are in isolation or have other risk factors that preclude external interactions, clinicians should not delay initiation of medication for the treatment of addiction.

Expanding the use of telemedicine might also be appropriate for many patients, ASAM announced.

They note that the NPG is the first to address in a single document all medications currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD and opioid withdrawal, including all available buprenorphine formulations.

“All of the updated recommendations are designed to both improve the quality and consistency of care and reduce barriers to access to care for Americans living with OUD. The updated recommendations aim to support initiation of buprenorphine treatment in the emergency department and other urgent care settings,” the society said in the release.

“In addition, [the recommendations] provide greater flexibility on dosing during the initiation of buprenorphine treatment and for initiation of buprenorphine at home (which is also an important change in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis).”

The full document is available online.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The third Friday in March usually marks a time when medical students across the United States participate in envelope-opening ceremonies with peers and family members. This year, the ruthless onslaught of coronavirus has forced residency programs to rethink their celebrations, leveraging social media platforms and other technologies to toast Match Day in cyberspace.

In the absence of ceremonies taking place due to restrictions on mass gatherings, “we anticipate that students may be more emotional than they expect,” Hannah R. Hughes, MD, president of the Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association (EMRA) said in an interview. To support these students on their journey to residency, EMRA has launched a social media campaign, asking medical students “to share with us their envelope-opening moments – either a selfie, photo, or video – that we can share with our online networks,” Dr. Hughes said.

EMRA is also asking program coordinators to forward photos and congratulatory messages to their new residents “so that we can share them with our networks at large,” she added.

Going virtual, it seems, has become the new norm.

At the University of California, San Francisco, the medical school decided to cancel its Match Day celebration for new interns, echoing many other programs across the United States. “We always send out a welcome email and make phone calls to all of our new interns,” said Rebecca Berman, MD, director of UCSF’s internal medicine residency program, which houses 63 medicine interns and 181 residents. Traditionally, the program has hosted the celebration for current residents. That, of course, had to change this year.

Current interns like to join in the fun, “since it means their internship is rapidly coming to a close,” said Dr. Berman, who at press time was considering a virtual toast via Zoom as a possible alternative. “These are difficult times for everyone, and we are doing our best to make our residents feel united and connected while they take care of patients in the era of social distancing.”

Melissa Held, MD, associate dean of medical student affairs at the University of Connecticut’s School of Medicine, Farmington, had been planning a celebration in the school’s academic rotunda with food and champagne. “Students typically come with their family members or significant others. The dean and I usually say a few words and then at noon, students get envelopes and can open them to find out where they matched for residency,” Dr. Held said. This year, the school will be uploading Match letters to its online system. Students can remotely find out where they matched at noon. “I plan to put together a slide show of pictures and congratulatory remarks from faculty and staff that will be sent to them around 11:30 a.m.,” Dr. Held said.

Mark Miceli, EdD, who oversees Match Day for the 130-plus medical students at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, is inviting faculty and staff to submit short videos of congratulations, which it will post on its student affairs Match Day Instagram account. Like other schools, it will share results with students in an email, said Dr. Miceli, assistant vice provost of student life. “This message will be more personalized to our school than the NRMP [National Resident Matching Program] message, and will also include links to our match stats, a map of our matched student locations, and a list of where folks matched,” he said.

Students can opt out of the list if they want to. The communications department has also provided templates for signs students can print out. “They can write in where they matched, and take pictures for social media. We are encouraging the use of various hashtags to help build a virtual community,” Dr. Miceli said.

In a state hit particularly hard by coronavirus, the University of Washington School of Medicine is spreading Match Day cheer through online meeting platforms and celebratory graphics. This five-state school, representing students from Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho, usually hosts several events across the different states and students have their pick of which to attend, according to Sarah Wood, associate director of student affairs.

In lieu of in-person events, some states are hosting a Zoom online celebration, others are using social media networking systems. “We’re inviting everyone to take part in an online event ... where we’ll do a slide show of photos that one of our students put together,” Ms. Wood said.

Students are disappointed in this change of plans, she said. To make things more festive, Ms. Wood is adding graphics such as fireworks and photos to the emails containing the Match results. “I want this to be more exciting for them than just a basic letter,” she said.

For now, Ms. Wood is trying to focus on the Match Day celebration, but admits that “my bigger fear is if we have to cancel graduation – and what that might look like.”

The third Friday in March usually marks a time when medical students across the United States participate in envelope-opening ceremonies with peers and family members. This year, the ruthless onslaught of coronavirus has forced residency programs to rethink their celebrations, leveraging social media platforms and other technologies to toast Match Day in cyberspace.

In the absence of ceremonies taking place due to restrictions on mass gatherings, “we anticipate that students may be more emotional than they expect,” Hannah R. Hughes, MD, president of the Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association (EMRA) said in an interview. To support these students on their journey to residency, EMRA has launched a social media campaign, asking medical students “to share with us their envelope-opening moments – either a selfie, photo, or video – that we can share with our online networks,” Dr. Hughes said.

EMRA is also asking program coordinators to forward photos and congratulatory messages to their new residents “so that we can share them with our networks at large,” she added.

Going virtual, it seems, has become the new norm.

At the University of California, San Francisco, the medical school decided to cancel its Match Day celebration for new interns, echoing many other programs across the United States. “We always send out a welcome email and make phone calls to all of our new interns,” said Rebecca Berman, MD, director of UCSF’s internal medicine residency program, which houses 63 medicine interns and 181 residents. Traditionally, the program has hosted the celebration for current residents. That, of course, had to change this year.

Current interns like to join in the fun, “since it means their internship is rapidly coming to a close,” said Dr. Berman, who at press time was considering a virtual toast via Zoom as a possible alternative. “These are difficult times for everyone, and we are doing our best to make our residents feel united and connected while they take care of patients in the era of social distancing.”

Melissa Held, MD, associate dean of medical student affairs at the University of Connecticut’s School of Medicine, Farmington, had been planning a celebration in the school’s academic rotunda with food and champagne. “Students typically come with their family members or significant others. The dean and I usually say a few words and then at noon, students get envelopes and can open them to find out where they matched for residency,” Dr. Held said. This year, the school will be uploading Match letters to its online system. Students can remotely find out where they matched at noon. “I plan to put together a slide show of pictures and congratulatory remarks from faculty and staff that will be sent to them around 11:30 a.m.,” Dr. Held said.

Mark Miceli, EdD, who oversees Match Day for the 130-plus medical students at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, is inviting faculty and staff to submit short videos of congratulations, which it will post on its student affairs Match Day Instagram account. Like other schools, it will share results with students in an email, said Dr. Miceli, assistant vice provost of student life. “This message will be more personalized to our school than the NRMP [National Resident Matching Program] message, and will also include links to our match stats, a map of our matched student locations, and a list of where folks matched,” he said.

Students can opt out of the list if they want to. The communications department has also provided templates for signs students can print out. “They can write in where they matched, and take pictures for social media. We are encouraging the use of various hashtags to help build a virtual community,” Dr. Miceli said.

In a state hit particularly hard by coronavirus, the University of Washington School of Medicine is spreading Match Day cheer through online meeting platforms and celebratory graphics. This five-state school, representing students from Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho, usually hosts several events across the different states and students have their pick of which to attend, according to Sarah Wood, associate director of student affairs.

In lieu of in-person events, some states are hosting a Zoom online celebration, others are using social media networking systems. “We’re inviting everyone to take part in an online event ... where we’ll do a slide show of photos that one of our students put together,” Ms. Wood said.

Students are disappointed in this change of plans, she said. To make things more festive, Ms. Wood is adding graphics such as fireworks and photos to the emails containing the Match results. “I want this to be more exciting for them than just a basic letter,” she said.

For now, Ms. Wood is trying to focus on the Match Day celebration, but admits that “my bigger fear is if we have to cancel graduation – and what that might look like.”

The third Friday in March usually marks a time when medical students across the United States participate in envelope-opening ceremonies with peers and family members. This year, the ruthless onslaught of coronavirus has forced residency programs to rethink their celebrations, leveraging social media platforms and other technologies to toast Match Day in cyberspace.

In the absence of ceremonies taking place due to restrictions on mass gatherings, “we anticipate that students may be more emotional than they expect,” Hannah R. Hughes, MD, president of the Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association (EMRA) said in an interview. To support these students on their journey to residency, EMRA has launched a social media campaign, asking medical students “to share with us their envelope-opening moments – either a selfie, photo, or video – that we can share with our online networks,” Dr. Hughes said.

EMRA is also asking program coordinators to forward photos and congratulatory messages to their new residents “so that we can share them with our networks at large,” she added.

Going virtual, it seems, has become the new norm.

At the University of California, San Francisco, the medical school decided to cancel its Match Day celebration for new interns, echoing many other programs across the United States. “We always send out a welcome email and make phone calls to all of our new interns,” said Rebecca Berman, MD, director of UCSF’s internal medicine residency program, which houses 63 medicine interns and 181 residents. Traditionally, the program has hosted the celebration for current residents. That, of course, had to change this year.

Current interns like to join in the fun, “since it means their internship is rapidly coming to a close,” said Dr. Berman, who at press time was considering a virtual toast via Zoom as a possible alternative. “These are difficult times for everyone, and we are doing our best to make our residents feel united and connected while they take care of patients in the era of social distancing.”

Melissa Held, MD, associate dean of medical student affairs at the University of Connecticut’s School of Medicine, Farmington, had been planning a celebration in the school’s academic rotunda with food and champagne. “Students typically come with their family members or significant others. The dean and I usually say a few words and then at noon, students get envelopes and can open them to find out where they matched for residency,” Dr. Held said. This year, the school will be uploading Match letters to its online system. Students can remotely find out where they matched at noon. “I plan to put together a slide show of pictures and congratulatory remarks from faculty and staff that will be sent to them around 11:30 a.m.,” Dr. Held said.

Mark Miceli, EdD, who oversees Match Day for the 130-plus medical students at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, is inviting faculty and staff to submit short videos of congratulations, which it will post on its student affairs Match Day Instagram account. Like other schools, it will share results with students in an email, said Dr. Miceli, assistant vice provost of student life. “This message will be more personalized to our school than the NRMP [National Resident Matching Program] message, and will also include links to our match stats, a map of our matched student locations, and a list of where folks matched,” he said.

Students can opt out of the list if they want to. The communications department has also provided templates for signs students can print out. “They can write in where they matched, and take pictures for social media. We are encouraging the use of various hashtags to help build a virtual community,” Dr. Miceli said.

In a state hit particularly hard by coronavirus, the University of Washington School of Medicine is spreading Match Day cheer through online meeting platforms and celebratory graphics. This five-state school, representing students from Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho, usually hosts several events across the different states and students have their pick of which to attend, according to Sarah Wood, associate director of student affairs.

In lieu of in-person events, some states are hosting a Zoom online celebration, others are using social media networking systems. “We’re inviting everyone to take part in an online event ... where we’ll do a slide show of photos that one of our students put together,” Ms. Wood said.

Students are disappointed in this change of plans, she said. To make things more festive, Ms. Wood is adding graphics such as fireworks and photos to the emails containing the Match results. “I want this to be more exciting for them than just a basic letter,” she said.

For now, Ms. Wood is trying to focus on the Match Day celebration, but admits that “my bigger fear is if we have to cancel graduation – and what that might look like.”

Therapeutics could be available in the near term to help treat COVID-19 patients, according to President Donald Trump.

Courtesy CDC

During a March 19 press briefing, the president highlighted two drugs that could be put into play in the battle against the virus.

The first product is hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil), a drug used to treat malaria and severe arthritis, is showing promise as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

“The nice part is it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if things go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody,” President Trump said. “When you go with a brand-new drug, you don’t know that that’s going to happen,” adding that it has shown “very, very encouraging” results as a potential treatment for COVID-19.

He said this drug will be made available “almost immediately.” During the press conference, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, suggested the drug would be made available in the context of a large pragmatic clinical trial, enabling the FDA to collect data on it and make a long-term decision on its viability to treat COVID-19.

Dr. Hahn also pointed to the Gilead drug remdesivir – a drug originally developed to fight Ebola and currently undergoing clinical trials – as another possible candidate for a near-term therapeutic to help treat patients while vaccine development occurs.

Dr. Hahn noted that, while the agency is striving to provide regulatory flexibility, safety is paramount. “Let me make one thing clear: FDA’s responsibility to the American people is to ensure that products are safe and effective and that we are continuing to do that.”

He noted that if these and other experimental drugs show promise, physicians can request them under “compassionate use” provisions.

“We have criteria for that, and very speedy approval for that,” Dr. Hahn said. “The important thing about compassionate use ... this is even beyond ‘right to try.’ [We] get to collect the information about that.”

He noted that the FDA is looking at other drugs that are approved for other indications. The examinations of existing therapies are meant to be a bridge as companies work to develop new therapeutics as well as vaccines.

Dr. Hahn also highlighted a cross-agency effort on convalescent plasma, which uses the plasma from a patient who has recovered from COVID-19 infection to help patients fight the virus. “This is a possible treatment; this is not a proven treatment, “ Dr. Hahn said.

Takeda is working on an immunoglobulin treatment based on its intravenous immunoglobulin product Gammagard Liquid.

Julie Kim, president of plasma-derived therapies at Takeda, said the company should be able to go straight into testing efficacy of this approach, given the known safety profile of the treatment. She made the comments during a March 18 press briefing hosted by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Ms. Kim did caution that this would not be a mass market kind of treatment, as supply would depend on plasma donations from individuals who have fully recovered from a COVID-19 infection. She estimated that the treatment could be available to a targeted group of high-risk patients in 9-18 months.

PhRMA president and CEO Stephen Ubl said the industry is “literally working around the clock” on four key areas: development of new diagnostics, identification of potential existing treatments to make available through trials and compassionate use, development of novel therapies, and development of a vaccine.

There are more than 80 clinical trials underway on existing treatments that could have approval to treat COVID-19 in a matter of months, he said.

Mikael Dolsten, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at Pfizer, said that the company is working with Germany-based BioNTech SE to develop an mRNA-based vaccine for COVID-19, with testing expected to begin in Germany, China, and the United States by the end of April. The company also is screening antiviral compounds that were previously in development against other coronavirus diseases.

Clement Lewin, PhD, associate vice president of R&D strategy for vaccines at Sanofi, said the company has partnered with Regeneron to launch a trial of sarilumab (Kevzara), a drug approved to treat moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, to help treat COVID-19.

Meanwhile, Lilly Chief Scientific Officer Daniel Skovronsky, MD, PhD, noted that his company is collaborating with AbCellera to develop therapeutics using monoclonal antibodies isolated from one of the first U.S. patients who recovered from COVID-19. He said the goal is to begin testing within the next 4 months.

Separately, World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced during a March 18 press conference that it is spearheading a large international study examining a number of different treatments in what has been dubbed the SOLIDARITY trial. Argentina, Bahrain, Canada, France, Iran, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and Thailand have signed on to be a part of the trial, with more countries expected to participate.

“I continue to be inspired by the many demonstrations of solidarity from all over the world,” he said. “These and other efforts give me hope that together, we can and will prevail. This virus is presenting us with an unprecedented threat. But it’s also an unprecedented opportunity to come together as one against a common enemy, an enemy against humanity.”

[email protected]

Therapeutics could be available in the near term to help treat COVID-19 patients, according to President Donald Trump.

Courtesy CDC

During a March 19 press briefing, the president highlighted two drugs that could be put into play in the battle against the virus.

The first product is hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil), a drug used to treat malaria and severe arthritis, is showing promise as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

“The nice part is it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if things go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody,” President Trump said. “When you go with a brand-new drug, you don’t know that that’s going to happen,” adding that it has shown “very, very encouraging” results as a potential treatment for COVID-19.

He said this drug will be made available “almost immediately.” During the press conference, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, suggested the drug would be made available in the context of a large pragmatic clinical trial, enabling the FDA to collect data on it and make a long-term decision on its viability to treat COVID-19.

Dr. Hahn also pointed to the Gilead drug remdesivir – a drug originally developed to fight Ebola and currently undergoing clinical trials – as another possible candidate for a near-term therapeutic to help treat patients while vaccine development occurs.

Dr. Hahn noted that, while the agency is striving to provide regulatory flexibility, safety is paramount. “Let me make one thing clear: FDA’s responsibility to the American people is to ensure that products are safe and effective and that we are continuing to do that.”

He noted that if these and other experimental drugs show promise, physicians can request them under “compassionate use” provisions.

“We have criteria for that, and very speedy approval for that,” Dr. Hahn said. “The important thing about compassionate use ... this is even beyond ‘right to try.’ [We] get to collect the information about that.”

He noted that the FDA is looking at other drugs that are approved for other indications. The examinations of existing therapies are meant to be a bridge as companies work to develop new therapeutics as well as vaccines.

Dr. Hahn also highlighted a cross-agency effort on convalescent plasma, which uses the plasma from a patient who has recovered from COVID-19 infection to help patients fight the virus. “This is a possible treatment; this is not a proven treatment, “ Dr. Hahn said.

Takeda is working on an immunoglobulin treatment based on its intravenous immunoglobulin product Gammagard Liquid.

Julie Kim, president of plasma-derived therapies at Takeda, said the company should be able to go straight into testing efficacy of this approach, given the known safety profile of the treatment. She made the comments during a March 18 press briefing hosted by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Ms. Kim did caution that this would not be a mass market kind of treatment, as supply would depend on plasma donations from individuals who have fully recovered from a COVID-19 infection. She estimated that the treatment could be available to a targeted group of high-risk patients in 9-18 months.

PhRMA president and CEO Stephen Ubl said the industry is “literally working around the clock” on four key areas: development of new diagnostics, identification of potential existing treatments to make available through trials and compassionate use, development of novel therapies, and development of a vaccine.

There are more than 80 clinical trials underway on existing treatments that could have approval to treat COVID-19 in a matter of months, he said.

Mikael Dolsten, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at Pfizer, said that the company is working with Germany-based BioNTech SE to develop an mRNA-based vaccine for COVID-19, with testing expected to begin in Germany, China, and the United States by the end of April. The company also is screening antiviral compounds that were previously in development against other coronavirus diseases.

Clement Lewin, PhD, associate vice president of R&D strategy for vaccines at Sanofi, said the company has partnered with Regeneron to launch a trial of sarilumab (Kevzara), a drug approved to treat moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, to help treat COVID-19.

Meanwhile, Lilly Chief Scientific Officer Daniel Skovronsky, MD, PhD, noted that his company is collaborating with AbCellera to develop therapeutics using monoclonal antibodies isolated from one of the first U.S. patients who recovered from COVID-19. He said the goal is to begin testing within the next 4 months.

Separately, World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced during a March 18 press conference that it is spearheading a large international study examining a number of different treatments in what has been dubbed the SOLIDARITY trial. Argentina, Bahrain, Canada, France, Iran, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and Thailand have signed on to be a part of the trial, with more countries expected to participate.

“I continue to be inspired by the many demonstrations of solidarity from all over the world,” he said. “These and other efforts give me hope that together, we can and will prevail. This virus is presenting us with an unprecedented threat. But it’s also an unprecedented opportunity to come together as one against a common enemy, an enemy against humanity.”

[email protected]

Therapeutics could be available in the near term to help treat COVID-19 patients, according to President Donald Trump.

Courtesy CDC

During a March 19 press briefing, the president highlighted two drugs that could be put into play in the battle against the virus.

The first product is hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil), a drug used to treat malaria and severe arthritis, is showing promise as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

“The nice part is it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if things go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody,” President Trump said. “When you go with a brand-new drug, you don’t know that that’s going to happen,” adding that it has shown “very, very encouraging” results as a potential treatment for COVID-19.

He said this drug will be made available “almost immediately.” During the press conference, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, suggested the drug would be made available in the context of a large pragmatic clinical trial, enabling the FDA to collect data on it and make a long-term decision on its viability to treat COVID-19.

Dr. Hahn also pointed to the Gilead drug remdesivir – a drug originally developed to fight Ebola and currently undergoing clinical trials – as another possible candidate for a near-term therapeutic to help treat patients while vaccine development occurs.

Dr. Hahn noted that, while the agency is striving to provide regulatory flexibility, safety is paramount. “Let me make one thing clear: FDA’s responsibility to the American people is to ensure that products are safe and effective and that we are continuing to do that.”

He noted that if these and other experimental drugs show promise, physicians can request them under “compassionate use” provisions.

“We have criteria for that, and very speedy approval for that,” Dr. Hahn said. “The important thing about compassionate use ... this is even beyond ‘right to try.’ [We] get to collect the information about that.”

He noted that the FDA is looking at other drugs that are approved for other indications. The examinations of existing therapies are meant to be a bridge as companies work to develop new therapeutics as well as vaccines.

Dr. Hahn also highlighted a cross-agency effort on convalescent plasma, which uses the plasma from a patient who has recovered from COVID-19 infection to help patients fight the virus. “This is a possible treatment; this is not a proven treatment, “ Dr. Hahn said.

Takeda is working on an immunoglobulin treatment based on its intravenous immunoglobulin product Gammagard Liquid.

Julie Kim, president of plasma-derived therapies at Takeda, said the company should be able to go straight into testing efficacy of this approach, given the known safety profile of the treatment. She made the comments during a March 18 press briefing hosted by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Ms. Kim did caution that this would not be a mass market kind of treatment, as supply would depend on plasma donations from individuals who have fully recovered from a COVID-19 infection. She estimated that the treatment could be available to a targeted group of high-risk patients in 9-18 months.

PhRMA president and CEO Stephen Ubl said the industry is “literally working around the clock” on four key areas: development of new diagnostics, identification of potential existing treatments to make available through trials and compassionate use, development of novel therapies, and development of a vaccine.

There are more than 80 clinical trials underway on existing treatments that could have approval to treat COVID-19 in a matter of months, he said.

Mikael Dolsten, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at Pfizer, said that the company is working with Germany-based BioNTech SE to develop an mRNA-based vaccine for COVID-19, with testing expected to begin in Germany, China, and the United States by the end of April. The company also is screening antiviral compounds that were previously in development against other coronavirus diseases.

Clement Lewin, PhD, associate vice president of R&D strategy for vaccines at Sanofi, said the company has partnered with Regeneron to launch a trial of sarilumab (Kevzara), a drug approved to treat moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, to help treat COVID-19.

Meanwhile, Lilly Chief Scientific Officer Daniel Skovronsky, MD, PhD, noted that his company is collaborating with AbCellera to develop therapeutics using monoclonal antibodies isolated from one of the first U.S. patients who recovered from COVID-19. He said the goal is to begin testing within the next 4 months.

Separately, World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced during a March 18 press conference that it is spearheading a large international study examining a number of different treatments in what has been dubbed the SOLIDARITY trial. Argentina, Bahrain, Canada, France, Iran, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and Thailand have signed on to be a part of the trial, with more countries expected to participate.

“I continue to be inspired by the many demonstrations of solidarity from all over the world,” he said. “These and other efforts give me hope that together, we can and will prevail. This virus is presenting us with an unprecedented threat. But it’s also an unprecedented opportunity to come together as one against a common enemy, an enemy against humanity.”

[email protected]

*Correction, 3/20/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the age range for COVID-19 deaths. The headline of this story was corrected to read "20%  of COVID-19 deaths were aged 20-64 years" and the text was adjusted to reflect the correct age range.

A review of more than 4,000 U.S. patients who were diagnosed with novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) shows that an unexpected 20% of deaths occurred among adults aged 20-64 years, and 20% of those hospitalized were aged 20-44 years. 

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The expectation has been that people over 65 are most vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, but this study indicates that, at least in the United States, a significant number of patients under 45 can land in the hospital and can even die of the disease. 

To assess rates of hospitalization, admission to an ICU, and death among patients with COVID-19 by age group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed 4,226 COVID-19 cases in the United States that were reported between Feb. 12 and March 16.

Overall, older patients in this group were the most likely to be hospitalized, to be admitted to ICU, and to die of COVID-19. A total of 31% of the cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths occurred in patients aged 65 years and older. “Similar to reports from other countries, this finding suggests that the risk for serious disease and death from COVID-19 is higher in older age groups,” said the investigators. “In contrast, persons aged [19 years and younger] appear to have milder COVID-19 illness, with almost no hospitalizations or deaths reported to date in the United States in this age group.”

But compared with the under-19 group, patients aged 20-44 years appeared to be at higher risk for hospitalization and ICU admission, according to the data published March 18 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

The researchers excluded from their analysis patients who repatriated to the United States from Wuhan, China, and from Japan, including patients repatriated from cruise ships. Data on serious underlying health conditions were not available, and many cases were missing key data, they noted.
Among 508 patients known to have been hospitalized, 9% were aged 85 years or older, 36% were aged 65-84 years, 17% were aged 55-64 years, 18% were 45-54 years, and 20% were aged 20-44 years.

Among 121 patients admitted to an ICU, 7% were aged 85 years or older, 46% were aged 65-84 years, 36% were aged 45-64 years, and 12% were aged 20-44 years. Between 11% and 31% of patients with COVID-19 aged 75-84 years were admitted to an ICU.

Of 44 deaths, more than a third occurred among adults aged 85 years and older, and 46% occurred among adults aged 65-84 years, and 20% occurred among adults aged 20-64 years.

More follow-up time is needed to determine outcomes among active cases, the researchers said. These results also might overestimate the prevalence of severe disease because the initial approach to testing for COVID-19 focused on people with more severe disease. “These preliminary data also demonstrate that severe illness leading to hospitalization, including ICU admission and death, can occur in adults of any age with COVID-19,” according to the CDC.

[email protected]

SOURCE: CDC COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6912e2.

*Correction, 3/20/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the age range for COVID-19 deaths. The headline of this story was corrected to read "20%  of COVID-19 deaths were aged 20-64 years" and the text was adjusted to reflect the correct age range.

A review of more than 4,000 U.S. patients who were diagnosed with novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) shows that an unexpected 20% of deaths occurred among adults aged 20-64 years, and 20% of those hospitalized were aged 20-44 years. 

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The expectation has been that people over 65 are most vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, but this study indicates that, at least in the United States, a significant number of patients under 45 can land in the hospital and can even die of the disease. 

To assess rates of hospitalization, admission to an ICU, and death among patients with COVID-19 by age group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed 4,226 COVID-19 cases in the United States that were reported between Feb. 12 and March 16.

Overall, older patients in this group were the most likely to be hospitalized, to be admitted to ICU, and to die of COVID-19. A total of 31% of the cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths occurred in patients aged 65 years and older. “Similar to reports from other countries, this finding suggests that the risk for serious disease and death from COVID-19 is higher in older age groups,” said the investigators. “In contrast, persons aged [19 years and younger] appear to have milder COVID-19 illness, with almost no hospitalizations or deaths reported to date in the United States in this age group.”

But compared with the under-19 group, patients aged 20-44 years appeared to be at higher risk for hospitalization and ICU admission, according to the data published March 18 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

The researchers excluded from their analysis patients who repatriated to the United States from Wuhan, China, and from Japan, including patients repatriated from cruise ships. Data on serious underlying health conditions were not available, and many cases were missing key data, they noted.
Among 508 patients known to have been hospitalized, 9% were aged 85 years or older, 36% were aged 65-84 years, 17% were aged 55-64 years, 18% were 45-54 years, and 20% were aged 20-44 years.

Among 121 patients admitted to an ICU, 7% were aged 85 years or older, 46% were aged 65-84 years, 36% were aged 45-64 years, and 12% were aged 20-44 years. Between 11% and 31% of patients with COVID-19 aged 75-84 years were admitted to an ICU.

Of 44 deaths, more than a third occurred among adults aged 85 years and older, and 46% occurred among adults aged 65-84 years, and 20% occurred among adults aged 20-64 years.

More follow-up time is needed to determine outcomes among active cases, the researchers said. These results also might overestimate the prevalence of severe disease because the initial approach to testing for COVID-19 focused on people with more severe disease. “These preliminary data also demonstrate that severe illness leading to hospitalization, including ICU admission and death, can occur in adults of any age with COVID-19,” according to the CDC.

[email protected]

SOURCE: CDC COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6912e2.

*Correction, 3/20/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the age range for COVID-19 deaths. The headline of this story was corrected to read "20%  of COVID-19 deaths were aged 20-64 years" and the text was adjusted to reflect the correct age range.

A review of more than 4,000 U.S. patients who were diagnosed with novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) shows that an unexpected 20% of deaths occurred among adults aged 20-64 years, and 20% of those hospitalized were aged 20-44 years. 

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The expectation has been that people over 65 are most vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, but this study indicates that, at least in the United States, a significant number of patients under 45 can land in the hospital and can even die of the disease. 

To assess rates of hospitalization, admission to an ICU, and death among patients with COVID-19 by age group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed 4,226 COVID-19 cases in the United States that were reported between Feb. 12 and March 16.

Overall, older patients in this group were the most likely to be hospitalized, to be admitted to ICU, and to die of COVID-19. A total of 31% of the cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths occurred in patients aged 65 years and older. “Similar to reports from other countries, this finding suggests that the risk for serious disease and death from COVID-19 is higher in older age groups,” said the investigators. “In contrast, persons aged [19 years and younger] appear to have milder COVID-19 illness, with almost no hospitalizations or deaths reported to date in the United States in this age group.”

But compared with the under-19 group, patients aged 20-44 years appeared to be at higher risk for hospitalization and ICU admission, according to the data published March 18 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

The researchers excluded from their analysis patients who repatriated to the United States from Wuhan, China, and from Japan, including patients repatriated from cruise ships. Data on serious underlying health conditions were not available, and many cases were missing key data, they noted.
Among 508 patients known to have been hospitalized, 9% were aged 85 years or older, 36% were aged 65-84 years, 17% were aged 55-64 years, 18% were 45-54 years, and 20% were aged 20-44 years.

Among 121 patients admitted to an ICU, 7% were aged 85 years or older, 46% were aged 65-84 years, 36% were aged 45-64 years, and 12% were aged 20-44 years. Between 11% and 31% of patients with COVID-19 aged 75-84 years were admitted to an ICU.

Of 44 deaths, more than a third occurred among adults aged 85 years and older, and 46% occurred among adults aged 65-84 years, and 20% occurred among adults aged 20-64 years.

More follow-up time is needed to determine outcomes among active cases, the researchers said. These results also might overestimate the prevalence of severe disease because the initial approach to testing for COVID-19 focused on people with more severe disease. “These preliminary data also demonstrate that severe illness leading to hospitalization, including ICU admission and death, can occur in adults of any age with COVID-19,” according to the CDC.

[email protected]

SOURCE: CDC COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6912e2.

For patients age 75 and older with nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with chemotherapy, combination carboplatin and pemetrexed followed by pemetrexed maintenance is both effective and tolerable, suggest the results of a phase 3 trial.

The median overall survival was 18.7 months for patients randomized to carboplatin/pemetrexed and 15.5 months for patients randomized to docetaxel monotherapy.

The combination met the prespecified endpoint for noninferiority to docetaxel but was not shown to be superior in terms of overall survival, investigator Isamu Okamoto, MD, of Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, and colleagues reported in JAMA Oncology.

Still, progression-free survival was significantly longer in the carboplatin/pemetrexed arm, and dose reductions were less frequent with the combination than with docetaxel.

“The combination of carboplatin and pemetrexed followed by pemetrexed maintenance ... provides a clinically significant benefit with regard to its effectiveness and tolerability,” the investigators wrote. “This combination should therefore be considered as a standard option for treatment in this setting.”

Dr. Okamoto and colleagues noted that the lung cancer incidence in elderly patients – 75 years and older – is increasing, and cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the standard treatment for patients whose tumors do not carry targetable mutations or are resistant to immunotherapy.

“In anticipation of a further increase in the number of elderly individuals with advanced NSCLC, it will be important to develop more optimal chemotherapeutic regimens for this patient group,” the investigators wrote.

To that end, they conducted a phase 3 trial of carboplatin/pemetrexed in patients aged 75 and older with NSCLC who had not been exposed to cytotoxic chemotherapy.
 

Patients and treatment

There were 433 patients enrolled in the trial. Their median age was 78 years (range, 75-88 years), and 57.7% were men. All patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

Patients were stratified by clinical stage (III, IV, or recurrence), sex, epidermal growth factor receptor variant status (wild-type, exon 19 deletion, L858R variant of exon 21, or unknown), and treatment center.

The patients were then randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive either intravenous docetaxel at 60 mg/m² for 60 minutes on day 1 every 3 weeks or pemetrexed at 500 mg/m² for 10 minutes followed by an infusion of carboplatin at an area under the curve of 5 for 30 minutes on day 1 every 3 weeks. The combination therapy was repeated for up to four courses and followed by 3-week courses of maintenance therapy with the same dose of pemetrexed.

Both regimens were continued until disease progression or the development of unacceptable toxicities.
 

Efficacy and safety

All 433 randomized patients were included in the efficacy analysis, but the safety analysis included 428 patients. Three patients assigned to docetaxel and two assigned to carboplatin/pemetrexed did not receive protocol treatment.

The respective median overall survival for the docetaxel and carboplatin/pemetrexed arms was 15.5 months and 18.7 months, which translated to a stratified hazard ratio for death of 0.85, meeting the prespecified noninferiority endpoint (P = .003).

However, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was 1.056, exceeding the prespecified superiority margin of 1.000. Therefore, the combination could not be proven superior to docetaxel with regard to overall survival.

On the other hand, progression-free survival was significantly longer with carboplatin/pemetrexed. The median progression-free survival was 6.4 months in the combination arm and 4.3 months in the docetaxel arm (unstratified HR, 0.739; P < .001).

The overall response rate with carboplatin/pemetrexed was 36.8%, compared with 28.2% for docetaxel, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Adverse events that were more common in the docetaxel arm than in the combination arm included grade 3/4 decreases in white blood cell count (68.7% and 28%, respectively), grade 3/4 decreases in neutrophil count (86% and 46.3%, respectively), and febrile neutropenia (17.8% and 4.2%, respectively).

Adverse events more frequently seen with the combination than with docetaxel included anemia (29.4% and 1.9%, respectively) and decreased platelet counts (25.7% and 1.4%, respectively).

Two patients in each arm died from treatment-related causes. In the docetaxel arm, the deaths were caused by acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumonitis. In the combination arm, the deaths were caused by dyspnea and pneumonitis.

Approximately 29% of patients in each arm reported improvement in quality of life at 18 weeks, compared with baseline.

Performance status is key

A lung cancer specialist who was not involved in the study agreed with the authors that age should not be the primary determinant for choice of a treatment regimen.

“There’s a convergence of data over the last decade or so that has really clearly shown that our treatment decisions should be based on performance status much more than chronologic age, certainly for our patients who are in their 70s, and even potentially into their early 80s,” Howard (Jack) West, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

“The available data really say that patients with a good performance status who are in their 70s should be treated just like patients in their 60s and 50s,” he said.

He added, however, that for patients such as those in the study without targetable driver mutations, the best treatment would likely be immunotherapy or immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy.

“If there were a patient with a nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer where we would be thinking about carboplatin and pemetrexed, I would go further than just carbo and pemetrexed; I would give carbo and pemetrexed with pembrolizumab for most of these patients,” he said.

Dr. West said the study primarily offers reassurances about the efficacy and tolerability of the carboplatin/pemetrexed combination in patients aged 75 years and older.

The study was funded by agencies of the Japanese government. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly Japan KK, and many other companies. Dr. West disclosed consulting for Merck.

SOURCE: Okamoto I et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6828.

For patients age 75 and older with nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with chemotherapy, combination carboplatin and pemetrexed followed by pemetrexed maintenance is both effective and tolerable, suggest the results of a phase 3 trial.

The median overall survival was 18.7 months for patients randomized to carboplatin/pemetrexed and 15.5 months for patients randomized to docetaxel monotherapy.

The combination met the prespecified endpoint for noninferiority to docetaxel but was not shown to be superior in terms of overall survival, investigator Isamu Okamoto, MD, of Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, and colleagues reported in JAMA Oncology.

Still, progression-free survival was significantly longer in the carboplatin/pemetrexed arm, and dose reductions were less frequent with the combination than with docetaxel.

“The combination of carboplatin and pemetrexed followed by pemetrexed maintenance ... provides a clinically significant benefit with regard to its effectiveness and tolerability,” the investigators wrote. “This combination should therefore be considered as a standard option for treatment in this setting.”

Dr. Okamoto and colleagues noted that the lung cancer incidence in elderly patients – 75 years and older – is increasing, and cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the standard treatment for patients whose tumors do not carry targetable mutations or are resistant to immunotherapy.

“In anticipation of a further increase in the number of elderly individuals with advanced NSCLC, it will be important to develop more optimal chemotherapeutic regimens for this patient group,” the investigators wrote.

To that end, they conducted a phase 3 trial of carboplatin/pemetrexed in patients aged 75 and older with NSCLC who had not been exposed to cytotoxic chemotherapy.
 

Patients and treatment

There were 433 patients enrolled in the trial. Their median age was 78 years (range, 75-88 years), and 57.7% were men. All patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

Patients were stratified by clinical stage (III, IV, or recurrence), sex, epidermal growth factor receptor variant status (wild-type, exon 19 deletion, L858R variant of exon 21, or unknown), and treatment center.

The patients were then randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive either intravenous docetaxel at 60 mg/m² for 60 minutes on day 1 every 3 weeks or pemetrexed at 500 mg/m² for 10 minutes followed by an infusion of carboplatin at an area under the curve of 5 for 30 minutes on day 1 every 3 weeks. The combination therapy was repeated for up to four courses and followed by 3-week courses of maintenance therapy with the same dose of pemetrexed.

Both regimens were continued until disease progression or the development of unacceptable toxicities.
 

Efficacy and safety

All 433 randomized patients were included in the efficacy analysis, but the safety analysis included 428 patients. Three patients assigned to docetaxel and two assigned to carboplatin/pemetrexed did not receive protocol treatment.

The respective median overall survival for the docetaxel and carboplatin/pemetrexed arms was 15.5 months and 18.7 months, which translated to a stratified hazard ratio for death of 0.85, meeting the prespecified noninferiority endpoint (P = .003).

However, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was 1.056, exceeding the prespecified superiority margin of 1.000. Therefore, the combination could not be proven superior to docetaxel with regard to overall survival.

On the other hand, progression-free survival was significantly longer with carboplatin/pemetrexed. The median progression-free survival was 6.4 months in the combination arm and 4.3 months in the docetaxel arm (unstratified HR, 0.739; P < .001).

The overall response rate with carboplatin/pemetrexed was 36.8%, compared with 28.2% for docetaxel, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Adverse events that were more common in the docetaxel arm than in the combination arm included grade 3/4 decreases in white blood cell count (68.7% and 28%, respectively), grade 3/4 decreases in neutrophil count (86% and 46.3%, respectively), and febrile neutropenia (17.8% and 4.2%, respectively).

Adverse events more frequently seen with the combination than with docetaxel included anemia (29.4% and 1.9%, respectively) and decreased platelet counts (25.7% and 1.4%, respectively).

Two patients in each arm died from treatment-related causes. In the docetaxel arm, the deaths were caused by acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumonitis. In the combination arm, the deaths were caused by dyspnea and pneumonitis.

Approximately 29% of patients in each arm reported improvement in quality of life at 18 weeks, compared with baseline.

Performance status is key

A lung cancer specialist who was not involved in the study agreed with the authors that age should not be the primary determinant for choice of a treatment regimen.

“There’s a convergence of data over the last decade or so that has really clearly shown that our treatment decisions should be based on performance status much more than chronologic age, certainly for our patients who are in their 70s, and even potentially into their early 80s,” Howard (Jack) West, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

“The available data really say that patients with a good performance status who are in their 70s should be treated just like patients in their 60s and 50s,” he said.

He added, however, that for patients such as those in the study without targetable driver mutations, the best treatment would likely be immunotherapy or immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy.

“If there were a patient with a nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer where we would be thinking about carboplatin and pemetrexed, I would go further than just carbo and pemetrexed; I would give carbo and pemetrexed with pembrolizumab for most of these patients,” he said.

Dr. West said the study primarily offers reassurances about the efficacy and tolerability of the carboplatin/pemetrexed combination in patients aged 75 years and older.

The study was funded by agencies of the Japanese government. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly Japan KK, and many other companies. Dr. West disclosed consulting for Merck.

SOURCE: Okamoto I et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6828.

For patients age 75 and older with nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with chemotherapy, combination carboplatin and pemetrexed followed by pemetrexed maintenance is both effective and tolerable, suggest the results of a phase 3 trial.

The median overall survival was 18.7 months for patients randomized to carboplatin/pemetrexed and 15.5 months for patients randomized to docetaxel monotherapy.

The combination met the prespecified endpoint for noninferiority to docetaxel but was not shown to be superior in terms of overall survival, investigator Isamu Okamoto, MD, of Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, and colleagues reported in JAMA Oncology.

Still, progression-free survival was significantly longer in the carboplatin/pemetrexed arm, and dose reductions were less frequent with the combination than with docetaxel.

“The combination of carboplatin and pemetrexed followed by pemetrexed maintenance ... provides a clinically significant benefit with regard to its effectiveness and tolerability,” the investigators wrote. “This combination should therefore be considered as a standard option for treatment in this setting.”

Dr. Okamoto and colleagues noted that the lung cancer incidence in elderly patients – 75 years and older – is increasing, and cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the standard treatment for patients whose tumors do not carry targetable mutations or are resistant to immunotherapy.

“In anticipation of a further increase in the number of elderly individuals with advanced NSCLC, it will be important to develop more optimal chemotherapeutic regimens for this patient group,” the investigators wrote.

To that end, they conducted a phase 3 trial of carboplatin/pemetrexed in patients aged 75 and older with NSCLC who had not been exposed to cytotoxic chemotherapy.
 

Patients and treatment

There were 433 patients enrolled in the trial. Their median age was 78 years (range, 75-88 years), and 57.7% were men. All patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.

Patients were stratified by clinical stage (III, IV, or recurrence), sex, epidermal growth factor receptor variant status (wild-type, exon 19 deletion, L858R variant of exon 21, or unknown), and treatment center.

The patients were then randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive either intravenous docetaxel at 60 mg/m² for 60 minutes on day 1 every 3 weeks or pemetrexed at 500 mg/m² for 10 minutes followed by an infusion of carboplatin at an area under the curve of 5 for 30 minutes on day 1 every 3 weeks. The combination therapy was repeated for up to four courses and followed by 3-week courses of maintenance therapy with the same dose of pemetrexed.

Both regimens were continued until disease progression or the development of unacceptable toxicities.
 

Efficacy and safety

All 433 randomized patients were included in the efficacy analysis, but the safety analysis included 428 patients. Three patients assigned to docetaxel and two assigned to carboplatin/pemetrexed did not receive protocol treatment.

The respective median overall survival for the docetaxel and carboplatin/pemetrexed arms was 15.5 months and 18.7 months, which translated to a stratified hazard ratio for death of 0.85, meeting the prespecified noninferiority endpoint (P = .003).

However, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was 1.056, exceeding the prespecified superiority margin of 1.000. Therefore, the combination could not be proven superior to docetaxel with regard to overall survival.

On the other hand, progression-free survival was significantly longer with carboplatin/pemetrexed. The median progression-free survival was 6.4 months in the combination arm and 4.3 months in the docetaxel arm (unstratified HR, 0.739; P < .001).

The overall response rate with carboplatin/pemetrexed was 36.8%, compared with 28.2% for docetaxel, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Adverse events that were more common in the docetaxel arm than in the combination arm included grade 3/4 decreases in white blood cell count (68.7% and 28%, respectively), grade 3/4 decreases in neutrophil count (86% and 46.3%, respectively), and febrile neutropenia (17.8% and 4.2%, respectively).

Adverse events more frequently seen with the combination than with docetaxel included anemia (29.4% and 1.9%, respectively) and decreased platelet counts (25.7% and 1.4%, respectively).

Two patients in each arm died from treatment-related causes. In the docetaxel arm, the deaths were caused by acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumonitis. In the combination arm, the deaths were caused by dyspnea and pneumonitis.

Approximately 29% of patients in each arm reported improvement in quality of life at 18 weeks, compared with baseline.

Performance status is key

A lung cancer specialist who was not involved in the study agreed with the authors that age should not be the primary determinant for choice of a treatment regimen.

“There’s a convergence of data over the last decade or so that has really clearly shown that our treatment decisions should be based on performance status much more than chronologic age, certainly for our patients who are in their 70s, and even potentially into their early 80s,” Howard (Jack) West, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., said in an interview.

“The available data really say that patients with a good performance status who are in their 70s should be treated just like patients in their 60s and 50s,” he said.

He added, however, that for patients such as those in the study without targetable driver mutations, the best treatment would likely be immunotherapy or immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy.

“If there were a patient with a nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer where we would be thinking about carboplatin and pemetrexed, I would go further than just carbo and pemetrexed; I would give carbo and pemetrexed with pembrolizumab for most of these patients,” he said.

Dr. West said the study primarily offers reassurances about the efficacy and tolerability of the carboplatin/pemetrexed combination in patients aged 75 years and older.

The study was funded by agencies of the Japanese government. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly Japan KK, and many other companies. Dr. West disclosed consulting for Merck.

SOURCE: Okamoto I et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6828.