Clinical Psychiatry News

As an addiction psychiatrist specializing in the use of ketamine-assisted psychotherapy, both in patients with mood disorders and substance use disorders, I would like to offer some perspective about limits and possibilities of ketamine and esketamine.

Single infusions of ketamine targeting unipolar mood symptoms indeed yield initial 24-hour response rates of about 60%-70%, though those rates fall precipitously with time.¹ Where single treatments fall short in terms of durability of benefit, a series of multiple treatments – modeled around electroconvulsive therapy and pending a noninferiority study to compare the two² – provide for more robust and durable results.³

Esketamine nasal spray, recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, consists of one of the component stereoisomers of ketamine and is administered at first twice weekly and then less frequently with time. It now, like off-label ketamine,⁴ sees clinical use as monotherapy for MDD, as an alternative for patients who have intolerance or lack of response to first-line treatments such as SSRIs.

Ketamine, while perhaps less directly validated and more stigmatized for psychiatric use, recently has been demonstrated in a rigorous trial as noninferior in terms of antidepressant benefit at 24 hours,⁵ and a multitude of published case studies document maintenance of benefit with repeat doses over a period of months.⁶ Ketamine notably enjoys several advantages over esketamine as a treatment option: a cost one to two orders of magnitude lower⁷ (esketamine nasal spray sees a wholesale price of $600-$900 per dose), greater versatility in dose, and lack of a restrictive REMS program.⁸ The $1-$2 cost of a dose of ketamine means that the clinical barrier of prior authorizations is largely a nonissue and may in and of itself vastly improve access to this novel and efficacious treatment.

My clinical experience involves providing ketamine as an intramuscular bolus along with contemporaneous psychotherapy; such combination of medication and psychotherapy intervention may be more effective than ketamine alone⁹ and has seen impressive initial results in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, termed ketamine psychedelic therapy.¹⁰ I can affirm these hopeful initial findings in the treatment of both mood and substance use disorders, and have observed maintained response from mood symptoms for a period of 1-4 years in several patients, with such sessions provided approximately monthly.¹¹

I hope these preliminary data inform more rigorous study of long-term ketamine as a treatment for psychiatric indications.

Dr. Ryan is a board-certified psychiatrist and addiction psychiatrist who practices in Los Angeles. He has written several articles and a book chapter on ketamine. Dr. Ryan has no disclosures.

References

1. Murrough JW et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170(10):1134-42.

2. Mathew SJ et al. Contemp Clin Trials. 2019;77:19-26.

3. Singh JB et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2016;173(8):816-26.

4. Calabrese L. Int J Psychiatr Res. 2019; 2(5):1-12.

5. Correia-Melo FS et al. J Affect Disord. 2020;264:527-34.

6. Ryan WC, Marta CJ, Koek RJ. Ketamine and depression, in “The Ketamine Papers: Science, Therapy, and Transformation.” Santa Cruz, Calif.: Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, 2016.

7. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. “Esketamine for the Treatment of Treatment-Resistant Depression: Effectiveness and Value.” Final report. 2019 Jun 20.

8. Spravato package insert. Titusville, N.J.: Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

9. Dore J et al. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2019;51(2):189-98.

10. Krupitsky EM and Grinenko AY. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1997;29(2):165-83.

11. Ryan WC. Ketamine-assisted psychotherapy: Theory and chart review. KRIYA Ketamine Research Institute Conference. Hillsborough, Calif. 2019. Nov 9.

As an addiction psychiatrist specializing in the use of ketamine-assisted psychotherapy, both in patients with mood disorders and substance use disorders, I would like to offer some perspective about limits and possibilities of ketamine and esketamine.

Single infusions of ketamine targeting unipolar mood symptoms indeed yield initial 24-hour response rates of about 60%-70%, though those rates fall precipitously with time.¹ Where single treatments fall short in terms of durability of benefit, a series of multiple treatments – modeled around electroconvulsive therapy and pending a noninferiority study to compare the two² – provide for more robust and durable results.³

Esketamine nasal spray, recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, consists of one of the component stereoisomers of ketamine and is administered at first twice weekly and then less frequently with time. It now, like off-label ketamine,⁴ sees clinical use as monotherapy for MDD, as an alternative for patients who have intolerance or lack of response to first-line treatments such as SSRIs.

Ketamine, while perhaps less directly validated and more stigmatized for psychiatric use, recently has been demonstrated in a rigorous trial as noninferior in terms of antidepressant benefit at 24 hours,⁵ and a multitude of published case studies document maintenance of benefit with repeat doses over a period of months.⁶ Ketamine notably enjoys several advantages over esketamine as a treatment option: a cost one to two orders of magnitude lower⁷ (esketamine nasal spray sees a wholesale price of $600-$900 per dose), greater versatility in dose, and lack of a restrictive REMS program.⁸ The $1-$2 cost of a dose of ketamine means that the clinical barrier of prior authorizations is largely a nonissue and may in and of itself vastly improve access to this novel and efficacious treatment.

My clinical experience involves providing ketamine as an intramuscular bolus along with contemporaneous psychotherapy; such combination of medication and psychotherapy intervention may be more effective than ketamine alone⁹ and has seen impressive initial results in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, termed ketamine psychedelic therapy.¹⁰ I can affirm these hopeful initial findings in the treatment of both mood and substance use disorders, and have observed maintained response from mood symptoms for a period of 1-4 years in several patients, with such sessions provided approximately monthly.¹¹

I hope these preliminary data inform more rigorous study of long-term ketamine as a treatment for psychiatric indications.

Dr. Ryan is a board-certified psychiatrist and addiction psychiatrist who practices in Los Angeles. He has written several articles and a book chapter on ketamine. Dr. Ryan has no disclosures.

References

1. Murrough JW et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170(10):1134-42.

2. Mathew SJ et al. Contemp Clin Trials. 2019;77:19-26.

3. Singh JB et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2016;173(8):816-26.

4. Calabrese L. Int J Psychiatr Res. 2019; 2(5):1-12.

5. Correia-Melo FS et al. J Affect Disord. 2020;264:527-34.

6. Ryan WC, Marta CJ, Koek RJ. Ketamine and depression, in “The Ketamine Papers: Science, Therapy, and Transformation.” Santa Cruz, Calif.: Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, 2016.

7. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. “Esketamine for the Treatment of Treatment-Resistant Depression: Effectiveness and Value.” Final report. 2019 Jun 20.

8. Spravato package insert. Titusville, N.J.: Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

9. Dore J et al. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2019;51(2):189-98.

10. Krupitsky EM and Grinenko AY. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1997;29(2):165-83.

11. Ryan WC. Ketamine-assisted psychotherapy: Theory and chart review. KRIYA Ketamine Research Institute Conference. Hillsborough, Calif. 2019. Nov 9.

As an addiction psychiatrist specializing in the use of ketamine-assisted psychotherapy, both in patients with mood disorders and substance use disorders, I would like to offer some perspective about limits and possibilities of ketamine and esketamine.

Single infusions of ketamine targeting unipolar mood symptoms indeed yield initial 24-hour response rates of about 60%-70%, though those rates fall precipitously with time.¹ Where single treatments fall short in terms of durability of benefit, a series of multiple treatments – modeled around electroconvulsive therapy and pending a noninferiority study to compare the two² – provide for more robust and durable results.³

Esketamine nasal spray, recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, consists of one of the component stereoisomers of ketamine and is administered at first twice weekly and then less frequently with time. It now, like off-label ketamine,⁴ sees clinical use as monotherapy for MDD, as an alternative for patients who have intolerance or lack of response to first-line treatments such as SSRIs.

Ketamine, while perhaps less directly validated and more stigmatized for psychiatric use, recently has been demonstrated in a rigorous trial as noninferior in terms of antidepressant benefit at 24 hours,⁵ and a multitude of published case studies document maintenance of benefit with repeat doses over a period of months.⁶ Ketamine notably enjoys several advantages over esketamine as a treatment option: a cost one to two orders of magnitude lower⁷ (esketamine nasal spray sees a wholesale price of $600-$900 per dose), greater versatility in dose, and lack of a restrictive REMS program.⁸ The $1-$2 cost of a dose of ketamine means that the clinical barrier of prior authorizations is largely a nonissue and may in and of itself vastly improve access to this novel and efficacious treatment.

My clinical experience involves providing ketamine as an intramuscular bolus along with contemporaneous psychotherapy; such combination of medication and psychotherapy intervention may be more effective than ketamine alone⁹ and has seen impressive initial results in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, termed ketamine psychedelic therapy.¹⁰ I can affirm these hopeful initial findings in the treatment of both mood and substance use disorders, and have observed maintained response from mood symptoms for a period of 1-4 years in several patients, with such sessions provided approximately monthly.¹¹

I hope these preliminary data inform more rigorous study of long-term ketamine as a treatment for psychiatric indications.

Dr. Ryan is a board-certified psychiatrist and addiction psychiatrist who practices in Los Angeles. He has written several articles and a book chapter on ketamine. Dr. Ryan has no disclosures.

References

1. Murrough JW et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170(10):1134-42.

2. Mathew SJ et al. Contemp Clin Trials. 2019;77:19-26.

3. Singh JB et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2016;173(8):816-26.

4. Calabrese L. Int J Psychiatr Res. 2019; 2(5):1-12.

5. Correia-Melo FS et al. J Affect Disord. 2020;264:527-34.

6. Ryan WC, Marta CJ, Koek RJ. Ketamine and depression, in “The Ketamine Papers: Science, Therapy, and Transformation.” Santa Cruz, Calif.: Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, 2016.

7. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. “Esketamine for the Treatment of Treatment-Resistant Depression: Effectiveness and Value.” Final report. 2019 Jun 20.

8. Spravato package insert. Titusville, N.J.: Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

9. Dore J et al. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2019;51(2):189-98.

10. Krupitsky EM and Grinenko AY. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1997;29(2):165-83.

11. Ryan WC. Ketamine-assisted psychotherapy: Theory and chart review. KRIYA Ketamine Research Institute Conference. Hillsborough, Calif. 2019. Nov 9.

According to study of a cluster of patients in France and Switzerland, children may experience an acute cardiac decompensation from the severe inflammatory state following SARS-CoV-2 infection, termed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Treatment with immunoglobulin appears to be associated with recovery of left ventricular systolic function.

“The pediatric and cardiology communities should be acutely aware of this new disease probably related to SARS-CoV-2 infection (MIS-C), that shares similarities with Kawasaki disease but has specificities in its presentation,” researchers led by Zahra Belhadjer, MD, of Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris, wrote in a cases series report published online in Circulation “Early diagnosis and management appear to lead to favorable outcome using classical therapies. Elucidating the immune mechanisms of this disease will afford further insights for treatment and potential global prevention of severe forms.”

Over a 2-month period that coincided with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in France and Switzerland, the researchers retrospectively collected clinical, biological, therapeutic, and early-outcomes data in 35 children who were admitted to pediatric ICUs in 14 centers for cardiogenic shock, left ventricular dysfunction, and severe inflammatory state. Their median age was 10 years, all presented with a fever, 80% had gastrointestinal symptoms of abdominal pain, vomiting, or diarrhea, and 28% had comorbidities that included body mass index of greater than 25 kg/m² (17%), asthma (9%), and lupus (3%), and overweight. Only 17% presented with chest pain. The researchers observed that left ventricular ejection fraction was less than 30% in 28% of patients, and 80% required inotropic support with 28% treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). All patients presented with a severe inflammatory state evidenced by elevated C-reactive protein and d-dimer. Interleukin 6 was elevated to a median of 135 pg/mL in 13 of the patients. Elevation of troponin I was constant but mild to moderate, and NT-proBNP or BNP elevation was present in all children.

Nearly all patients 35 (88%) patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction of nasopharyngeal swab or serology. Most patients (80%) received IV inotropic support, 71% received first-line IV immunoglobulin, 65% received anticoagulation with heparin, 34% received IV steroids having been considered high-risk patients with symptoms similar to an incomplete form of Kawasaki disease, and 8% received treatment with an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist because of a persistent severe inflammatory state. Left ventricular function was restored in 71% of those discharged from the intensive care unit. No patient died, and all patients treated with ECMO were successfully weaned after a median of 4.5 days.

“Some aspects of this emerging pediatric disease (MIS-C) are similar to those of Kawasaki disease: prolonged fever, multisystem inflammation with skin rash, lymphadenopathy, diarrhea, meningism, and high levels of inflammatory biomarkers,” the researchers wrote. “But differences are important and raise the question as to whether this syndrome is Kawasaki disease with SARS-CoV-2 as the triggering agent, or represents a different syndrome (MIS-C). Kawasaki disease predominantly affects young children younger than 5 years, whereas the median age in our series is 10 years. Incomplete forms of Kawasaki disease occur in infants who may have fever as the sole clinical finding, whereas older patients are more prone to exhibit the complete form.”

They went on to note that the overlapping features between MIS-C and Kawasaki disease “may be due to similar pathophysiology. The etiologic agent of Kawasaki disease is unknown but likely to be ubiquitous, causing asymptomatic childhood infection but triggering the immunologic cascade of Kawasaki disease in genetically susceptible individuals. Please note that infection with a novel RNA virus that enters through the upper respiratory tract has been proposed to be the cause of the disease (see PLoS One. 2008 Feb 13;3:e1582 and J Infect Dis. 2011 Apr 1;203:1021-30).”

Based on the work of authors, it appears that a high index of suspicion for MIS-C is important for children who develop Kawasaki-like symptoms, David J. Goldberg, MD, said in an interview. “Although children have largely been spared from the acute respiratory presentation of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the recognition and understanding of what appears to be a postviral inflammatory response is a critical first step in developing treatment algorithms for this disease process,” said Dr. Goldberg, a board-certified attending cardiologist in the cardiac center and fetal heart program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “If inflammatory markers are elevated, particularly if there are accompanying gastrointestinal symptoms, the possibility of cardiac involvement suggests the utility of screening echocardiography. Given the potential need for inotropic or mechanical circulatory support, the presence of myocardial dysfunction dictates care in an intensive care unit capable of providing advanced therapies. While the evidence from Dr. Belhadjer’s cohort suggests that full recovery is probable, there is still much to be learned about this unique inflammatory syndrome and the alarm has rightly been sounded.”

The researchers and Dr. Goldberg reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Belhadjer Z et al. Circulation 2020 May 17; doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.120.048360.

According to study of a cluster of patients in France and Switzerland, children may experience an acute cardiac decompensation from the severe inflammatory state following SARS-CoV-2 infection, termed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Treatment with immunoglobulin appears to be associated with recovery of left ventricular systolic function.

“The pediatric and cardiology communities should be acutely aware of this new disease probably related to SARS-CoV-2 infection (MIS-C), that shares similarities with Kawasaki disease but has specificities in its presentation,” researchers led by Zahra Belhadjer, MD, of Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris, wrote in a cases series report published online in Circulation “Early diagnosis and management appear to lead to favorable outcome using classical therapies. Elucidating the immune mechanisms of this disease will afford further insights for treatment and potential global prevention of severe forms.”

Over a 2-month period that coincided with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in France and Switzerland, the researchers retrospectively collected clinical, biological, therapeutic, and early-outcomes data in 35 children who were admitted to pediatric ICUs in 14 centers for cardiogenic shock, left ventricular dysfunction, and severe inflammatory state. Their median age was 10 years, all presented with a fever, 80% had gastrointestinal symptoms of abdominal pain, vomiting, or diarrhea, and 28% had comorbidities that included body mass index of greater than 25 kg/m² (17%), asthma (9%), and lupus (3%), and overweight. Only 17% presented with chest pain. The researchers observed that left ventricular ejection fraction was less than 30% in 28% of patients, and 80% required inotropic support with 28% treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). All patients presented with a severe inflammatory state evidenced by elevated C-reactive protein and d-dimer. Interleukin 6 was elevated to a median of 135 pg/mL in 13 of the patients. Elevation of troponin I was constant but mild to moderate, and NT-proBNP or BNP elevation was present in all children.

Nearly all patients 35 (88%) patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction of nasopharyngeal swab or serology. Most patients (80%) received IV inotropic support, 71% received first-line IV immunoglobulin, 65% received anticoagulation with heparin, 34% received IV steroids having been considered high-risk patients with symptoms similar to an incomplete form of Kawasaki disease, and 8% received treatment with an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist because of a persistent severe inflammatory state. Left ventricular function was restored in 71% of those discharged from the intensive care unit. No patient died, and all patients treated with ECMO were successfully weaned after a median of 4.5 days.

“Some aspects of this emerging pediatric disease (MIS-C) are similar to those of Kawasaki disease: prolonged fever, multisystem inflammation with skin rash, lymphadenopathy, diarrhea, meningism, and high levels of inflammatory biomarkers,” the researchers wrote. “But differences are important and raise the question as to whether this syndrome is Kawasaki disease with SARS-CoV-2 as the triggering agent, or represents a different syndrome (MIS-C). Kawasaki disease predominantly affects young children younger than 5 years, whereas the median age in our series is 10 years. Incomplete forms of Kawasaki disease occur in infants who may have fever as the sole clinical finding, whereas older patients are more prone to exhibit the complete form.”

They went on to note that the overlapping features between MIS-C and Kawasaki disease “may be due to similar pathophysiology. The etiologic agent of Kawasaki disease is unknown but likely to be ubiquitous, causing asymptomatic childhood infection but triggering the immunologic cascade of Kawasaki disease in genetically susceptible individuals. Please note that infection with a novel RNA virus that enters through the upper respiratory tract has been proposed to be the cause of the disease (see PLoS One. 2008 Feb 13;3:e1582 and J Infect Dis. 2011 Apr 1;203:1021-30).”

Based on the work of authors, it appears that a high index of suspicion for MIS-C is important for children who develop Kawasaki-like symptoms, David J. Goldberg, MD, said in an interview. “Although children have largely been spared from the acute respiratory presentation of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the recognition and understanding of what appears to be a postviral inflammatory response is a critical first step in developing treatment algorithms for this disease process,” said Dr. Goldberg, a board-certified attending cardiologist in the cardiac center and fetal heart program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “If inflammatory markers are elevated, particularly if there are accompanying gastrointestinal symptoms, the possibility of cardiac involvement suggests the utility of screening echocardiography. Given the potential need for inotropic or mechanical circulatory support, the presence of myocardial dysfunction dictates care in an intensive care unit capable of providing advanced therapies. While the evidence from Dr. Belhadjer’s cohort suggests that full recovery is probable, there is still much to be learned about this unique inflammatory syndrome and the alarm has rightly been sounded.”

The researchers and Dr. Goldberg reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Belhadjer Z et al. Circulation 2020 May 17; doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.120.048360.

According to study of a cluster of patients in France and Switzerland, children may experience an acute cardiac decompensation from the severe inflammatory state following SARS-CoV-2 infection, termed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). Treatment with immunoglobulin appears to be associated with recovery of left ventricular systolic function.

“The pediatric and cardiology communities should be acutely aware of this new disease probably related to SARS-CoV-2 infection (MIS-C), that shares similarities with Kawasaki disease but has specificities in its presentation,” researchers led by Zahra Belhadjer, MD, of Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris, wrote in a cases series report published online in Circulation “Early diagnosis and management appear to lead to favorable outcome using classical therapies. Elucidating the immune mechanisms of this disease will afford further insights for treatment and potential global prevention of severe forms.”

Over a 2-month period that coincided with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in France and Switzerland, the researchers retrospectively collected clinical, biological, therapeutic, and early-outcomes data in 35 children who were admitted to pediatric ICUs in 14 centers for cardiogenic shock, left ventricular dysfunction, and severe inflammatory state. Their median age was 10 years, all presented with a fever, 80% had gastrointestinal symptoms of abdominal pain, vomiting, or diarrhea, and 28% had comorbidities that included body mass index of greater than 25 kg/m² (17%), asthma (9%), and lupus (3%), and overweight. Only 17% presented with chest pain. The researchers observed that left ventricular ejection fraction was less than 30% in 28% of patients, and 80% required inotropic support with 28% treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). All patients presented with a severe inflammatory state evidenced by elevated C-reactive protein and d-dimer. Interleukin 6 was elevated to a median of 135 pg/mL in 13 of the patients. Elevation of troponin I was constant but mild to moderate, and NT-proBNP or BNP elevation was present in all children.

Nearly all patients 35 (88%) patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection by polymerase chain reaction of nasopharyngeal swab or serology. Most patients (80%) received IV inotropic support, 71% received first-line IV immunoglobulin, 65% received anticoagulation with heparin, 34% received IV steroids having been considered high-risk patients with symptoms similar to an incomplete form of Kawasaki disease, and 8% received treatment with an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist because of a persistent severe inflammatory state. Left ventricular function was restored in 71% of those discharged from the intensive care unit. No patient died, and all patients treated with ECMO were successfully weaned after a median of 4.5 days.

“Some aspects of this emerging pediatric disease (MIS-C) are similar to those of Kawasaki disease: prolonged fever, multisystem inflammation with skin rash, lymphadenopathy, diarrhea, meningism, and high levels of inflammatory biomarkers,” the researchers wrote. “But differences are important and raise the question as to whether this syndrome is Kawasaki disease with SARS-CoV-2 as the triggering agent, or represents a different syndrome (MIS-C). Kawasaki disease predominantly affects young children younger than 5 years, whereas the median age in our series is 10 years. Incomplete forms of Kawasaki disease occur in infants who may have fever as the sole clinical finding, whereas older patients are more prone to exhibit the complete form.”

They went on to note that the overlapping features between MIS-C and Kawasaki disease “may be due to similar pathophysiology. The etiologic agent of Kawasaki disease is unknown but likely to be ubiquitous, causing asymptomatic childhood infection but triggering the immunologic cascade of Kawasaki disease in genetically susceptible individuals. Please note that infection with a novel RNA virus that enters through the upper respiratory tract has been proposed to be the cause of the disease (see PLoS One. 2008 Feb 13;3:e1582 and J Infect Dis. 2011 Apr 1;203:1021-30).”

Based on the work of authors, it appears that a high index of suspicion for MIS-C is important for children who develop Kawasaki-like symptoms, David J. Goldberg, MD, said in an interview. “Although children have largely been spared from the acute respiratory presentation of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the recognition and understanding of what appears to be a postviral inflammatory response is a critical first step in developing treatment algorithms for this disease process,” said Dr. Goldberg, a board-certified attending cardiologist in the cardiac center and fetal heart program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “If inflammatory markers are elevated, particularly if there are accompanying gastrointestinal symptoms, the possibility of cardiac involvement suggests the utility of screening echocardiography. Given the potential need for inotropic or mechanical circulatory support, the presence of myocardial dysfunction dictates care in an intensive care unit capable of providing advanced therapies. While the evidence from Dr. Belhadjer’s cohort suggests that full recovery is probable, there is still much to be learned about this unique inflammatory syndrome and the alarm has rightly been sounded.”

The researchers and Dr. Goldberg reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Belhadjer Z et al. Circulation 2020 May 17; doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.120.048360.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Remdesivir trial data published

Weeks after topline remdesivir data appeared in the press, investigators published their full experience using the drug to treat COVID-19 patients. The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed the drug reduced recovery time from 15 to 11 days, compared with placebo. Patients receiving oxygen seemed to fare best from treatment with remdesivir. “There is clear and consistent evidence of clinically significant benefit for those hospitalized on oxygen but not yet requiring mechanical ventilation,” Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said after seeing the published results. “Surprisingly, early dosing as measured from time to onset of symptoms did not seem to make a difference.” READ MORE.

FDA approves contraceptive gel

The Food and Drug Administration approved Phexxi (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) vaginal gel to prevent pregnancy in women of reproductive potential. It’s the first nonhormonal, on-demand, vaginal pH regulator contraceptive designed to maintain vaginal pH within the range of 3.5-4.5. READ MORE.

COVID-19 lessons from one cancer center

Physicians at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C., largely have been able to keep hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and continue to care for inpatients during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. How have they kept the situation managable? Strict infection control, liberal testing, and a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate were all part of the strategy. “My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious, even before the coronavirus, using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in Levine Cancer Institute’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders. READ MORE.

Convalescent plasma: Hope or hype?

There are currently more than two dozen trials of convalescent plasma in the United States and elsewhere but most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help patients on a ventilator to improve. Others researchers are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in. Meanwhile, about 2,200 hospitals are participating in an expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide. The National Institutes of Health recently said that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19. READ MORE.

New rosacea treatment guidelines

Patients with rosacea should receive treatments based on their phenotype and specific symptoms, rather than being assigned into distinct subtype categories, according to updated guidance published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The update comes from the National Rosacea Society Expert Committee and is based on a review of the evidence. Patients “shouldn’t be classified as having a certain subtype of rosacea” since “many patients have features that overlap more than one subtype,” said Diane Thiboutot, MD, lead author of the update and a professor of dermatology and associate dean of clinical and translational research education at Penn State University, Hershey. READ MORE.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Remdesivir trial data published

Weeks after topline remdesivir data appeared in the press, investigators published their full experience using the drug to treat COVID-19 patients. The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed the drug reduced recovery time from 15 to 11 days, compared with placebo. Patients receiving oxygen seemed to fare best from treatment with remdesivir. “There is clear and consistent evidence of clinically significant benefit for those hospitalized on oxygen but not yet requiring mechanical ventilation,” Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said after seeing the published results. “Surprisingly, early dosing as measured from time to onset of symptoms did not seem to make a difference.” READ MORE.

FDA approves contraceptive gel

The Food and Drug Administration approved Phexxi (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) vaginal gel to prevent pregnancy in women of reproductive potential. It’s the first nonhormonal, on-demand, vaginal pH regulator contraceptive designed to maintain vaginal pH within the range of 3.5-4.5. READ MORE.

COVID-19 lessons from one cancer center

Physicians at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C., largely have been able to keep hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and continue to care for inpatients during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. How have they kept the situation managable? Strict infection control, liberal testing, and a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate were all part of the strategy. “My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious, even before the coronavirus, using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in Levine Cancer Institute’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders. READ MORE.

Convalescent plasma: Hope or hype?

There are currently more than two dozen trials of convalescent plasma in the United States and elsewhere but most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help patients on a ventilator to improve. Others researchers are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in. Meanwhile, about 2,200 hospitals are participating in an expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide. The National Institutes of Health recently said that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19. READ MORE.

New rosacea treatment guidelines

Patients with rosacea should receive treatments based on their phenotype and specific symptoms, rather than being assigned into distinct subtype categories, according to updated guidance published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The update comes from the National Rosacea Society Expert Committee and is based on a review of the evidence. Patients “shouldn’t be classified as having a certain subtype of rosacea” since “many patients have features that overlap more than one subtype,” said Diane Thiboutot, MD, lead author of the update and a professor of dermatology and associate dean of clinical and translational research education at Penn State University, Hershey. READ MORE.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Remdesivir trial data published

Weeks after topline remdesivir data appeared in the press, investigators published their full experience using the drug to treat COVID-19 patients. The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed the drug reduced recovery time from 15 to 11 days, compared with placebo. Patients receiving oxygen seemed to fare best from treatment with remdesivir. “There is clear and consistent evidence of clinically significant benefit for those hospitalized on oxygen but not yet requiring mechanical ventilation,” Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said after seeing the published results. “Surprisingly, early dosing as measured from time to onset of symptoms did not seem to make a difference.” READ MORE.

FDA approves contraceptive gel

The Food and Drug Administration approved Phexxi (lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate) vaginal gel to prevent pregnancy in women of reproductive potential. It’s the first nonhormonal, on-demand, vaginal pH regulator contraceptive designed to maintain vaginal pH within the range of 3.5-4.5. READ MORE.

COVID-19 lessons from one cancer center

Physicians at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C., largely have been able to keep hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and continue to care for inpatients during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. How have they kept the situation managable? Strict infection control, liberal testing, and a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate were all part of the strategy. “My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious, even before the coronavirus, using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in Levine Cancer Institute’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders. READ MORE.

Convalescent plasma: Hope or hype?

There are currently more than two dozen trials of convalescent plasma in the United States and elsewhere but most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help patients on a ventilator to improve. Others researchers are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in. Meanwhile, about 2,200 hospitals are participating in an expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide. The National Institutes of Health recently said that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19. READ MORE.

New rosacea treatment guidelines

Patients with rosacea should receive treatments based on their phenotype and specific symptoms, rather than being assigned into distinct subtype categories, according to updated guidance published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The update comes from the National Rosacea Society Expert Committee and is based on a review of the evidence. Patients “shouldn’t be classified as having a certain subtype of rosacea” since “many patients have features that overlap more than one subtype,” said Diane Thiboutot, MD, lead author of the update and a professor of dermatology and associate dean of clinical and translational research education at Penn State University, Hershey. READ MORE.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Ignorance may be bliss for some. But as I sit here in my scenic social isolation on the Maine coast I find that, like most people, what I don’t know unsettles me. How is the COVID-19 virus spread? Does my wife’s wipe down of the doorknobs after I return from the grocery store really make us any less likely to contract the virus? Is wearing my homemade bandana face mask doing anything to protect me? I suspect not, but I wear it as a statement of courtesy and solidarity to my fellow community members.

zimmytws/Thinkstock

Does the 6-foot rule make any sense? I’ve read that it is based on a study dating back to the 1930s. I’ve seen images of the 25-foot droplet plume blasting out from a sneeze and understand that, as a bicyclist, I may be generating a shower of droplets in my wake. But, are those droplets a threat to anyone I pedal by if I am symptom free? What does being a carrier mean when we are talking about COVID-19?

What makes me more vulnerable to this particular virus as an apparently healthy septuagenarian? What collection of misfortunes have fallen on those younger victims of the pandemic? How often was it genetic?

Of course, none of us has the information yet that can provide us answers. This vacuum has attracted scores of “experts” bold enough or careless enough to venture an opinion. They may have also issued a caveat, but how often have the media failed to include it in the report or buried it in the fine print at the end of the story?

My discomfort with this information void has left me and you and everyone else to our imaginations to craft our own explanations. So, I try to piece together a construct based on what I can glean from what I read and see in the news because like most people I fortunately have no first-hand information about even a single case. The number of deaths is horrifying, but may not have hit close to home and given most of us a real personal sense of the illness and its character.

Maine is a small state with just over a million inhabitants, and most of us have some connection to one another. It may be that a person is the second cousin of someone who used to live 2 miles down the road. But, there is some feeling of familiarity. We have had deaths related to COVID-19, but very scanty information other than the county about where they occurred and whether the victim was a resident of an extended care facility. We are told very little if any details about exposure as officials invoke HIPAA regulations that leave us in the dark. Other than one vague reference to a “traveling salesman” who may have introduced the virus to several nursing homes, there has been very little information about how the virus may have been spread here in Maine. Even national reports of the deaths of high-profile entertainers and retired athletes are usually draped in the same haze of privacy.

Most of us don’t need to know the names and street addresses of the victims but a few anonymous narratives that include some general information on how epidemiologists believe clusters began and propagated would help us understand our risks with just a glimmer of clarity.

Of course the epidemiologists may not have the answers we are seeking because they too are struggling to untangle connections hampered by concerns of privacy. There is no question that privacy must remain an important part of the physician-patient relationship. But a pandemic has thrown us into a situation where common sense demands that HIPAA be interpreted with an emphasis on the greater good. Finding that balance between privacy and public knowledge will continue to be one of our greatest challenges.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Ignorance may be bliss for some. But as I sit here in my scenic social isolation on the Maine coast I find that, like most people, what I don’t know unsettles me. How is the COVID-19 virus spread? Does my wife’s wipe down of the doorknobs after I return from the grocery store really make us any less likely to contract the virus? Is wearing my homemade bandana face mask doing anything to protect me? I suspect not, but I wear it as a statement of courtesy and solidarity to my fellow community members.

zimmytws/Thinkstock

Does the 6-foot rule make any sense? I’ve read that it is based on a study dating back to the 1930s. I’ve seen images of the 25-foot droplet plume blasting out from a sneeze and understand that, as a bicyclist, I may be generating a shower of droplets in my wake. But, are those droplets a threat to anyone I pedal by if I am symptom free? What does being a carrier mean when we are talking about COVID-19?

What makes me more vulnerable to this particular virus as an apparently healthy septuagenarian? What collection of misfortunes have fallen on those younger victims of the pandemic? How often was it genetic?

Of course, none of us has the information yet that can provide us answers. This vacuum has attracted scores of “experts” bold enough or careless enough to venture an opinion. They may have also issued a caveat, but how often have the media failed to include it in the report or buried it in the fine print at the end of the story?

My discomfort with this information void has left me and you and everyone else to our imaginations to craft our own explanations. So, I try to piece together a construct based on what I can glean from what I read and see in the news because like most people I fortunately have no first-hand information about even a single case. The number of deaths is horrifying, but may not have hit close to home and given most of us a real personal sense of the illness and its character.

Maine is a small state with just over a million inhabitants, and most of us have some connection to one another. It may be that a person is the second cousin of someone who used to live 2 miles down the road. But, there is some feeling of familiarity. We have had deaths related to COVID-19, but very scanty information other than the county about where they occurred and whether the victim was a resident of an extended care facility. We are told very little if any details about exposure as officials invoke HIPAA regulations that leave us in the dark. Other than one vague reference to a “traveling salesman” who may have introduced the virus to several nursing homes, there has been very little information about how the virus may have been spread here in Maine. Even national reports of the deaths of high-profile entertainers and retired athletes are usually draped in the same haze of privacy.

Most of us don’t need to know the names and street addresses of the victims but a few anonymous narratives that include some general information on how epidemiologists believe clusters began and propagated would help us understand our risks with just a glimmer of clarity.

Of course the epidemiologists may not have the answers we are seeking because they too are struggling to untangle connections hampered by concerns of privacy. There is no question that privacy must remain an important part of the physician-patient relationship. But a pandemic has thrown us into a situation where common sense demands that HIPAA be interpreted with an emphasis on the greater good. Finding that balance between privacy and public knowledge will continue to be one of our greatest challenges.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Ignorance may be bliss for some. But as I sit here in my scenic social isolation on the Maine coast I find that, like most people, what I don’t know unsettles me. How is the COVID-19 virus spread? Does my wife’s wipe down of the doorknobs after I return from the grocery store really make us any less likely to contract the virus? Is wearing my homemade bandana face mask doing anything to protect me? I suspect not, but I wear it as a statement of courtesy and solidarity to my fellow community members.

zimmytws/Thinkstock

Does the 6-foot rule make any sense? I’ve read that it is based on a study dating back to the 1930s. I’ve seen images of the 25-foot droplet plume blasting out from a sneeze and understand that, as a bicyclist, I may be generating a shower of droplets in my wake. But, are those droplets a threat to anyone I pedal by if I am symptom free? What does being a carrier mean when we are talking about COVID-19?

What makes me more vulnerable to this particular virus as an apparently healthy septuagenarian? What collection of misfortunes have fallen on those younger victims of the pandemic? How often was it genetic?

Of course, none of us has the information yet that can provide us answers. This vacuum has attracted scores of “experts” bold enough or careless enough to venture an opinion. They may have also issued a caveat, but how often have the media failed to include it in the report or buried it in the fine print at the end of the story?

My discomfort with this information void has left me and you and everyone else to our imaginations to craft our own explanations. So, I try to piece together a construct based on what I can glean from what I read and see in the news because like most people I fortunately have no first-hand information about even a single case. The number of deaths is horrifying, but may not have hit close to home and given most of us a real personal sense of the illness and its character.

Maine is a small state with just over a million inhabitants, and most of us have some connection to one another. It may be that a person is the second cousin of someone who used to live 2 miles down the road. But, there is some feeling of familiarity. We have had deaths related to COVID-19, but very scanty information other than the county about where they occurred and whether the victim was a resident of an extended care facility. We are told very little if any details about exposure as officials invoke HIPAA regulations that leave us in the dark. Other than one vague reference to a “traveling salesman” who may have introduced the virus to several nursing homes, there has been very little information about how the virus may have been spread here in Maine. Even national reports of the deaths of high-profile entertainers and retired athletes are usually draped in the same haze of privacy.

Most of us don’t need to know the names and street addresses of the victims but a few anonymous narratives that include some general information on how epidemiologists believe clusters began and propagated would help us understand our risks with just a glimmer of clarity.

Of course the epidemiologists may not have the answers we are seeking because they too are struggling to untangle connections hampered by concerns of privacy. There is no question that privacy must remain an important part of the physician-patient relationship. But a pandemic has thrown us into a situation where common sense demands that HIPAA be interpreted with an emphasis on the greater good. Finding that balance between privacy and public knowledge will continue to be one of our greatest challenges.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Angiotensin receptor blocker therapy was not associated with any hint of increased risk of suicide, compared with treatment with an ACE inhibitor, in a large national Veterans Affairs study, Kallisse R. Dent, MPH, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.

The VA study thus fails to confirm the results of an earlier Canadian, population-based, nested case-control study, which concluded that exposure to an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) was independently associated with an adjusted 63% increase risk of death by suicide, compared with ACE inhibitor users. The Canadian study drew considerable attention, noted Ms. Dent, of the VA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention.

The Canadian study included 964 Ontario residents who died by suicide within 100 days of receiving an ACE inhibitor or ARB. They were matched by age, sex, and the presence of hypertension and diabetes to 3,856 controls, all of whom were on an ACE inhibitor or ARB for the 100 days prior to the patient’s suicide. All subjects were aged at least 66 years.

The Canadian investigators recommended that ACE inhibitors should be used instead of ARBs whenever possible, particularly in patients with major mental illness (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2;2[10]:e1913304). This was a study that demanded replication because of the enormous potential impact that recommendation could have upon clinical care. ACE inhibitors and ARBs are among the most widely prescribed of all medications, with approved indications for treatment of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and heart failure, Ms. Dent observed.

The Canadian investigators noted that a differential effect on suicide risk for the two drug classes was mechanistically plausible. Those drugs can cross the blood-brain barrier to varying extents, where they could conceivably interfere with central angiotensin II activity, which in turn could result in increased activity of substance P, as well as anxiety and stress secondary to increased activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Ms. Dent and coinvestigators harnessed VA suicide surveillance resources to conduct a nested case-control study that included all 1,311 deaths by suicide during 2015-2017 among patients in the VA system who had an active prescription for an ACE inhibitor or ARB during the 100 days immediately prior to death. As in the Canadian study, these individuals were matched 4:1 to 5,243 controls who did not die by suicide and had an active prescription for an ARB or ACE inhibitor during the 100 days prior to the date of suicide.

Among the veterans who died by suicide, 19.6% were on an ARB and 80.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. Those rates were not significantly different from the rates found in controls, 21.6% of whom were on an ARB and 78.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for the same potential confounders included in the Canadian study – including Charlson Comorbidity Index score; drug use; and diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, coronary artery disease, stroke, and chronic liver or kidney disease – being on an ARB was associated with a 9% lower risk of suicide than being on an ACE inhibitor, a nonsignificant difference.

A point of pride for the investigators was that, because of the VA’s sophisticated patient care database and comprehensive suicide analytics, the VA researchers were able to very quickly determine the lack of generalizability of the Canadian findings to a different patient population. Indeed, the entire VA case-control study was completed in less than 2 months.

Ms. Dent reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

[email protected]

Angiotensin receptor blocker therapy was not associated with any hint of increased risk of suicide, compared with treatment with an ACE inhibitor, in a large national Veterans Affairs study, Kallisse R. Dent, MPH, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.

The VA study thus fails to confirm the results of an earlier Canadian, population-based, nested case-control study, which concluded that exposure to an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) was independently associated with an adjusted 63% increase risk of death by suicide, compared with ACE inhibitor users. The Canadian study drew considerable attention, noted Ms. Dent, of the VA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention.

The Canadian study included 964 Ontario residents who died by suicide within 100 days of receiving an ACE inhibitor or ARB. They were matched by age, sex, and the presence of hypertension and diabetes to 3,856 controls, all of whom were on an ACE inhibitor or ARB for the 100 days prior to the patient’s suicide. All subjects were aged at least 66 years.

The Canadian investigators recommended that ACE inhibitors should be used instead of ARBs whenever possible, particularly in patients with major mental illness (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2;2[10]:e1913304). This was a study that demanded replication because of the enormous potential impact that recommendation could have upon clinical care. ACE inhibitors and ARBs are among the most widely prescribed of all medications, with approved indications for treatment of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and heart failure, Ms. Dent observed.

The Canadian investigators noted that a differential effect on suicide risk for the two drug classes was mechanistically plausible. Those drugs can cross the blood-brain barrier to varying extents, where they could conceivably interfere with central angiotensin II activity, which in turn could result in increased activity of substance P, as well as anxiety and stress secondary to increased activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Ms. Dent and coinvestigators harnessed VA suicide surveillance resources to conduct a nested case-control study that included all 1,311 deaths by suicide during 2015-2017 among patients in the VA system who had an active prescription for an ACE inhibitor or ARB during the 100 days immediately prior to death. As in the Canadian study, these individuals were matched 4:1 to 5,243 controls who did not die by suicide and had an active prescription for an ARB or ACE inhibitor during the 100 days prior to the date of suicide.

Among the veterans who died by suicide, 19.6% were on an ARB and 80.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. Those rates were not significantly different from the rates found in controls, 21.6% of whom were on an ARB and 78.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for the same potential confounders included in the Canadian study – including Charlson Comorbidity Index score; drug use; and diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, coronary artery disease, stroke, and chronic liver or kidney disease – being on an ARB was associated with a 9% lower risk of suicide than being on an ACE inhibitor, a nonsignificant difference.

A point of pride for the investigators was that, because of the VA’s sophisticated patient care database and comprehensive suicide analytics, the VA researchers were able to very quickly determine the lack of generalizability of the Canadian findings to a different patient population. Indeed, the entire VA case-control study was completed in less than 2 months.

Ms. Dent reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

[email protected]

Angiotensin receptor blocker therapy was not associated with any hint of increased risk of suicide, compared with treatment with an ACE inhibitor, in a large national Veterans Affairs study, Kallisse R. Dent, MPH, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Suicidology.

The VA study thus fails to confirm the results of an earlier Canadian, population-based, nested case-control study, which concluded that exposure to an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) was independently associated with an adjusted 63% increase risk of death by suicide, compared with ACE inhibitor users. The Canadian study drew considerable attention, noted Ms. Dent, of the VA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention.

The Canadian study included 964 Ontario residents who died by suicide within 100 days of receiving an ACE inhibitor or ARB. They were matched by age, sex, and the presence of hypertension and diabetes to 3,856 controls, all of whom were on an ACE inhibitor or ARB for the 100 days prior to the patient’s suicide. All subjects were aged at least 66 years.

The Canadian investigators recommended that ACE inhibitors should be used instead of ARBs whenever possible, particularly in patients with major mental illness (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2;2[10]:e1913304). This was a study that demanded replication because of the enormous potential impact that recommendation could have upon clinical care. ACE inhibitors and ARBs are among the most widely prescribed of all medications, with approved indications for treatment of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and heart failure, Ms. Dent observed.

The Canadian investigators noted that a differential effect on suicide risk for the two drug classes was mechanistically plausible. Those drugs can cross the blood-brain barrier to varying extents, where they could conceivably interfere with central angiotensin II activity, which in turn could result in increased activity of substance P, as well as anxiety and stress secondary to increased activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Ms. Dent and coinvestigators harnessed VA suicide surveillance resources to conduct a nested case-control study that included all 1,311 deaths by suicide during 2015-2017 among patients in the VA system who had an active prescription for an ACE inhibitor or ARB during the 100 days immediately prior to death. As in the Canadian study, these individuals were matched 4:1 to 5,243 controls who did not die by suicide and had an active prescription for an ARB or ACE inhibitor during the 100 days prior to the date of suicide.

Among the veterans who died by suicide, 19.6% were on an ARB and 80.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. Those rates were not significantly different from the rates found in controls, 21.6% of whom were on an ARB and 78.4% were on an ACE inhibitor. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for the same potential confounders included in the Canadian study – including Charlson Comorbidity Index score; drug use; and diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, coronary artery disease, stroke, and chronic liver or kidney disease – being on an ARB was associated with a 9% lower risk of suicide than being on an ACE inhibitor, a nonsignificant difference.

A point of pride for the investigators was that, because of the VA’s sophisticated patient care database and comprehensive suicide analytics, the VA researchers were able to very quickly determine the lack of generalizability of the Canadian findings to a different patient population. Indeed, the entire VA case-control study was completed in less than 2 months.

Ms. Dent reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

[email protected]

On March 31, soon after the Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of antibody-packed plasma from recovered patients with COVID-19, Marisa Leuzzi became the first donor at an American Red Cross center. She hoped it could help her aunt, Renee Bannister, who was failing after 3 weeks on a ventilator at Virtua Hospital in Voorhees, N.J.

It may have worked; 11 days after receiving the plasma, Ms. Bannister was weaned off the ventilator and she is now awake and speaking, said Red Cross spokesperson Stephanie Rendon.

This kind of anecdote is fueling demand for the therapy, which can be provided through an expanded access program led by the Mayo Clinic, backed by the FDA, and the plasma paid for by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. But while this program is collecting safety and outcomes data, it’s not a randomized, controlled trial.

Others, however, are pursuing that data. At least a dozen researchers are investigating the potential of plasma – both as a treatment and whether it could act as a stand-in for a vaccine until one is developed.

“One of the things I don’t want this to be is the flavor of the month,” Shmuel Shoham, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview.

Dr. Shoham, principal investigator for a study evaluating convalescent plasma to prevent the infection in high-risk individuals, said some clinicians, desperate for any treatment, have tried potential therapies such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir without evidence of safety or efficacy in COVID-19.

The National Institutes of Health recently said something similar for convalescent plasma, that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19.

But plasma has promise, according to a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine’s Bloomberg Distinguished Professor, Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, in Baltimore, and Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, a professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. They lay out the case for convalescent plasma in an article published online March 13 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Passive antibody therapy, they wrote, has been used to stem polio, measles, mumps, and influenza, and more recently has shown some success against SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

“The special attraction of this modality of treatment is that, unlike vaccines or newly developed drugs, it could, in principle, be made available very rapidly,” said researchers with the National COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Project, which includes physicians and scientists from 57 institutions in 46 states. But where principle veers from reality is in availability of the plasma itself, and donors are in short supply.
 

Aiming to prevent infection

So far, the FDA has approved 12 plasma trials – including Dr. Shoham’s – and the NIH’s clinicaltrials.gov lists more than two dozen convalescent plasma studies in the United States and elsewhere.

Most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help those on a ventilator improve. Two others, one at Johns Hopkins and one at Stanford (Calif.) Hospital are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in.

“A general principle of passive antibody therapy is that it is more effective when used for prophylaxis than for treatment of disease,” Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski wrote.

Stanford’s randomized, double-blind study will evaluate regular versus convalescent plasma in ED patients who are not sick enough to require hospitalization.

The Johns Hopkins trial, which aims to protect against infection in the first place, will begin at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and at Hopkins-affiliated hospitals throughout Maryland, Dr. Shoham said. He hopes it will expand nationwide eventually, and said that they expect to enroll the first patients soon.

To start, the prevention study will enroll only 150 patients, each of whom must have had close contact with someone who has COVID-19 within the previous 120 hours and be asymptomatic. The number of subjects is small, compared with the trial size of other potential therapies, and an issue, Shoham said, “that keeps me up at night.” But finding thousands of enrollees for plasma studies is hard, in part because it’s so difficult to recruit donors.

Participants will receive normal plasma (which will act as a placebo) or convalescent plasma.

The primary endpoint is cumulative incidence of COVID-19, defined as symptoms and a polymerase chain reaction–positive test; participants will be tracked for 90 days. Hospitals and health care workers could then decide if they want to use the therapy, he said.

The study will not answer whether participants will continue to have antibodies beyond the 90 days. Convalescent plasma is given as a rapid response to an emergent pathogen – a short-term boost of immunity rather than a long-term therapeutic.
 

What can we learn from expanded access?

Meanwhile, some 2,200 hospitals are participating in the expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide; more than 9,000 patients had received infusions at press time.

One participant is Northwell Health, a 23-hospital system that sprawls across the U.S. COVID epicenter: four of the five boroughs of New York City and Long Island.

Convalescent plasma is an in-demand therapy, said Christina Brennan, MD, vice president of clinical research at Northwell. “We get patients, family members, they say my family member is at X hospital – if it’s not being offered there, can you have them transferred?” she said in an interview.

When Northwell – through the New York Blood Bank – opened up donor registration, 800 people signed up in the first 24 hours, Dr. Brennan said. As of mid-May, 527 patients had received a transfusion.
 

Who’s the best donor and when should donation occur?

The Red Cross, hospitals, and independent blood banks are all soliciting donors, who can sign up at the Red Cross website. The FDA recommends that donors have a history of COVID-19 as confirmed by molecular or antibody testing, be symptom free for 14 days, have a negative follow-up molecular test, and be virus free at the time of collection. The FDA also suggests measuring a donor’s SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers, if available, with a recommendation of at least 1:160.

But questions remain, such as whether there is a theoretical risk for antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection with SARS-CoV-2. “Antibodies to one type of coronavirus could enhance infection to another viral strain,” of coronavirus, Dr. Casadevall wrote. ADE has been observed in both severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and MERS.

The other risk is that donors may still be shedding active virus. While the FDA suggests that donors are unlikely to still be infectious 14 days after infection, that is as of yet unproven. Both COVID-19 diagnostics and antibody tests have high rates of false negatives, which raises the specter that infection could be spread via the plasma donation.

Daniele Focosi, MD, PhD, from Pisa (Italy) University Hospital and colleagues raise that concern in a preprint review on convalescent plasma in COVID-19. “Although the recipient is already infected, theoretically transmission of more infectious particles could worsen clinical conditions,” they wrote, noting that “such a concern can be somewhat reduced by treatment with modern pathogen inactivation techniques.”

No evidence exists that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through blood, but “we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Shoham said in an interview. A reassuring point: Even those with severe infection do not have viral RNA in their blood, he said, adding, “We don’t think there’s going to be viral transmission of this particular virus with transfusion.”

For another highly infectious pathogen, the Ebola virus, the World Health Organization recommended in 2014 that potential plasma donors wait at least 28 days after infection.

It’s also not known how long SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist in the blood; longer viability could mean a longer donation window. Dr. Focosi noted that a previous Chinese study had shown that SARS-specific antibodies in people infected with the first SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1, persisted for 2 years.

Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Shoham has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On March 31, soon after the Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of antibody-packed plasma from recovered patients with COVID-19, Marisa Leuzzi became the first donor at an American Red Cross center. She hoped it could help her aunt, Renee Bannister, who was failing after 3 weeks on a ventilator at Virtua Hospital in Voorhees, N.J.

It may have worked; 11 days after receiving the plasma, Ms. Bannister was weaned off the ventilator and she is now awake and speaking, said Red Cross spokesperson Stephanie Rendon.

This kind of anecdote is fueling demand for the therapy, which can be provided through an expanded access program led by the Mayo Clinic, backed by the FDA, and the plasma paid for by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. But while this program is collecting safety and outcomes data, it’s not a randomized, controlled trial.

Others, however, are pursuing that data. At least a dozen researchers are investigating the potential of plasma – both as a treatment and whether it could act as a stand-in for a vaccine until one is developed.

“One of the things I don’t want this to be is the flavor of the month,” Shmuel Shoham, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview.

Dr. Shoham, principal investigator for a study evaluating convalescent plasma to prevent the infection in high-risk individuals, said some clinicians, desperate for any treatment, have tried potential therapies such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir without evidence of safety or efficacy in COVID-19.

The National Institutes of Health recently said something similar for convalescent plasma, that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19.

But plasma has promise, according to a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine’s Bloomberg Distinguished Professor, Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, in Baltimore, and Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, a professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. They lay out the case for convalescent plasma in an article published online March 13 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Passive antibody therapy, they wrote, has been used to stem polio, measles, mumps, and influenza, and more recently has shown some success against SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

“The special attraction of this modality of treatment is that, unlike vaccines or newly developed drugs, it could, in principle, be made available very rapidly,” said researchers with the National COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Project, which includes physicians and scientists from 57 institutions in 46 states. But where principle veers from reality is in availability of the plasma itself, and donors are in short supply.
 

Aiming to prevent infection

So far, the FDA has approved 12 plasma trials – including Dr. Shoham’s – and the NIH’s clinicaltrials.gov lists more than two dozen convalescent plasma studies in the United States and elsewhere.

Most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help those on a ventilator improve. Two others, one at Johns Hopkins and one at Stanford (Calif.) Hospital are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in.

“A general principle of passive antibody therapy is that it is more effective when used for prophylaxis than for treatment of disease,” Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski wrote.

Stanford’s randomized, double-blind study will evaluate regular versus convalescent plasma in ED patients who are not sick enough to require hospitalization.

The Johns Hopkins trial, which aims to protect against infection in the first place, will begin at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and at Hopkins-affiliated hospitals throughout Maryland, Dr. Shoham said. He hopes it will expand nationwide eventually, and said that they expect to enroll the first patients soon.

To start, the prevention study will enroll only 150 patients, each of whom must have had close contact with someone who has COVID-19 within the previous 120 hours and be asymptomatic. The number of subjects is small, compared with the trial size of other potential therapies, and an issue, Shoham said, “that keeps me up at night.” But finding thousands of enrollees for plasma studies is hard, in part because it’s so difficult to recruit donors.

Participants will receive normal plasma (which will act as a placebo) or convalescent plasma.

The primary endpoint is cumulative incidence of COVID-19, defined as symptoms and a polymerase chain reaction–positive test; participants will be tracked for 90 days. Hospitals and health care workers could then decide if they want to use the therapy, he said.

The study will not answer whether participants will continue to have antibodies beyond the 90 days. Convalescent plasma is given as a rapid response to an emergent pathogen – a short-term boost of immunity rather than a long-term therapeutic.
 

What can we learn from expanded access?

Meanwhile, some 2,200 hospitals are participating in the expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide; more than 9,000 patients had received infusions at press time.

One participant is Northwell Health, a 23-hospital system that sprawls across the U.S. COVID epicenter: four of the five boroughs of New York City and Long Island.

Convalescent plasma is an in-demand therapy, said Christina Brennan, MD, vice president of clinical research at Northwell. “We get patients, family members, they say my family member is at X hospital – if it’s not being offered there, can you have them transferred?” she said in an interview.

When Northwell – through the New York Blood Bank – opened up donor registration, 800 people signed up in the first 24 hours, Dr. Brennan said. As of mid-May, 527 patients had received a transfusion.
 

Who’s the best donor and when should donation occur?

The Red Cross, hospitals, and independent blood banks are all soliciting donors, who can sign up at the Red Cross website. The FDA recommends that donors have a history of COVID-19 as confirmed by molecular or antibody testing, be symptom free for 14 days, have a negative follow-up molecular test, and be virus free at the time of collection. The FDA also suggests measuring a donor’s SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers, if available, with a recommendation of at least 1:160.

But questions remain, such as whether there is a theoretical risk for antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection with SARS-CoV-2. “Antibodies to one type of coronavirus could enhance infection to another viral strain,” of coronavirus, Dr. Casadevall wrote. ADE has been observed in both severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and MERS.

The other risk is that donors may still be shedding active virus. While the FDA suggests that donors are unlikely to still be infectious 14 days after infection, that is as of yet unproven. Both COVID-19 diagnostics and antibody tests have high rates of false negatives, which raises the specter that infection could be spread via the plasma donation.

Daniele Focosi, MD, PhD, from Pisa (Italy) University Hospital and colleagues raise that concern in a preprint review on convalescent plasma in COVID-19. “Although the recipient is already infected, theoretically transmission of more infectious particles could worsen clinical conditions,” they wrote, noting that “such a concern can be somewhat reduced by treatment with modern pathogen inactivation techniques.”

No evidence exists that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through blood, but “we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Shoham said in an interview. A reassuring point: Even those with severe infection do not have viral RNA in their blood, he said, adding, “We don’t think there’s going to be viral transmission of this particular virus with transfusion.”

For another highly infectious pathogen, the Ebola virus, the World Health Organization recommended in 2014 that potential plasma donors wait at least 28 days after infection.

It’s also not known how long SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist in the blood; longer viability could mean a longer donation window. Dr. Focosi noted that a previous Chinese study had shown that SARS-specific antibodies in people infected with the first SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1, persisted for 2 years.

Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Shoham has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On March 31, soon after the Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use of antibody-packed plasma from recovered patients with COVID-19, Marisa Leuzzi became the first donor at an American Red Cross center. She hoped it could help her aunt, Renee Bannister, who was failing after 3 weeks on a ventilator at Virtua Hospital in Voorhees, N.J.

It may have worked; 11 days after receiving the plasma, Ms. Bannister was weaned off the ventilator and she is now awake and speaking, said Red Cross spokesperson Stephanie Rendon.

This kind of anecdote is fueling demand for the therapy, which can be provided through an expanded access program led by the Mayo Clinic, backed by the FDA, and the plasma paid for by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. But while this program is collecting safety and outcomes data, it’s not a randomized, controlled trial.

Others, however, are pursuing that data. At least a dozen researchers are investigating the potential of plasma – both as a treatment and whether it could act as a stand-in for a vaccine until one is developed.

“One of the things I don’t want this to be is the flavor of the month,” Shmuel Shoham, MD, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview.

Dr. Shoham, principal investigator for a study evaluating convalescent plasma to prevent the infection in high-risk individuals, said some clinicians, desperate for any treatment, have tried potential therapies such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir without evidence of safety or efficacy in COVID-19.

The National Institutes of Health recently said something similar for convalescent plasma, that “there are insufficient clinical data to recommend either for or against” its use for COVID-19.

But plasma has promise, according to a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine’s Bloomberg Distinguished Professor, Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, in Baltimore, and Liise-anne Pirofski, MD, a professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. They lay out the case for convalescent plasma in an article published online March 13 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Passive antibody therapy, they wrote, has been used to stem polio, measles, mumps, and influenza, and more recently has shown some success against SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

“The special attraction of this modality of treatment is that, unlike vaccines or newly developed drugs, it could, in principle, be made available very rapidly,” said researchers with the National COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Project, which includes physicians and scientists from 57 institutions in 46 states. But where principle veers from reality is in availability of the plasma itself, and donors are in short supply.
 

Aiming to prevent infection

So far, the FDA has approved 12 plasma trials – including Dr. Shoham’s – and the NIH’s clinicaltrials.gov lists more than two dozen convalescent plasma studies in the United States and elsewhere.

Most are single-arm trials to determine if one infusion can decrease the need for intubation or help those on a ventilator improve. Two others, one at Johns Hopkins and one at Stanford (Calif.) Hospital are investigating whether convalescent plasma might be used before severe disease sets in.

“A general principle of passive antibody therapy is that it is more effective when used for prophylaxis than for treatment of disease,” Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski wrote.

Stanford’s randomized, double-blind study will evaluate regular versus convalescent plasma in ED patients who are not sick enough to require hospitalization.

The Johns Hopkins trial, which aims to protect against infection in the first place, will begin at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and at Hopkins-affiliated hospitals throughout Maryland, Dr. Shoham said. He hopes it will expand nationwide eventually, and said that they expect to enroll the first patients soon.

To start, the prevention study will enroll only 150 patients, each of whom must have had close contact with someone who has COVID-19 within the previous 120 hours and be asymptomatic. The number of subjects is small, compared with the trial size of other potential therapies, and an issue, Shoham said, “that keeps me up at night.” But finding thousands of enrollees for plasma studies is hard, in part because it’s so difficult to recruit donors.

Participants will receive normal plasma (which will act as a placebo) or convalescent plasma.

The primary endpoint is cumulative incidence of COVID-19, defined as symptoms and a polymerase chain reaction–positive test; participants will be tracked for 90 days. Hospitals and health care workers could then decide if they want to use the therapy, he said.

The study will not answer whether participants will continue to have antibodies beyond the 90 days. Convalescent plasma is given as a rapid response to an emergent pathogen – a short-term boost of immunity rather than a long-term therapeutic.
 

What can we learn from expanded access?

Meanwhile, some 2,200 hospitals are participating in the expanded access program being led by the Mayo Clinic nationwide; more than 9,000 patients had received infusions at press time.

One participant is Northwell Health, a 23-hospital system that sprawls across the U.S. COVID epicenter: four of the five boroughs of New York City and Long Island.

Convalescent plasma is an in-demand therapy, said Christina Brennan, MD, vice president of clinical research at Northwell. “We get patients, family members, they say my family member is at X hospital – if it’s not being offered there, can you have them transferred?” she said in an interview.

When Northwell – through the New York Blood Bank – opened up donor registration, 800 people signed up in the first 24 hours, Dr. Brennan said. As of mid-May, 527 patients had received a transfusion.
 

Who’s the best donor and when should donation occur?

The Red Cross, hospitals, and independent blood banks are all soliciting donors, who can sign up at the Red Cross website. The FDA recommends that donors have a history of COVID-19 as confirmed by molecular or antibody testing, be symptom free for 14 days, have a negative follow-up molecular test, and be virus free at the time of collection. The FDA also suggests measuring a donor’s SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers, if available, with a recommendation of at least 1:160.

But questions remain, such as whether there is a theoretical risk for antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection with SARS-CoV-2. “Antibodies to one type of coronavirus could enhance infection to another viral strain,” of coronavirus, Dr. Casadevall wrote. ADE has been observed in both severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and MERS.

The other risk is that donors may still be shedding active virus. While the FDA suggests that donors are unlikely to still be infectious 14 days after infection, that is as of yet unproven. Both COVID-19 diagnostics and antibody tests have high rates of false negatives, which raises the specter that infection could be spread via the plasma donation.

Daniele Focosi, MD, PhD, from Pisa (Italy) University Hospital and colleagues raise that concern in a preprint review on convalescent plasma in COVID-19. “Although the recipient is already infected, theoretically transmission of more infectious particles could worsen clinical conditions,” they wrote, noting that “such a concern can be somewhat reduced by treatment with modern pathogen inactivation techniques.”

No evidence exists that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through blood, but “we don’t know for sure,” Dr. Shoham said in an interview. A reassuring point: Even those with severe infection do not have viral RNA in their blood, he said, adding, “We don’t think there’s going to be viral transmission of this particular virus with transfusion.”

For another highly infectious pathogen, the Ebola virus, the World Health Organization recommended in 2014 that potential plasma donors wait at least 28 days after infection.

It’s also not known how long SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist in the blood; longer viability could mean a longer donation window. Dr. Focosi noted that a previous Chinese study had shown that SARS-specific antibodies in people infected with the first SARS virus, SARS-CoV-1, persisted for 2 years.

Dr. Casadevall and Dr. Pirofski have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Shoham has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Much-anticipated results from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ clinical trial of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggest remdesivir shortens the disease course for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The agency reported initial promising results from the study earlier this month, which prompted the Food and Drug Administration to issue an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the drug, but the full data and results have not been widely available until now.

In the study of 1,063 patients, the researchers found patients who received a 10-day course of remdesivir had a reduced recovery time of 11 days, compared with 15 days to recovery in the group that received a placebo. The findings also suggest remdesivir should be started, if possible, before patients have such severe pulmonary disease that they require mechanical ventilation, according to the study authors.

The published results are “completely consistent” with the NIAID’s earlier announcement, H. Clifford Lane, MD, deputy director for clinical research and special projects at the NIAID, said in an interview. “The benefit appeared to be the greatest for the patients who are hospitalized with severe disease who require supplemental oxygen.”

Given the limited supply of remdesivir, physicians have been eager to see the full data to ensure they use the drug most effectively, Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. Hospitals in states across the country, including New York, Michigan, and Washington, have received limited supplies of the drug in the last couple of weeks since the FDA’s authorization.

“I am losing my patience waiting for #remdesivir data. I was willing to give them a week to verify the numbers, triple proof the tables, cautiously frame conclusions. But it’s gone on too long. We are rationing with no rationale. We are floating on whisps [sic] of data, adrift,” Kate Stephenson, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote on Twitter May 18. After reading the paper, she tweeted Friday evening that she was “relieved to see convincing benefit – I was starting to worry!”

In the midst of a public health crisis, however, it is not unusual to make an announcement about trial results before the full dataset has been analyzed, said Dr. Lane. The NIAID followed a similar playbook for the PALM trial evaluating possible Ebola treatments in the Democratic Republic of Congo, with the independent monitoring board recommending the trial be terminated early in response to positive results from two of the four candidate drugs.

“When you have a result you think is of public health importance, you don’t wait for it to be published in a peer-reviewed journal,” said Dr. Lane, a coauthor of the study. The lag time from announcement to study publication was a result of the time it took to write up the paper for publication and go through peer review, Dr. Lane added. He also noted that the FDA had access to the data when the agency wrote its guidance for physicians administering the drug to patients under the EUA.

The authors opted not to publish the initial findings on a preprint server because they felt it was important to undergo peer review, said Dr. Lane. “The last thing you want for something this critical is for incomplete data to be out there, or you don’t have everything audited to the level that you want.”

 

Trial details

In the ACTT-1 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial, researchers enrolled 1,063 patients from Feb. 21 to April 19, 2020, at 60 trial sites and 13 subsites worldwide (45 sites in the United States). The remdesivir group had 541 patients, and the placebo group had 522. A small number of patients (49 in the remdesivir group and 53 in the placebo group) discontinued treatment before day 10 because of an adverse event or withdrawn consent. When data collection for this preliminary analysis ended in late April, 301 patients had not recovered and had not completed their final follow-up visit.

Most of the patients had one (27%) or more (52.1%) preexisting conditions, including hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). Mean patient age was 58.9 years, and the majority of patients were men (64.3%). The median number of days from symptom onset to randomization was 9, and 53.6% of the patients were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% were Asian, 23.4% were Hispanic or Latino, and the ethnicity of 13.6% were not reported or reported as other.

Patients received one 200-mg loading dose on the first day of the trial, and then one 100-mg maintenance dose every day for days 2 through 10, or until discharge or death. Patients in the control group of the study received a matching placebo on the same schedule and volume. The clinical status of each patient was assessed every day, from day 1 through day 29 of his or her hospital stay, according to an eight-category ordinal scale.

Time to recovery was defined as the first day during the 28-day enrollment period that a patient’s clinical status met a 1 (not hospitalization, no activity limitations), 2 (not hospitalized, activity limitation, oxygen requirement or both), or 3 (hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen or medical care if hospitalization was extended for infection-control reasons) on the eight-category scale. A score of 4 indicated a patient was hospitalized and needed ongoing medical care, but did not require supplemental oxygen; a score of 8 signified death.

The analysis found remdesivir patients had a median time to recovery of 11 days, compared with the median 15 days for patients on the placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.55; P < .001). Mortality was also lower in the remdesivir group (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04), but the result was not statistically significant. By 14 days, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality was 7.1 % in the remdesivir group and 11.9% in the placebo group.

Patients receiving oxygen, but not yet requiring high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, seemed to fare best from treatment with remdesivir (these patients had a baseline ordinal score of 5). That may be a result of the larger sample size of these patients, the researchers note in the study. The study authors were unable to estimate the recovery time for the most severely ill patients (category 7), possibly because the follow-up time was too short to fully evaluate this subgroup.

“There is clear and consistent evidence of clinically significant benefit for those hospitalized on oxygen but not yet requiring mechanical ventilation,” Dr. Kaul, who was not involved in the study, said after seeing the published results. “Surprisingly, early dosing as measured from time to onset of symptoms did not seem to make a difference.”

Dr. Kaul said there is still the possibility that remdesivir could benefit patients on mechanical ventilation, but “clinicians will have to determine if the evidence suggesting no benefit in those who are intubated is strong enough to justify using this currently scarce resource in that population versus limiting use to those requiring oxygen but not on mechanical ventilation.”

Site investigators estimated that just four serious adverse events (two in each group) in enrolled patients were related to remdesivir or placebo. No deaths were attributed to the treatments, although acute respiratory failure, hypotension, acute kidney injury, and viral pneumonia were slightly more common in patients receiving the placebo than those receiving remdesivir.

The researchers plan to publish a follow-up study in the coming weeks or months, after the full cohort has completed 28 days of follow-up, Dr. Lane said. In future studies, the agency will likely focus on comparing remdesivir with combinations of remdesivir with other treatments, like the anti-inflammatory baricitinib.

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

Much-anticipated results from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ clinical trial of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggest remdesivir shortens the disease course for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The agency reported initial promising results from the study earlier this month, which prompted the Food and Drug Administration to issue an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the drug, but the full data and results have not been widely available until now.

In the study of 1,063 patients, the researchers found patients who received a 10-day course of remdesivir had a reduced recovery time of 11 days, compared with 15 days to recovery in the group that received a placebo. The findings also suggest remdesivir should be started, if possible, before patients have such severe pulmonary disease that they require mechanical ventilation, according to the study authors.

The published results are “completely consistent” with the NIAID’s earlier announcement, H. Clifford Lane, MD, deputy director for clinical research and special projects at the NIAID, said in an interview. “The benefit appeared to be the greatest for the patients who are hospitalized with severe disease who require supplemental oxygen.”

Given the limited supply of remdesivir, physicians have been eager to see the full data to ensure they use the drug most effectively, Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. Hospitals in states across the country, including New York, Michigan, and Washington, have received limited supplies of the drug in the last couple of weeks since the FDA’s authorization.

“I am losing my patience waiting for #remdesivir data. I was willing to give them a week to verify the numbers, triple proof the tables, cautiously frame conclusions. But it’s gone on too long. We are rationing with no rationale. We are floating on whisps [sic] of data, adrift,” Kate Stephenson, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote on Twitter May 18. After reading the paper, she tweeted Friday evening that she was “relieved to see convincing benefit – I was starting to worry!”

In the midst of a public health crisis, however, it is not unusual to make an announcement about trial results before the full dataset has been analyzed, said Dr. Lane. The NIAID followed a similar playbook for the PALM trial evaluating possible Ebola treatments in the Democratic Republic of Congo, with the independent monitoring board recommending the trial be terminated early in response to positive results from two of the four candidate drugs.

“When you have a result you think is of public health importance, you don’t wait for it to be published in a peer-reviewed journal,” said Dr. Lane, a coauthor of the study. The lag time from announcement to study publication was a result of the time it took to write up the paper for publication and go through peer review, Dr. Lane added. He also noted that the FDA had access to the data when the agency wrote its guidance for physicians administering the drug to patients under the EUA.

The authors opted not to publish the initial findings on a preprint server because they felt it was important to undergo peer review, said Dr. Lane. “The last thing you want for something this critical is for incomplete data to be out there, or you don’t have everything audited to the level that you want.”

 

Trial details

In the ACTT-1 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial, researchers enrolled 1,063 patients from Feb. 21 to April 19, 2020, at 60 trial sites and 13 subsites worldwide (45 sites in the United States). The remdesivir group had 541 patients, and the placebo group had 522. A small number of patients (49 in the remdesivir group and 53 in the placebo group) discontinued treatment before day 10 because of an adverse event or withdrawn consent. When data collection for this preliminary analysis ended in late April, 301 patients had not recovered and had not completed their final follow-up visit.

Most of the patients had one (27%) or more (52.1%) preexisting conditions, including hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). Mean patient age was 58.9 years, and the majority of patients were men (64.3%). The median number of days from symptom onset to randomization was 9, and 53.6% of the patients were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% were Asian, 23.4% were Hispanic or Latino, and the ethnicity of 13.6% were not reported or reported as other.

Patients received one 200-mg loading dose on the first day of the trial, and then one 100-mg maintenance dose every day for days 2 through 10, or until discharge or death. Patients in the control group of the study received a matching placebo on the same schedule and volume. The clinical status of each patient was assessed every day, from day 1 through day 29 of his or her hospital stay, according to an eight-category ordinal scale.

Time to recovery was defined as the first day during the 28-day enrollment period that a patient’s clinical status met a 1 (not hospitalization, no activity limitations), 2 (not hospitalized, activity limitation, oxygen requirement or both), or 3 (hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen or medical care if hospitalization was extended for infection-control reasons) on the eight-category scale. A score of 4 indicated a patient was hospitalized and needed ongoing medical care, but did not require supplemental oxygen; a score of 8 signified death.

The analysis found remdesivir patients had a median time to recovery of 11 days, compared with the median 15 days for patients on the placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.55; P < .001). Mortality was also lower in the remdesivir group (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04), but the result was not statistically significant. By 14 days, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality was 7.1 % in the remdesivir group and 11.9% in the placebo group.

Patients receiving oxygen, but not yet requiring high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, seemed to fare best from treatment with remdesivir (these patients had a baseline ordinal score of 5). That may be a result of the larger sample size of these patients, the researchers note in the study. The study authors were unable to estimate the recovery time for the most severely ill patients (category 7), possibly because the follow-up time was too short to fully evaluate this subgroup.

“There is clear and consistent evidence of clinically significant benefit for those hospitalized on oxygen but not yet requiring mechanical ventilation,” Dr. Kaul, who was not involved in the study, said after seeing the published results. “Surprisingly, early dosing as measured from time to onset of symptoms did not seem to make a difference.”

Dr. Kaul said there is still the possibility that remdesivir could benefit patients on mechanical ventilation, but “clinicians will have to determine if the evidence suggesting no benefit in those who are intubated is strong enough to justify using this currently scarce resource in that population versus limiting use to those requiring oxygen but not on mechanical ventilation.”

Site investigators estimated that just four serious adverse events (two in each group) in enrolled patients were related to remdesivir or placebo. No deaths were attributed to the treatments, although acute respiratory failure, hypotension, acute kidney injury, and viral pneumonia were slightly more common in patients receiving the placebo than those receiving remdesivir.

The researchers plan to publish a follow-up study in the coming weeks or months, after the full cohort has completed 28 days of follow-up, Dr. Lane said. In future studies, the agency will likely focus on comparing remdesivir with combinations of remdesivir with other treatments, like the anti-inflammatory baricitinib.

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

Much-anticipated results from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ clinical trial of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggest remdesivir shortens the disease course for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The agency reported initial promising results from the study earlier this month, which prompted the Food and Drug Administration to issue an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the drug, but the full data and results have not been widely available until now.

In the study of 1,063 patients, the researchers found patients who received a 10-day course of remdesivir had a reduced recovery time of 11 days, compared with 15 days to recovery in the group that received a placebo. The findings also suggest remdesivir should be started, if possible, before patients have such severe pulmonary disease that they require mechanical ventilation, according to the study authors.

The published results are “completely consistent” with the NIAID’s earlier announcement, H. Clifford Lane, MD, deputy director for clinical research and special projects at the NIAID, said in an interview. “The benefit appeared to be the greatest for the patients who are hospitalized with severe disease who require supplemental oxygen.”

Given the limited supply of remdesivir, physicians have been eager to see the full data to ensure they use the drug most effectively, Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. Hospitals in states across the country, including New York, Michigan, and Washington, have received limited supplies of the drug in the last couple of weeks since the FDA’s authorization.

“I am losing my patience waiting for #remdesivir data. I was willing to give them a week to verify the numbers, triple proof the tables, cautiously frame conclusions. But it’s gone on too long. We are rationing with no rationale. We are floating on whisps [sic] of data, adrift,” Kate Stephenson, MD, an infectious diseases specialist at the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote on Twitter May 18. After reading the paper, she tweeted Friday evening that she was “relieved to see convincing benefit – I was starting to worry!”

In the midst of a public health crisis, however, it is not unusual to make an announcement about trial results before the full dataset has been analyzed, said Dr. Lane. The NIAID followed a similar playbook for the PALM trial evaluating possible Ebola treatments in the Democratic Republic of Congo, with the independent monitoring board recommending the trial be terminated early in response to positive results from two of the four candidate drugs.

“When you have a result you think is of public health importance, you don’t wait for it to be published in a peer-reviewed journal,” said Dr. Lane, a coauthor of the study. The lag time from announcement to study publication was a result of the time it took to write up the paper for publication and go through peer review, Dr. Lane added. He also noted that the FDA had access to the data when the agency wrote its guidance for physicians administering the drug to patients under the EUA.

The authors opted not to publish the initial findings on a preprint server because they felt it was important to undergo peer review, said Dr. Lane. “The last thing you want for something this critical is for incomplete data to be out there, or you don’t have everything audited to the level that you want.”

 

Trial details

In the ACTT-1 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial, researchers enrolled 1,063 patients from Feb. 21 to April 19, 2020, at 60 trial sites and 13 subsites worldwide (45 sites in the United States). The remdesivir group had 541 patients, and the placebo group had 522. A small number of patients (49 in the remdesivir group and 53 in the placebo group) discontinued treatment before day 10 because of an adverse event or withdrawn consent. When data collection for this preliminary analysis ended in late April, 301 patients had not recovered and had not completed their final follow-up visit.

Most of the patients had one (27%) or more (52.1%) preexisting conditions, including hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). Mean patient age was 58.9 years, and the majority of patients were men (64.3%). The median number of days from symptom onset to randomization was 9, and 53.6% of the patients were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% were Asian, 23.4% were Hispanic or Latino, and the ethnicity of 13.6% were not reported or reported as other.

Patients received one 200-mg loading dose on the first day of the trial, and then one 100-mg maintenance dose every day for days 2 through 10, or until discharge or death. Patients in the control group of the study received a matching placebo on the same schedule and volume. The clinical status of each patient was assessed every day, from day 1 through day 29 of his or her hospital stay, according to an eight-category ordinal scale.

Time to recovery was defined as the first day during the 28-day enrollment period that a patient’s clinical status met a 1 (not hospitalization, no activity limitations), 2 (not hospitalized, activity limitation, oxygen requirement or both), or 3 (hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen or medical care if hospitalization was extended for infection-control reasons) on the eight-category scale. A score of 4 indicated a patient was hospitalized and needed ongoing medical care, but did not require supplemental oxygen; a score of 8 signified death.

The analysis found remdesivir patients had a median time to recovery of 11 days, compared with the median 15 days for patients on the placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.55; P < .001). Mortality was also lower in the remdesivir group (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04), but the result was not statistically significant. By 14 days, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality was 7.1 % in the remdesivir group and 11.9% in the placebo group.

Patients receiving oxygen, but not yet requiring high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, seemed to fare best from treatment with remdesivir (these patients had a baseline ordinal score of 5). That may be a result of the larger sample size of these patients, the researchers note in the study. The study authors were unable to estimate the recovery time for the most severely ill patients (category 7), possibly because the follow-up time was too short to fully evaluate this subgroup.

“There is clear and consistent evidence of clinically significant benefit for those hospitalized on oxygen but not yet requiring mechanical ventilation,” Dr. Kaul, who was not involved in the study, said after seeing the published results. “Surprisingly, early dosing as measured from time to onset of symptoms did not seem to make a difference.”

Dr. Kaul said there is still the possibility that remdesivir could benefit patients on mechanical ventilation, but “clinicians will have to determine if the evidence suggesting no benefit in those who are intubated is strong enough to justify using this currently scarce resource in that population versus limiting use to those requiring oxygen but not on mechanical ventilation.”

Site investigators estimated that just four serious adverse events (two in each group) in enrolled patients were related to remdesivir or placebo. No deaths were attributed to the treatments, although acute respiratory failure, hypotension, acute kidney injury, and viral pneumonia were slightly more common in patients receiving the placebo than those receiving remdesivir.

The researchers plan to publish a follow-up study in the coming weeks or months, after the full cohort has completed 28 days of follow-up, Dr. Lane said. In future studies, the agency will likely focus on comparing remdesivir with combinations of remdesivir with other treatments, like the anti-inflammatory baricitinib.

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

Real epidemiologists are out knocking on doors, chasing down contacts, or hunched over their computers trying to make sense out of screens full of data and maps. A few are trying valiantly to talk some sense into our elected officials.

konradlew/Thinkstock

This leaves the rest of us with time on our hands to fabricate our own less-than-scientific explanations for the behavior of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So I have decided to put on hold my current mental challenge of choosing which pasta shape to pair with the sauce I’ve prepared from an online recipe. Here is my educated guess based on what I can glean from media sources that may have been filtered through a variety politically biased lenses. Remember, I did go to medical school; however, when I was in college the DNA helix was still just theoretical.

From those halcyon days of mid-February when our attention was focused on the Diamond Princess quarantined in Yokohama Harbor, it didn’t take a board-certified epidemiologist to suspect that the virus was spreading through the ventilating system in the ship’s tight quarters. Subsequent outbreaks on U.S. and French military ships suggests a similar explanation.

While still not proven, it sounds like SARS-CoV-2 jumped to humans from bats. It should not surprise us that having evolved in a dense population of mammals it would thrive in other high-density populations such as New York and nursing homes. Because we have lacked a robust testing capability, it has been less obvious until recently that, while it is easily transmitted, the virus has infected many who are asymptomatic (“Antibody surveys suggesting vast undercount of coronavirus infections may be unreliable,” Gretchen Vogel, Science, April 21, 2020). Subsequent surveys seem to confirm this higher level carrier state; it suggests that the virus is far less deadly than was previously suggested. However, it seems to be a crafty little bug attacking just about any organ system it lands on.

I don’t think any of us are surprised that the elderly population with weakened immune systems, particularly those in congregate housing, has been much more vulnerable. However, many of the deaths among younger apparently healthy people have defied explanation. The anecdotal observations that physicians, particularly those who practice in-your-face medicine (e.g., ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists) may be more vulnerable raises the issue of viral load. It may be that, although it can be extremely contagious, the virus is not terribly dangerous for most people until the inoculum dose of the virus reaches a certain level. To my knowledge this dose is unknown.

A published survey of more than 300 outbreaks from 120 Chinese cities also may support my suspicion that viral load is of critical importance. The researchers found that all the “identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk” (Huan Qian et al. “Indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058). Again, this data shouldn’t surprise us when we look back at what little we know about the outbreaks in the confined spaces on cruise ships and in nursing homes.

I’m not sure that we have any data that helps us determine whether wearing a mask in an outdoor space has any more than symbolic value when we are talking about this particular virus. We may read that the virus in a droplet can survive on the surface it lands on for 8 minutes, and we can see those slow motion videos of the impressive plume of snot spray released by a sneeze. It would seem obvious that even outside someone within 10 feet of the sneeze has a good chance of being infected. However, how much of a threat is the asymptomatic carrier who passes within three feet of you while you are out on lovely summer day stroll? This armchair epidemiologist suspects that, when we are talking about an outside space, the 6-foot guideline for small groups of a dozen or less is overly restrictive. But until we know, I’m staying put in my armchair ... outside on the porch overlooking Casco Bay.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” He has no disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

Real epidemiologists are out knocking on doors, chasing down contacts, or hunched over their computers trying to make sense out of screens full of data and maps. A few are trying valiantly to talk some sense into our elected officials.

konradlew/Thinkstock

This leaves the rest of us with time on our hands to fabricate our own less-than-scientific explanations for the behavior of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So I have decided to put on hold my current mental challenge of choosing which pasta shape to pair with the sauce I’ve prepared from an online recipe. Here is my educated guess based on what I can glean from media sources that may have been filtered through a variety politically biased lenses. Remember, I did go to medical school; however, when I was in college the DNA helix was still just theoretical.

From those halcyon days of mid-February when our attention was focused on the Diamond Princess quarantined in Yokohama Harbor, it didn’t take a board-certified epidemiologist to suspect that the virus was spreading through the ventilating system in the ship’s tight quarters. Subsequent outbreaks on U.S. and French military ships suggests a similar explanation.

While still not proven, it sounds like SARS-CoV-2 jumped to humans from bats. It should not surprise us that having evolved in a dense population of mammals it would thrive in other high-density populations such as New York and nursing homes. Because we have lacked a robust testing capability, it has been less obvious until recently that, while it is easily transmitted, the virus has infected many who are asymptomatic (“Antibody surveys suggesting vast undercount of coronavirus infections may be unreliable,” Gretchen Vogel, Science, April 21, 2020). Subsequent surveys seem to confirm this higher level carrier state; it suggests that the virus is far less deadly than was previously suggested. However, it seems to be a crafty little bug attacking just about any organ system it lands on.

I don’t think any of us are surprised that the elderly population with weakened immune systems, particularly those in congregate housing, has been much more vulnerable. However, many of the deaths among younger apparently healthy people have defied explanation. The anecdotal observations that physicians, particularly those who practice in-your-face medicine (e.g., ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists) may be more vulnerable raises the issue of viral load. It may be that, although it can be extremely contagious, the virus is not terribly dangerous for most people until the inoculum dose of the virus reaches a certain level. To my knowledge this dose is unknown.

A published survey of more than 300 outbreaks from 120 Chinese cities also may support my suspicion that viral load is of critical importance. The researchers found that all the “identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk” (Huan Qian et al. “Indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058). Again, this data shouldn’t surprise us when we look back at what little we know about the outbreaks in the confined spaces on cruise ships and in nursing homes.

I’m not sure that we have any data that helps us determine whether wearing a mask in an outdoor space has any more than symbolic value when we are talking about this particular virus. We may read that the virus in a droplet can survive on the surface it lands on for 8 minutes, and we can see those slow motion videos of the impressive plume of snot spray released by a sneeze. It would seem obvious that even outside someone within 10 feet of the sneeze has a good chance of being infected. However, how much of a threat is the asymptomatic carrier who passes within three feet of you while you are out on lovely summer day stroll? This armchair epidemiologist suspects that, when we are talking about an outside space, the 6-foot guideline for small groups of a dozen or less is overly restrictive. But until we know, I’m staying put in my armchair ... outside on the porch overlooking Casco Bay.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” He has no disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

Real epidemiologists are out knocking on doors, chasing down contacts, or hunched over their computers trying to make sense out of screens full of data and maps. A few are trying valiantly to talk some sense into our elected officials.

konradlew/Thinkstock

This leaves the rest of us with time on our hands to fabricate our own less-than-scientific explanations for the behavior of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So I have decided to put on hold my current mental challenge of choosing which pasta shape to pair with the sauce I’ve prepared from an online recipe. Here is my educated guess based on what I can glean from media sources that may have been filtered through a variety politically biased lenses. Remember, I did go to medical school; however, when I was in college the DNA helix was still just theoretical.

From those halcyon days of mid-February when our attention was focused on the Diamond Princess quarantined in Yokohama Harbor, it didn’t take a board-certified epidemiologist to suspect that the virus was spreading through the ventilating system in the ship’s tight quarters. Subsequent outbreaks on U.S. and French military ships suggests a similar explanation.

While still not proven, it sounds like SARS-CoV-2 jumped to humans from bats. It should not surprise us that having evolved in a dense population of mammals it would thrive in other high-density populations such as New York and nursing homes. Because we have lacked a robust testing capability, it has been less obvious until recently that, while it is easily transmitted, the virus has infected many who are asymptomatic (“Antibody surveys suggesting vast undercount of coronavirus infections may be unreliable,” Gretchen Vogel, Science, April 21, 2020). Subsequent surveys seem to confirm this higher level carrier state; it suggests that the virus is far less deadly than was previously suggested. However, it seems to be a crafty little bug attacking just about any organ system it lands on.

I don’t think any of us are surprised that the elderly population with weakened immune systems, particularly those in congregate housing, has been much more vulnerable. However, many of the deaths among younger apparently healthy people have defied explanation. The anecdotal observations that physicians, particularly those who practice in-your-face medicine (e.g., ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists) may be more vulnerable raises the issue of viral load. It may be that, although it can be extremely contagious, the virus is not terribly dangerous for most people until the inoculum dose of the virus reaches a certain level. To my knowledge this dose is unknown.

A published survey of more than 300 outbreaks from 120 Chinese cities also may support my suspicion that viral load is of critical importance. The researchers found that all the “identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk” (Huan Qian et al. “Indoor transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058). Again, this data shouldn’t surprise us when we look back at what little we know about the outbreaks in the confined spaces on cruise ships and in nursing homes.

I’m not sure that we have any data that helps us determine whether wearing a mask in an outdoor space has any more than symbolic value when we are talking about this particular virus. We may read that the virus in a droplet can survive on the surface it lands on for 8 minutes, and we can see those slow motion videos of the impressive plume of snot spray released by a sneeze. It would seem obvious that even outside someone within 10 feet of the sneeze has a good chance of being infected. However, how much of a threat is the asymptomatic carrier who passes within three feet of you while you are out on lovely summer day stroll? This armchair epidemiologist suspects that, when we are talking about an outside space, the 6-foot guideline for small groups of a dozen or less is overly restrictive. But until we know, I’m staying put in my armchair ... outside on the porch overlooking Casco Bay.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” He has no disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

Keeping hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and caring for inpatients with hematologic malignancies remained “manageable” during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

That level of manageability has partly been because a surge in cases so far hasn’t arrived at Levine or in most of the surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina communities it serves. As of May 15, 2020, the total number of confirmed and reported COVID-19 cases had reached about 19,000 in North Carolina, and just under 9,000 in South Carolina, out of a total population in the two states of close to 16 million. What’s happened instead at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has been a steady but low drumbeat of cases that, by mid-May 2020, totaled fewer than 10 patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19.

“For a large system with multiple sites throughout North and South Carolina that saw 17,200 new patients in 2019 – including solid tumor, benign hematology, and malignant hematology patients – with 198,000 total patient visits, it is safe to say that we are off to a good start. However, we remain in the early throes of the pandemic and we will need to remain vigilant going forward,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in LCI’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders.

The limited effects to date of COVID-19 at LCI has been thanks to a regimen of great caution for preventing infections that’s been consistently conveyed to LCI patients from before the pandemic’s onset, liberal testing that started early, a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate, a novel staffing approach designed to minimize and contain potential staff outbreaks, and an early pivot to virtual patient contact when feasible.

COVID-19 has had limited penetration into the LCI case load because patients have, in general, “been very careful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

“My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious even before the coronavirus using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” he said in an interview that reviewed the steps LCI took starting in March to confront and manage the effects of the then-nascent pandemic. “Since we started screening asymptomatic patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings we have identified only one patient with COVID-19 infection, which supports the low rate of infection in our patient population thus far.”

Another key step was the launch of “robust” testing for the COVID-19 virus starting on March 9, using an in-house assay from LCI’s parent health system, Atrium Health, that delivered results within 24 hours. Testing became available at LCI “earlier than at many other health systems.” At first, testing was limited to patients or staff presenting with symptoms, but in the following weeks, it expanded to more patients, including those without symptoms who were scheduled for treatment at the apheresis center, cell donors and cell recipients, patients arriving for inpatient chemotherapy or cellular therapy, patients arriving from a skilled nursing facility or similar environments, and more recently, outpatient chemotherapy patients. “We’re now doing a lot of screening,” Dr. Voorhees said. “In general, screening has been well received because patients recognize that it’s for their own safety.”

Another piece of COVID-19 preparedness was a move toward technology as an alternative to face-to-face encounters between patients and staff. “We adopted virtual technology early.” When medically appropriate, they provided either video consultations with more tech-savvy patients or telephone-based virtual visits for patients who preferred a more familiar interface. As LCI starts the process of reentry for patients whose face-to-face encounters were deferred, virtual visits will remain an important facet of maintaining care while limiting exposure for appropriate patients and facilitating adequate space for social distancing in the clinics and infusion centers.

Atrium Health also launched a “virtual hospital” geared to intensified remote management of COVID-19 patients who aren’t sick enough for hospitalization. “People who test positive automatically enter the virtual hospital and have regular interactions with their team of providers,” with LCI providing additional support for their patients who get infected. Patients receive an equipment kit that lets them monitor and transmit their vital signs. The virtual hospital program also helps expedite personal needs like delivery of prescriptions and food. “It helps patients manage at home, and has been incredibly useful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

Perhaps the most challenging step LCI clinicians took to preclude a potential COVID-19 case surge was to review all patients receiving infusional therapy or planned cellular therapy and triage those who could potentially tolerate a temporary change to either an oral, at-home regimen or to a brief hold on their treatment. Some patients on maintenance, outpatient infusion-therapy regimens “expressed concern about coming to the clinic. We looked at the patients scheduled to come for infusions and decided which visits were essential and which were deferrable without disrupting care by briefly using a noninfusional approach,” said Dr. Voorhees. The number of patients who had their regimens modified or held was “relatively small,” and with the recent recognition that a surge of infections has not occurred, “we’re now rolling out cautious reentry of those patients back to their originally prescribed chemotherapy.”

In addition to concerns of exposure at infusion clinics, there are concerns about the heightened susceptibility of immunosuppressed hematologic oncology patients to COVID-19 and their risk for more severe infection. “Our view is that, if patients tested positive, continuing immunosuppressive treatment would likely be detrimental,” so when possible treatment is temporarily suspended and then resumed when the infection has cleared. “When patients test positive for a prolonged period, a decision to resume treatment must be in the best interests of the patient and weigh the benefits of resuming therapy against the risks of incurring a more severe infection by restarting potentially immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Voorhees said.

The enhanced risk that cancer patients face if they develop COVID-19 was documented in a recent review of 218 cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during parts of March and April in a large New York health system. The results showed an overall mortality rate of 28%, including a 37% rate among 54 patients with hematologic malignancies and a 25% rate among 164 patients with solid tumors. The mortality rate “may not be quite as high as they reported because that depends on how many patients you test, but there is no question that patients with more comorbidities are at higher risk. Patients with active cancer on chemotherapy are a particularly vulnerable population, and many have expressed concerns about their vulnerability,” he observed.

For the few LCI patients who developed COVID-19 infection, the medical staff has had several therapeutic options they could match to each patient’s needs, with help from the Atrium Health infectious disease team. LCI and Atrium Health are participating in several COVID-19 clinical treatment trials, including an investigational convalescent plasma protocol spearheaded by the Mayo Clinic. They have also opened a randomized, phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of selinexor (Xpovio), an oral drug that’s Food and Drug Administration approved for patients with multiple myeloma, for treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19 infection. Additional studies evaluating blockade of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as inhaled antiviral therapy, have recently launched, and several additional studies are poised to open in the coming weeks.

The LCI and Atrium Health team also has a supply of the antiviral agent remdesivir as part of the FDA’s expanded access protocol and emergency use authorization. They also have a supply of and experience administering the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), which showed some suggestion of efficacy in limited experience treating patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infections (Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020 Apr 29; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117). Clinicians at LCI have not used the investigational and unproven agents hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to either prevent or treat COVID-19.

LCI also instituted measures to try to minimize the risk that staff members could become infected and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. Following conversations held early on with COVID-19–experienced health authorities in China and Italy, the patient-facing LCI staff split into two teams starting on March 23 that alternated responsibility for direct patient interactions every 2 weeks. When one of these teams was off from direct patient contact they continued to care for patients remotely through virtual technologies. The concept was that, if a staffer became infected while remaining asymptomatic during their contact with patients, their status would either become diagnosable or resolve during their 2 weeks away from seeing any patients. Perhaps in part because of this approach infections among staff members “have not been a big issue. We’ve had an incredibly low infection rate among the LCI staff,” Dr. Voorhees noted.

By mid-May, with the imminent threat of a sudden CODIV-19 surge moderated, heme-onc operations at LCI began to cautiously revert to more normal operations. “We’re continuing patient screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, testing for asymptomatic infections, and requiring masking and social distancing in the clinics and hospitals, but we’re starting to slowly restore the number of patients at our clinics [virtual and face to face[ and infusion centers,” and the staff’s division into two teams ended. “The idea was to get past a surge and make sure our system was not overwhelmed. We anticipated a local surge in late April, but then it kept getting pushed back. Current projections are for the infection rate among LCI patients to remain low provided that community spread remains stable or, ideally, decreases.” The LCI infectious disease staff is closely monitoring infection rates for early recognition of an outbreak, with plans to follow any new cases with contact tracing. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic at LCI “has been very manageable,” Dr. Voorhees concluded.

“We’re now better positioned to deal with a case surge if it were to happen. We could resume the two-team approach, hospital-wide plans are now in place for a future surge, and we are now up and running with robust testing and inpatient and outpatient virtual technology. The first time, we were all learning on the fly.”

The LCI biostatistics team has been prospectively collecting the Institutes’s COVID-19 patient data, with plans to report their findings.

Dr. Voorhees has had financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides, none of which are relevant to this article.

[email protected]

Keeping hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and caring for inpatients with hematologic malignancies remained “manageable” during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

That level of manageability has partly been because a surge in cases so far hasn’t arrived at Levine or in most of the surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina communities it serves. As of May 15, 2020, the total number of confirmed and reported COVID-19 cases had reached about 19,000 in North Carolina, and just under 9,000 in South Carolina, out of a total population in the two states of close to 16 million. What’s happened instead at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has been a steady but low drumbeat of cases that, by mid-May 2020, totaled fewer than 10 patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19.

“For a large system with multiple sites throughout North and South Carolina that saw 17,200 new patients in 2019 – including solid tumor, benign hematology, and malignant hematology patients – with 198,000 total patient visits, it is safe to say that we are off to a good start. However, we remain in the early throes of the pandemic and we will need to remain vigilant going forward,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in LCI’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders.

The limited effects to date of COVID-19 at LCI has been thanks to a regimen of great caution for preventing infections that’s been consistently conveyed to LCI patients from before the pandemic’s onset, liberal testing that started early, a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate, a novel staffing approach designed to minimize and contain potential staff outbreaks, and an early pivot to virtual patient contact when feasible.

COVID-19 has had limited penetration into the LCI case load because patients have, in general, “been very careful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

“My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious even before the coronavirus using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” he said in an interview that reviewed the steps LCI took starting in March to confront and manage the effects of the then-nascent pandemic. “Since we started screening asymptomatic patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings we have identified only one patient with COVID-19 infection, which supports the low rate of infection in our patient population thus far.”

Another key step was the launch of “robust” testing for the COVID-19 virus starting on March 9, using an in-house assay from LCI’s parent health system, Atrium Health, that delivered results within 24 hours. Testing became available at LCI “earlier than at many other health systems.” At first, testing was limited to patients or staff presenting with symptoms, but in the following weeks, it expanded to more patients, including those without symptoms who were scheduled for treatment at the apheresis center, cell donors and cell recipients, patients arriving for inpatient chemotherapy or cellular therapy, patients arriving from a skilled nursing facility or similar environments, and more recently, outpatient chemotherapy patients. “We’re now doing a lot of screening,” Dr. Voorhees said. “In general, screening has been well received because patients recognize that it’s for their own safety.”

Another piece of COVID-19 preparedness was a move toward technology as an alternative to face-to-face encounters between patients and staff. “We adopted virtual technology early.” When medically appropriate, they provided either video consultations with more tech-savvy patients or telephone-based virtual visits for patients who preferred a more familiar interface. As LCI starts the process of reentry for patients whose face-to-face encounters were deferred, virtual visits will remain an important facet of maintaining care while limiting exposure for appropriate patients and facilitating adequate space for social distancing in the clinics and infusion centers.

Atrium Health also launched a “virtual hospital” geared to intensified remote management of COVID-19 patients who aren’t sick enough for hospitalization. “People who test positive automatically enter the virtual hospital and have regular interactions with their team of providers,” with LCI providing additional support for their patients who get infected. Patients receive an equipment kit that lets them monitor and transmit their vital signs. The virtual hospital program also helps expedite personal needs like delivery of prescriptions and food. “It helps patients manage at home, and has been incredibly useful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

Perhaps the most challenging step LCI clinicians took to preclude a potential COVID-19 case surge was to review all patients receiving infusional therapy or planned cellular therapy and triage those who could potentially tolerate a temporary change to either an oral, at-home regimen or to a brief hold on their treatment. Some patients on maintenance, outpatient infusion-therapy regimens “expressed concern about coming to the clinic. We looked at the patients scheduled to come for infusions and decided which visits were essential and which were deferrable without disrupting care by briefly using a noninfusional approach,” said Dr. Voorhees. The number of patients who had their regimens modified or held was “relatively small,” and with the recent recognition that a surge of infections has not occurred, “we’re now rolling out cautious reentry of those patients back to their originally prescribed chemotherapy.”

In addition to concerns of exposure at infusion clinics, there are concerns about the heightened susceptibility of immunosuppressed hematologic oncology patients to COVID-19 and their risk for more severe infection. “Our view is that, if patients tested positive, continuing immunosuppressive treatment would likely be detrimental,” so when possible treatment is temporarily suspended and then resumed when the infection has cleared. “When patients test positive for a prolonged period, a decision to resume treatment must be in the best interests of the patient and weigh the benefits of resuming therapy against the risks of incurring a more severe infection by restarting potentially immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Voorhees said.

The enhanced risk that cancer patients face if they develop COVID-19 was documented in a recent review of 218 cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during parts of March and April in a large New York health system. The results showed an overall mortality rate of 28%, including a 37% rate among 54 patients with hematologic malignancies and a 25% rate among 164 patients with solid tumors. The mortality rate “may not be quite as high as they reported because that depends on how many patients you test, but there is no question that patients with more comorbidities are at higher risk. Patients with active cancer on chemotherapy are a particularly vulnerable population, and many have expressed concerns about their vulnerability,” he observed.

For the few LCI patients who developed COVID-19 infection, the medical staff has had several therapeutic options they could match to each patient’s needs, with help from the Atrium Health infectious disease team. LCI and Atrium Health are participating in several COVID-19 clinical treatment trials, including an investigational convalescent plasma protocol spearheaded by the Mayo Clinic. They have also opened a randomized, phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of selinexor (Xpovio), an oral drug that’s Food and Drug Administration approved for patients with multiple myeloma, for treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19 infection. Additional studies evaluating blockade of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as inhaled antiviral therapy, have recently launched, and several additional studies are poised to open in the coming weeks.

The LCI and Atrium Health team also has a supply of the antiviral agent remdesivir as part of the FDA’s expanded access protocol and emergency use authorization. They also have a supply of and experience administering the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), which showed some suggestion of efficacy in limited experience treating patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infections (Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020 Apr 29; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117). Clinicians at LCI have not used the investigational and unproven agents hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to either prevent or treat COVID-19.

LCI also instituted measures to try to minimize the risk that staff members could become infected and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. Following conversations held early on with COVID-19–experienced health authorities in China and Italy, the patient-facing LCI staff split into two teams starting on March 23 that alternated responsibility for direct patient interactions every 2 weeks. When one of these teams was off from direct patient contact they continued to care for patients remotely through virtual technologies. The concept was that, if a staffer became infected while remaining asymptomatic during their contact with patients, their status would either become diagnosable or resolve during their 2 weeks away from seeing any patients. Perhaps in part because of this approach infections among staff members “have not been a big issue. We’ve had an incredibly low infection rate among the LCI staff,” Dr. Voorhees noted.

By mid-May, with the imminent threat of a sudden CODIV-19 surge moderated, heme-onc operations at LCI began to cautiously revert to more normal operations. “We’re continuing patient screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, testing for asymptomatic infections, and requiring masking and social distancing in the clinics and hospitals, but we’re starting to slowly restore the number of patients at our clinics [virtual and face to face[ and infusion centers,” and the staff’s division into two teams ended. “The idea was to get past a surge and make sure our system was not overwhelmed. We anticipated a local surge in late April, but then it kept getting pushed back. Current projections are for the infection rate among LCI patients to remain low provided that community spread remains stable or, ideally, decreases.” The LCI infectious disease staff is closely monitoring infection rates for early recognition of an outbreak, with plans to follow any new cases with contact tracing. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic at LCI “has been very manageable,” Dr. Voorhees concluded.

“We’re now better positioned to deal with a case surge if it were to happen. We could resume the two-team approach, hospital-wide plans are now in place for a future surge, and we are now up and running with robust testing and inpatient and outpatient virtual technology. The first time, we were all learning on the fly.”

The LCI biostatistics team has been prospectively collecting the Institutes’s COVID-19 patient data, with plans to report their findings.

Dr. Voorhees has had financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides, none of which are relevant to this article.

[email protected]

Keeping hematologic oncology patients on their treatment regimens and caring for inpatients with hematologic malignancies remained “manageable” during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic at Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

That level of manageability has partly been because a surge in cases so far hasn’t arrived at Levine or in most of the surrounding North Carolina and South Carolina communities it serves. As of May 15, 2020, the total number of confirmed and reported COVID-19 cases had reached about 19,000 in North Carolina, and just under 9,000 in South Carolina, out of a total population in the two states of close to 16 million. What’s happened instead at Levine Cancer Institute (LCI) has been a steady but low drumbeat of cases that, by mid-May 2020, totaled fewer than 10 patients with hematologic malignancies diagnosed with COVID-19.

“For a large system with multiple sites throughout North and South Carolina that saw 17,200 new patients in 2019 – including solid tumor, benign hematology, and malignant hematology patients – with 198,000 total patient visits, it is safe to say that we are off to a good start. However, we remain in the early throes of the pandemic and we will need to remain vigilant going forward,” said Peter Voorhees, MD, professor of medicine and director of Medical Operations and Outreach Services in LCI’s Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders.

The limited effects to date of COVID-19 at LCI has been thanks to a regimen of great caution for preventing infections that’s been consistently conveyed to LCI patients from before the pandemic’s onset, liberal testing that started early, a proactive plan to defer and temporarily replace infusion care when medically appropriate, a novel staffing approach designed to minimize and contain potential staff outbreaks, and an early pivot to virtual patient contact when feasible.

COVID-19 has had limited penetration into the LCI case load because patients have, in general, “been very careful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

“My impression is that the incidence has been low partly because our patients, especially those with hematologic malignancies including those on active chemotherapy, were already getting warned to be cautious even before the coronavirus using distancing, masking, and meticulous hand hygiene,” he said in an interview that reviewed the steps LCI took starting in March to confront and manage the effects of the then-nascent pandemic. “Since we started screening asymptomatic patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings we have identified only one patient with COVID-19 infection, which supports the low rate of infection in our patient population thus far.”

Another key step was the launch of “robust” testing for the COVID-19 virus starting on March 9, using an in-house assay from LCI’s parent health system, Atrium Health, that delivered results within 24 hours. Testing became available at LCI “earlier than at many other health systems.” At first, testing was limited to patients or staff presenting with symptoms, but in the following weeks, it expanded to more patients, including those without symptoms who were scheduled for treatment at the apheresis center, cell donors and cell recipients, patients arriving for inpatient chemotherapy or cellular therapy, patients arriving from a skilled nursing facility or similar environments, and more recently, outpatient chemotherapy patients. “We’re now doing a lot of screening,” Dr. Voorhees said. “In general, screening has been well received because patients recognize that it’s for their own safety.”

Another piece of COVID-19 preparedness was a move toward technology as an alternative to face-to-face encounters between patients and staff. “We adopted virtual technology early.” When medically appropriate, they provided either video consultations with more tech-savvy patients or telephone-based virtual visits for patients who preferred a more familiar interface. As LCI starts the process of reentry for patients whose face-to-face encounters were deferred, virtual visits will remain an important facet of maintaining care while limiting exposure for appropriate patients and facilitating adequate space for social distancing in the clinics and infusion centers.

Atrium Health also launched a “virtual hospital” geared to intensified remote management of COVID-19 patients who aren’t sick enough for hospitalization. “People who test positive automatically enter the virtual hospital and have regular interactions with their team of providers,” with LCI providing additional support for their patients who get infected. Patients receive an equipment kit that lets them monitor and transmit their vital signs. The virtual hospital program also helps expedite personal needs like delivery of prescriptions and food. “It helps patients manage at home, and has been incredibly useful,” said Dr. Voorhees.

Perhaps the most challenging step LCI clinicians took to preclude a potential COVID-19 case surge was to review all patients receiving infusional therapy or planned cellular therapy and triage those who could potentially tolerate a temporary change to either an oral, at-home regimen or to a brief hold on their treatment. Some patients on maintenance, outpatient infusion-therapy regimens “expressed concern about coming to the clinic. We looked at the patients scheduled to come for infusions and decided which visits were essential and which were deferrable without disrupting care by briefly using a noninfusional approach,” said Dr. Voorhees. The number of patients who had their regimens modified or held was “relatively small,” and with the recent recognition that a surge of infections has not occurred, “we’re now rolling out cautious reentry of those patients back to their originally prescribed chemotherapy.”

In addition to concerns of exposure at infusion clinics, there are concerns about the heightened susceptibility of immunosuppressed hematologic oncology patients to COVID-19 and their risk for more severe infection. “Our view is that, if patients tested positive, continuing immunosuppressive treatment would likely be detrimental,” so when possible treatment is temporarily suspended and then resumed when the infection has cleared. “When patients test positive for a prolonged period, a decision to resume treatment must be in the best interests of the patient and weigh the benefits of resuming therapy against the risks of incurring a more severe infection by restarting potentially immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Voorhees said.

The enhanced risk that cancer patients face if they develop COVID-19 was documented in a recent review of 218 cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during parts of March and April in a large New York health system. The results showed an overall mortality rate of 28%, including a 37% rate among 54 patients with hematologic malignancies and a 25% rate among 164 patients with solid tumors. The mortality rate “may not be quite as high as they reported because that depends on how many patients you test, but there is no question that patients with more comorbidities are at higher risk. Patients with active cancer on chemotherapy are a particularly vulnerable population, and many have expressed concerns about their vulnerability,” he observed.

For the few LCI patients who developed COVID-19 infection, the medical staff has had several therapeutic options they could match to each patient’s needs, with help from the Atrium Health infectious disease team. LCI and Atrium Health are participating in several COVID-19 clinical treatment trials, including an investigational convalescent plasma protocol spearheaded by the Mayo Clinic. They have also opened a randomized, phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of selinexor (Xpovio), an oral drug that’s Food and Drug Administration approved for patients with multiple myeloma, for treatment of moderate or severe COVID-19 infection. Additional studies evaluating blockade of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, as well as inhaled antiviral therapy, have recently launched, and several additional studies are poised to open in the coming weeks.

The LCI and Atrium Health team also has a supply of the antiviral agent remdesivir as part of the FDA’s expanded access protocol and emergency use authorization. They also have a supply of and experience administering the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), which showed some suggestion of efficacy in limited experience treating patients with severe or critical COVID-19 infections (Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020 Apr 29; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005615117). Clinicians at LCI have not used the investigational and unproven agents hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to either prevent or treat COVID-19.

LCI also instituted measures to try to minimize the risk that staff members could become infected and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. Following conversations held early on with COVID-19–experienced health authorities in China and Italy, the patient-facing LCI staff split into two teams starting on March 23 that alternated responsibility for direct patient interactions every 2 weeks. When one of these teams was off from direct patient contact they continued to care for patients remotely through virtual technologies. The concept was that, if a staffer became infected while remaining asymptomatic during their contact with patients, their status would either become diagnosable or resolve during their 2 weeks away from seeing any patients. Perhaps in part because of this approach infections among staff members “have not been a big issue. We’ve had an incredibly low infection rate among the LCI staff,” Dr. Voorhees noted.

By mid-May, with the imminent threat of a sudden CODIV-19 surge moderated, heme-onc operations at LCI began to cautiously revert to more normal operations. “We’re continuing patient screening for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, testing for asymptomatic infections, and requiring masking and social distancing in the clinics and hospitals, but we’re starting to slowly restore the number of patients at our clinics [virtual and face to face[ and infusion centers,” and the staff’s division into two teams ended. “The idea was to get past a surge and make sure our system was not overwhelmed. We anticipated a local surge in late April, but then it kept getting pushed back. Current projections are for the infection rate among LCI patients to remain low provided that community spread remains stable or, ideally, decreases.” The LCI infectious disease staff is closely monitoring infection rates for early recognition of an outbreak, with plans to follow any new cases with contact tracing. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic at LCI “has been very manageable,” Dr. Voorhees concluded.

“We’re now better positioned to deal with a case surge if it were to happen. We could resume the two-team approach, hospital-wide plans are now in place for a future surge, and we are now up and running with robust testing and inpatient and outpatient virtual technology. The first time, we were all learning on the fly.”

The LCI biostatistics team has been prospectively collecting the Institutes’s COVID-19 patient data, with plans to report their findings.

Dr. Voorhees has had financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Oncopeptides, none of which are relevant to this article.

[email protected]

Psychiatrists continue to rank close to the bottom of the compensation ladder, but they made more this year than last year and they continue to enjoy their profession, findings from the newly released Medscape Psychiatrist Compensation Report 2020 show.

Psychiatrists’ average annual income this year rose to $268,000, up from $260,000 last year. Two-thirds of psychiatrists feel fairly compensated, similar to last year’s percentage.

Psychiatrists are below the middle earners of all physician specialties, ranking eighth from the bottom, just below neurologists ($280,000), but ahead of rheumatologists ($262,000) and internists ($251,000).

Orthopedists are the top earners ($511,000 annual pay), followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000), according to the overall Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020, which covers U.S. physicians as a whole. The survey included more than 17,000 physicians in more than 30 specialties.

COVID-19 impact

An important caveat is that data for this year’s report were collected prior to Feb. 10, 2020, and therefore reflect physician salary and income prior to the COVID-19 crisis, which has had a huge impact on physicians.

For example, since the start of the crisis, data show that physician practices have seen a 55% dip in revenue and a 60% dip in patient volume on average. Hospitals and physician groups nationwide have implemented layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts.

In March, 43,000 health care workers were laid off; 9% of independent medical practices reported that they have closed their practices, at least temporarily.

There continues to be a gender pay gap in psychiatry, with male psychiatrists earning about 21% more than their female peers ($289,000 vs. $239,000). Among all specialists, men earn 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%. There continues to be a 25% gender pay gap among primary care physicians.

Psychiatrists report that they are eligible for $26,000 in annual incentive bonuses. Such bonuses are highest among orthopedists ($96,000) and lowest among family medicine physicians ($24,000).

Close to one-third of psychiatrists (and physicians overall) who have incentive bonuses say the prospect of the bonus has encouraged them to work longer hours.

Two thirds of psychiatrists say they receive more than three quarters of their potential annual incentive bonus. On average, psychiatrists achieve 70% of their potential bonus, similar to physicians overall (67%).

However, COVID-19 may change that. Experts recently interviewed by Medscape Medical News noted that productivity benchmarks for physicians are likely to be lowered in light of plunging patient numbers from COVID-19, and bonuses are expected to take a hit.

Happy at work

On average, male psychiatrists spend 34.5 hours per week seeing patients, somewhat higher than female psychiatrists (31.5 hours); the average for all physicians is 37.9 hours per week.

Bureaucratic tasks continue to be a burden for physicians in all specialties. On average, psychiatrists spend 15.9 hours per week on paperwork and administration, about the same as physicians overall (15.6 hours).

Intensivists top the list regarding such tasks (19.1 hours), followed by internists (18.5 hours), infectious disease physicians (18.5 hours), and psychiatrists (18.3 hours). Anesthesiologists and ophthalmologists spend the least amount of time on paperwork/administration (10.0 and 9.8 hours per week, respectively).

What is most rewarding about being a psychiatrist? Making the world a better place (helping others) tops the list (28%), followed closely by relationships with and gratitude from patients (24%), being good at what they do/finding answers, diagnoses (20%), and making good money at a job they like (15%). A few cited teaching (6%) and pride in their profession (4%).

The most challenging part of practicing psychiatry is having so many rules and regulations (29%). Other challenges include dealing with difficult patients (18%), working with EHRs (13%), having to work long hours (11%), and trouble getting fair reimbursement (10%).

Despite the challenges, if they had to do it all over, 81% of psychiatrists would choose medicine as a career again and 89% would choose psychiatry again.

Other key findings in the latest report regarding psychiatrists include the following:

• At 16%, psychiatrists rank toward the middle of physicians, potentially losing money on denied or resubmitted claims. Plastic surgery and emergency medicine have the highest percentage of claims denied or resubmitted (28% and 22%, respectively). One study found that, on average, 63% of denied claims are recoverable, but healthcare professionals spend about $118 per claim on appeals.
• Only 14% of psychiatrists say they use physician assistants to treat patients in their practices, while 46% use nurse practitioners; about half (51%) use neither for patient care. Of psychiatrists who work with physician assistants and nurse practitioners in their offices, 34% say these employees have helped boost profitability.
• 56% of psychiatrists say they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients; only 1% say they won’t take new Medicare patients and 22% are undecided.
• The large majority of psychiatrists rely on payers; 30% rely on fee-for-service arrangements and 14% on accountable care organizations for patient-based income.
• Only 12% of psychiatrists expect to participate in the merit-based incentive payment system and only 1% expect to participate in alternative payment models.

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

Psychiatrists continue to rank close to the bottom of the compensation ladder, but they made more this year than last year and they continue to enjoy their profession, findings from the newly released Medscape Psychiatrist Compensation Report 2020 show.

Psychiatrists’ average annual income this year rose to $268,000, up from $260,000 last year. Two-thirds of psychiatrists feel fairly compensated, similar to last year’s percentage.

Psychiatrists are below the middle earners of all physician specialties, ranking eighth from the bottom, just below neurologists ($280,000), but ahead of rheumatologists ($262,000) and internists ($251,000).

Orthopedists are the top earners ($511,000 annual pay), followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000), according to the overall Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020, which covers U.S. physicians as a whole. The survey included more than 17,000 physicians in more than 30 specialties.

COVID-19 impact

An important caveat is that data for this year’s report were collected prior to Feb. 10, 2020, and therefore reflect physician salary and income prior to the COVID-19 crisis, which has had a huge impact on physicians.

For example, since the start of the crisis, data show that physician practices have seen a 55% dip in revenue and a 60% dip in patient volume on average. Hospitals and physician groups nationwide have implemented layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts.

In March, 43,000 health care workers were laid off; 9% of independent medical practices reported that they have closed their practices, at least temporarily.

There continues to be a gender pay gap in psychiatry, with male psychiatrists earning about 21% more than their female peers ($289,000 vs. $239,000). Among all specialists, men earn 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%. There continues to be a 25% gender pay gap among primary care physicians.

Psychiatrists report that they are eligible for $26,000 in annual incentive bonuses. Such bonuses are highest among orthopedists ($96,000) and lowest among family medicine physicians ($24,000).

Close to one-third of psychiatrists (and physicians overall) who have incentive bonuses say the prospect of the bonus has encouraged them to work longer hours.

Two thirds of psychiatrists say they receive more than three quarters of their potential annual incentive bonus. On average, psychiatrists achieve 70% of their potential bonus, similar to physicians overall (67%).

However, COVID-19 may change that. Experts recently interviewed by Medscape Medical News noted that productivity benchmarks for physicians are likely to be lowered in light of plunging patient numbers from COVID-19, and bonuses are expected to take a hit.

Happy at work

On average, male psychiatrists spend 34.5 hours per week seeing patients, somewhat higher than female psychiatrists (31.5 hours); the average for all physicians is 37.9 hours per week.

Bureaucratic tasks continue to be a burden for physicians in all specialties. On average, psychiatrists spend 15.9 hours per week on paperwork and administration, about the same as physicians overall (15.6 hours).

Intensivists top the list regarding such tasks (19.1 hours), followed by internists (18.5 hours), infectious disease physicians (18.5 hours), and psychiatrists (18.3 hours). Anesthesiologists and ophthalmologists spend the least amount of time on paperwork/administration (10.0 and 9.8 hours per week, respectively).

What is most rewarding about being a psychiatrist? Making the world a better place (helping others) tops the list (28%), followed closely by relationships with and gratitude from patients (24%), being good at what they do/finding answers, diagnoses (20%), and making good money at a job they like (15%). A few cited teaching (6%) and pride in their profession (4%).

The most challenging part of practicing psychiatry is having so many rules and regulations (29%). Other challenges include dealing with difficult patients (18%), working with EHRs (13%), having to work long hours (11%), and trouble getting fair reimbursement (10%).

Despite the challenges, if they had to do it all over, 81% of psychiatrists would choose medicine as a career again and 89% would choose psychiatry again.

Other key findings in the latest report regarding psychiatrists include the following:

• At 16%, psychiatrists rank toward the middle of physicians, potentially losing money on denied or resubmitted claims. Plastic surgery and emergency medicine have the highest percentage of claims denied or resubmitted (28% and 22%, respectively). One study found that, on average, 63% of denied claims are recoverable, but healthcare professionals spend about $118 per claim on appeals.
• Only 14% of psychiatrists say they use physician assistants to treat patients in their practices, while 46% use nurse practitioners; about half (51%) use neither for patient care. Of psychiatrists who work with physician assistants and nurse practitioners in their offices, 34% say these employees have helped boost profitability.
• 56% of psychiatrists say they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients; only 1% say they won’t take new Medicare patients and 22% are undecided.
• The large majority of psychiatrists rely on payers; 30% rely on fee-for-service arrangements and 14% on accountable care organizations for patient-based income.
• Only 12% of psychiatrists expect to participate in the merit-based incentive payment system and only 1% expect to participate in alternative payment models.

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

Psychiatrists continue to rank close to the bottom of the compensation ladder, but they made more this year than last year and they continue to enjoy their profession, findings from the newly released Medscape Psychiatrist Compensation Report 2020 show.

Psychiatrists’ average annual income this year rose to $268,000, up from $260,000 last year. Two-thirds of psychiatrists feel fairly compensated, similar to last year’s percentage.

Psychiatrists are below the middle earners of all physician specialties, ranking eighth from the bottom, just below neurologists ($280,000), but ahead of rheumatologists ($262,000) and internists ($251,000).

Orthopedists are the top earners ($511,000 annual pay), followed by plastic surgeons ($479,000), otolaryngologists ($455,000), and cardiologists ($438,000), according to the overall Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020, which covers U.S. physicians as a whole. The survey included more than 17,000 physicians in more than 30 specialties.

COVID-19 impact

An important caveat is that data for this year’s report were collected prior to Feb. 10, 2020, and therefore reflect physician salary and income prior to the COVID-19 crisis, which has had a huge impact on physicians.

For example, since the start of the crisis, data show that physician practices have seen a 55% dip in revenue and a 60% dip in patient volume on average. Hospitals and physician groups nationwide have implemented layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts.

In March, 43,000 health care workers were laid off; 9% of independent medical practices reported that they have closed their practices, at least temporarily.

There continues to be a gender pay gap in psychiatry, with male psychiatrists earning about 21% more than their female peers ($289,000 vs. $239,000). Among all specialists, men earn 31% more than women, similar to last year’s figure of 33%. There continues to be a 25% gender pay gap among primary care physicians.

Psychiatrists report that they are eligible for $26,000 in annual incentive bonuses. Such bonuses are highest among orthopedists ($96,000) and lowest among family medicine physicians ($24,000).

Close to one-third of psychiatrists (and physicians overall) who have incentive bonuses say the prospect of the bonus has encouraged them to work longer hours.

Two thirds of psychiatrists say they receive more than three quarters of their potential annual incentive bonus. On average, psychiatrists achieve 70% of their potential bonus, similar to physicians overall (67%).

However, COVID-19 may change that. Experts recently interviewed by Medscape Medical News noted that productivity benchmarks for physicians are likely to be lowered in light of plunging patient numbers from COVID-19, and bonuses are expected to take a hit.

Happy at work

On average, male psychiatrists spend 34.5 hours per week seeing patients, somewhat higher than female psychiatrists (31.5 hours); the average for all physicians is 37.9 hours per week.

Bureaucratic tasks continue to be a burden for physicians in all specialties. On average, psychiatrists spend 15.9 hours per week on paperwork and administration, about the same as physicians overall (15.6 hours).

Intensivists top the list regarding such tasks (19.1 hours), followed by internists (18.5 hours), infectious disease physicians (18.5 hours), and psychiatrists (18.3 hours). Anesthesiologists and ophthalmologists spend the least amount of time on paperwork/administration (10.0 and 9.8 hours per week, respectively).

What is most rewarding about being a psychiatrist? Making the world a better place (helping others) tops the list (28%), followed closely by relationships with and gratitude from patients (24%), being good at what they do/finding answers, diagnoses (20%), and making good money at a job they like (15%). A few cited teaching (6%) and pride in their profession (4%).

The most challenging part of practicing psychiatry is having so many rules and regulations (29%). Other challenges include dealing with difficult patients (18%), working with EHRs (13%), having to work long hours (11%), and trouble getting fair reimbursement (10%).

Despite the challenges, if they had to do it all over, 81% of psychiatrists would choose medicine as a career again and 89% would choose psychiatry again.

Other key findings in the latest report regarding psychiatrists include the following:

• At 16%, psychiatrists rank toward the middle of physicians, potentially losing money on denied or resubmitted claims. Plastic surgery and emergency medicine have the highest percentage of claims denied or resubmitted (28% and 22%, respectively). One study found that, on average, 63% of denied claims are recoverable, but healthcare professionals spend about $118 per claim on appeals.
• Only 14% of psychiatrists say they use physician assistants to treat patients in their practices, while 46% use nurse practitioners; about half (51%) use neither for patient care. Of psychiatrists who work with physician assistants and nurse practitioners in their offices, 34% say these employees have helped boost profitability.
• 56% of psychiatrists say they will continue taking new and current Medicare/Medicaid patients; only 1% say they won’t take new Medicare patients and 22% are undecided.
• The large majority of psychiatrists rely on payers; 30% rely on fee-for-service arrangements and 14% on accountable care organizations for patient-based income.
• Only 12% of psychiatrists expect to participate in the merit-based incentive payment system and only 1% expect to participate in alternative payment models.

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