Cardiology News

SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19, continues to spread around the world with a devastating social and economic impact. Undoubtedly, health care workers are essential to overcoming this crisis. If these issues are left unaddressed, low morale, burnout, or absenteeism could lead to the collapse of health care systems.

Historically, the health care industry has been one of the most hazardous environments in which to work. Employees in this industry are constantly exposed to a complex variety of health and safety hazards.

Particularly, risks from biological exposure to diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV, and currently COVID-19 are taking a considerable toll on health care workers’ health and well-being. Health care workers are leaving their families to work extra shifts, dealing with limited resources, and navigating the chaos. On top of all that, they are sacrificing their lives through these uncertain times.

Despite their resilience, health care workers – like the general population – can have strong psychological reactions of anxiety and fear during a pandemic. Still, they are required to continue their work amid uncertainty and danger.
 

Current research studies on COVID-19

Several studies have identified the impact of working in this type of environment during previous pandemics and disasters. In a study of hospital employees in China during the SARS epidemic (2002-2003), Ping Wu, PhD, and colleagues found that 10% of the participants experienced high levels of posttraumatic stress.¹ In a similar study in Taiwan, researchers found that 17.3% of employees had developed significant mental health symptoms during the SARS outbreak.²

The impact of COVID-19 on health care workers seems to be much worse. A recent study from China indicates that 50.4% of hospital employees showed signs of depression, 44.6% had anxiety, and 34% had insomnia.³

Another recent cross-sectional study conducted by Lijun Kang, PhD, and associates evaluated the impact on mental health among health care workers in Wuhan, China, during the COVID-19 outbreak. This was the first study on the mental health of health care workers. This study recruited health care workers in Wuhan to participate in the survey from Jan. 29 to Feb. 4, 2020. The data were collected online with an anonymous, self-rated questionnaire that was distributed to all workstations. All subjects provided informed consent electronically prior to participating in the survey.

The survey questionnaire was made up of six components: primary demographic data, mental health assessment, risks of direct and indirect exposure to COVID-19, mental health care services accessed, psychological needs, and self-perceived health status, compared with that before the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 994 health care workers responded to this survey, and the results are fascinating: 36.9% had subthreshold mental health distress (mean Patient Health Questionnaire–9 score, 2.4), 34.4% reported mild disturbances (mean PHQ-9, 5.4), 22.4% had moderate (mean PHQ-9, 9.0), and 6.2% reported severe disturbance (mean PHQ-9, 15.1). In this study, young women experienced more significant psychological distress. Regarding access to mental health services, 36.3% reported access to psychological materials, such as books on mental health; 50.4% used psychological resources available through media, such as online self-help coping methods; and 17.5% participated in counseling or psychotherapy.⁴

These findings emphasize the importance of being equipped to ensure the health and safety of health care workers through mental health interventions, both at work and in the community during this time of anxiety and uncertainty.

We are unaware of any current studies that are addressing the mental health needs of health care workers during the COVID-19 outbreak in United States. Future studies will become more critical in addressing this issue.

Risks to clinicians, families prevail

According to a recent report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 9,000 health care workers across the United States had contracted COVID-19 as of mid-April, and 27 had died since the start of the pandemic.⁵

Health care workers are at risk around the globe, not only by the nature of their jobs but also by the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). In addition, the scarcity of N95 masks, respirators, and COVID-19 testing programs is causing the virus to spread among health care workers all over the world.

A study published recently by Celso Arango, MD, PhD, reported that 18% of staff at a hospital in Madrid had been infected with COVID-19. Dr. Arango speculated that transmission might be attributable to interactions with colleagues rather than with patients.⁶ We know, for example, that large proportions of people in China reportedly carried the virus while being asymptomatic.⁷ Those findings might not be generalizable, but they do suggest that an asymptomatic person could be a cause of contagion among professionals. Therefore, early screening and testing are critical – and should be priorities in health care settings.

Another problem clinicians can encounter is that, when they are called on to deal with very agitated patients, they might not get enough time to put on PPE. In addition, PPE can easily break and tear during the physical restraint process.

Working long hours is also putting a significant strain on health care workers and exposes them to the risk of infection. Also, health care workers not only worry about their safety but also fear bringing the virus to their families. They can also feel guilty about their conflicting feelings about exposing themselves and their families to risk. It is quite possible that, during this COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers will face a “care paradox,” in which they must choose between patients’ safety and their own. This care paradox can significantly contribute to a feeling of burnout, stress, and anxiety. Ultimately, this pandemic could lead to attrition ^{from the field at a time when we most need all hands on deck.8}

Further, according to a World Health Organization report on mental health and psychosocial consideration during the COVID-19 outbreak, some health care workers, unfortunately, experience avoidance by their family members or communities because of stigma, fear, and anxiety. This avoidance threatens to make an already challenging situation far worse for health care workers by increasing isolation.

Even after acute outbreak are over, the effects on health care workers can persist for years. In a follow-up study 13-26 months after the SARS outbreak, Robert G. Maunder, MD, and associates found that Toronto-area health care workers reported significantly higher levels of burnout, psychological distress, and posttraumatic stress. They were more likely to have reduced patient contact and work hours, and to have avoided behavioral consequences of stress.⁹ Exposure to stressful work conditions during a pandemic also might put hospital employees at a much higher risk of alcohol and substance use disorders.¹⁰
 

Potential solutions for improving care

COVID-19 has had a massive impact on the mental health of health care workers around the globe. Fortunately, there are evidence-based strategies aimed at mitigating the effects of this pandemic on health care workers. Fostering self-efficacy and optimism has been shown to improve coping and efficiency during disasters.⁹ Higher perceived workplace safety is associated with a lower risk of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress among health care workers, while a lack of social support has been linked to adverse behavioral outcomes.¹⁰

A recent study found that, among Chinese physicians who cared for COVID-19 victims, more significant social support was associated with better sleep quality, greater self-effectiveness, and less psychological distress.¹¹ Positive leadership and a professional culture of trust, and openness with unambiguous communication have been shown to improve the engagement of the medical workforce.^12,13 Psychiatrists must advocate for the adoption of these practices in the workplace. Assessing and addressing mental health needs, in addition to the physical health of the health care workforce, is of utmost importance.

We can accomplish this in many ways, but we have to access our health care workers. Similar to our patient population, health care workers also experience stigma and anxiety tied to the disclosure of mental health challenges. This was reported in a study conducted in China, in which a specific psychological intervention using a hotline program was used for the medical team.¹⁴ This program provided psychological interventions/group activities aimed at releasing stress and anxiety. However, initially, the implementation of psychological interventions encountered obstacles.

For example, some members of the medical staff declined to participate in group or individual psychological interventions. Moreover, nurses showed irritability, unwillingness to join, and some staff refused, stating that “they did not have any problems.” Finally, psychological counselors regularly visited the facility to listen to difficulties or stories encountered by staff at work and provide support accordingly. More than 100 frontline medical staff participated and reported feeling better.¹⁵

Currently, several U.S. universities/institutes have implemented programs aimed at protecting the health and well-being of their staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Hackensack Meridian Health has put comprehensive system programs in place for at 16 affiliated medical centers and other patient care facilities to provide support during the COVID-19 crisis. A 24/7 team member support hotline connecting team members with a behavioral health specialist has become available when needed. This hotline is backed up by social workers, who provide mental health resources. In addition, another service called “Coping with COVID Talks” is available. This service is a virtual psychoeducational group facilitated by psychologists focusing on building coping skills and resilience.

Also, the consultation-liaison psychiatrists in the medical centers provide daily support to clinicians working in ICUs. These efforts have led to paradoxical benefits for employers, further leading to less commuting, more safety, and enhanced productivity for the clinician, according to Ramon Solhkhah, MD, MBA, chairman of the psychiatry department.¹⁶

Some universities, such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have created mental health/telehealth support for health care workers, where they are conducting webinars on coping with uncertainty tied to COVID-19.¹⁷ The University of California, San Francisco, also has been a leader in this effort. That institution has employed its psychiatric workforce as volunteers – encouraging health care workers to use digital health apps and referral resources. Also, these volunteers provide peer counseling, phone support, and spiritual counseling to their health care workers.¹⁸

These approaches are crucial in this uncertain, challenging time. Our mental health system is deeply flawed, understaffed, and not well prepared to manage the mental health issues among health care workers. Psychiatric institutes/facilities should follow comprehensive and multifaceted approaches to combat the COVID-19 crisis. Several preventive measures can be considered in coping with this pandemic, such as stress reduction, mindfulness, and disseminating educational materials. Also, increased use of technology, such as in-the-moment measures, development of hotlines, crisis support, and treatment telepsychiatry for therapy and medication, should play a pivotal role in addressing the mental health needs of health care workers.

In addition, it is expected that, as a nation, we will see a surge of mental health needs for illnesses such as depression and PTSD, just as we do after “natural disasters” caused by a variety of reasons, including economic downturns. After the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, health care workers showed symptoms of PTSD. The COVID-19 pandemic could have a similar impact.

The severity of mental health challenges among clinicians cannot be predicted at this time, but we can speculate that the traumatic impact of COVID-19 will prove long lasting, particularly among clinicians who served vulnerable populations and witnessed suffering, misery, and deaths. The long-term consequences might range from stress and anxiety to fear, depression, and PTSD. Implementation of mental health programs/psychological interventions/support will reduce the impact of mental health issues among these clinicians.

We must think about the best ways to optimize mental health among health care workers while also come up with innovative ways to target this at-risk group. The mental health of people who are saving lives – our frontline heroes – should be taken into consideration seriously around the globe. We also must prioritize the mental health of these workers during this unprecedented, challenging, and anxiety-provoking time.

Dr. Malik and Mr. Van Wert are affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Kumari, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Doumas, and Dr. Solhkhah are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. All six authors disclosed having no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank Vinay Kumar for his assistance with the literature review and for proofreading and editing this article.

References

1. Wu P et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):302-11.

2. Lu YC et al. Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75(6):370-5.

3. Lai J et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e203976.

4. Kang L et al. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.028.

5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):477-81.

6. Arango C. Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.04.003.

7. Day M. BMJ. 2020 Apr 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1375.

8. Kirsch T. “Coronavirus, COVID-19: What happens if health care workers stop showing up?” The Atlantic. 2020 Mar 24.

9. Maunder RG et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(12):1924-32.

10. Wu P et al. Alcohol Alcohol. 2008;43(6):706-12.

11. Brooks SK et al. BMC Psychol. 2016 Apr 26;4:18.

12. Smith BW et al. Am J Infect Control. 2009; 37:371-80.

13. Chen Q et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 1;7(14):PE15-6.

14. Xiao H et al. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923549.

15. Bergus GR et al. Acad Med. 2001;76:1148-52.

16. Bergeron T. “Working from home will be stressful. Here’s how employees (and employers) can handle it.” roi-nj.com. 2020 Mar 23.

17. UNChealthcare.org. “Mental Health/Emotional Support Resources for Coworkers and Providers Coping with COVID-19.”

18. Psych.ucsf.edu/coronoavirus. “Resources to Support Your Mental Health During the COVID-19 Outbreak.”

SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19, continues to spread around the world with a devastating social and economic impact. Undoubtedly, health care workers are essential to overcoming this crisis. If these issues are left unaddressed, low morale, burnout, or absenteeism could lead to the collapse of health care systems.

Historically, the health care industry has been one of the most hazardous environments in which to work. Employees in this industry are constantly exposed to a complex variety of health and safety hazards.

Particularly, risks from biological exposure to diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV, and currently COVID-19 are taking a considerable toll on health care workers’ health and well-being. Health care workers are leaving their families to work extra shifts, dealing with limited resources, and navigating the chaos. On top of all that, they are sacrificing their lives through these uncertain times.

Despite their resilience, health care workers – like the general population – can have strong psychological reactions of anxiety and fear during a pandemic. Still, they are required to continue their work amid uncertainty and danger.
 

Current research studies on COVID-19

Several studies have identified the impact of working in this type of environment during previous pandemics and disasters. In a study of hospital employees in China during the SARS epidemic (2002-2003), Ping Wu, PhD, and colleagues found that 10% of the participants experienced high levels of posttraumatic stress.¹ In a similar study in Taiwan, researchers found that 17.3% of employees had developed significant mental health symptoms during the SARS outbreak.²

The impact of COVID-19 on health care workers seems to be much worse. A recent study from China indicates that 50.4% of hospital employees showed signs of depression, 44.6% had anxiety, and 34% had insomnia.³

Another recent cross-sectional study conducted by Lijun Kang, PhD, and associates evaluated the impact on mental health among health care workers in Wuhan, China, during the COVID-19 outbreak. This was the first study on the mental health of health care workers. This study recruited health care workers in Wuhan to participate in the survey from Jan. 29 to Feb. 4, 2020. The data were collected online with an anonymous, self-rated questionnaire that was distributed to all workstations. All subjects provided informed consent electronically prior to participating in the survey.

The survey questionnaire was made up of six components: primary demographic data, mental health assessment, risks of direct and indirect exposure to COVID-19, mental health care services accessed, psychological needs, and self-perceived health status, compared with that before the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 994 health care workers responded to this survey, and the results are fascinating: 36.9% had subthreshold mental health distress (mean Patient Health Questionnaire–9 score, 2.4), 34.4% reported mild disturbances (mean PHQ-9, 5.4), 22.4% had moderate (mean PHQ-9, 9.0), and 6.2% reported severe disturbance (mean PHQ-9, 15.1). In this study, young women experienced more significant psychological distress. Regarding access to mental health services, 36.3% reported access to psychological materials, such as books on mental health; 50.4% used psychological resources available through media, such as online self-help coping methods; and 17.5% participated in counseling or psychotherapy.⁴

These findings emphasize the importance of being equipped to ensure the health and safety of health care workers through mental health interventions, both at work and in the community during this time of anxiety and uncertainty.

We are unaware of any current studies that are addressing the mental health needs of health care workers during the COVID-19 outbreak in United States. Future studies will become more critical in addressing this issue.

Risks to clinicians, families prevail

According to a recent report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 9,000 health care workers across the United States had contracted COVID-19 as of mid-April, and 27 had died since the start of the pandemic.⁵

Health care workers are at risk around the globe, not only by the nature of their jobs but also by the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). In addition, the scarcity of N95 masks, respirators, and COVID-19 testing programs is causing the virus to spread among health care workers all over the world.

A study published recently by Celso Arango, MD, PhD, reported that 18% of staff at a hospital in Madrid had been infected with COVID-19. Dr. Arango speculated that transmission might be attributable to interactions with colleagues rather than with patients.⁶ We know, for example, that large proportions of people in China reportedly carried the virus while being asymptomatic.⁷ Those findings might not be generalizable, but they do suggest that an asymptomatic person could be a cause of contagion among professionals. Therefore, early screening and testing are critical – and should be priorities in health care settings.

Another problem clinicians can encounter is that, when they are called on to deal with very agitated patients, they might not get enough time to put on PPE. In addition, PPE can easily break and tear during the physical restraint process.

Working long hours is also putting a significant strain on health care workers and exposes them to the risk of infection. Also, health care workers not only worry about their safety but also fear bringing the virus to their families. They can also feel guilty about their conflicting feelings about exposing themselves and their families to risk. It is quite possible that, during this COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers will face a “care paradox,” in which they must choose between patients’ safety and their own. This care paradox can significantly contribute to a feeling of burnout, stress, and anxiety. Ultimately, this pandemic could lead to attrition ^{from the field at a time when we most need all hands on deck.8}

Further, according to a World Health Organization report on mental health and psychosocial consideration during the COVID-19 outbreak, some health care workers, unfortunately, experience avoidance by their family members or communities because of stigma, fear, and anxiety. This avoidance threatens to make an already challenging situation far worse for health care workers by increasing isolation.

Even after acute outbreak are over, the effects on health care workers can persist for years. In a follow-up study 13-26 months after the SARS outbreak, Robert G. Maunder, MD, and associates found that Toronto-area health care workers reported significantly higher levels of burnout, psychological distress, and posttraumatic stress. They were more likely to have reduced patient contact and work hours, and to have avoided behavioral consequences of stress.⁹ Exposure to stressful work conditions during a pandemic also might put hospital employees at a much higher risk of alcohol and substance use disorders.¹⁰
 

Potential solutions for improving care

COVID-19 has had a massive impact on the mental health of health care workers around the globe. Fortunately, there are evidence-based strategies aimed at mitigating the effects of this pandemic on health care workers. Fostering self-efficacy and optimism has been shown to improve coping and efficiency during disasters.⁹ Higher perceived workplace safety is associated with a lower risk of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress among health care workers, while a lack of social support has been linked to adverse behavioral outcomes.¹⁰

A recent study found that, among Chinese physicians who cared for COVID-19 victims, more significant social support was associated with better sleep quality, greater self-effectiveness, and less psychological distress.¹¹ Positive leadership and a professional culture of trust, and openness with unambiguous communication have been shown to improve the engagement of the medical workforce.^12,13 Psychiatrists must advocate for the adoption of these practices in the workplace. Assessing and addressing mental health needs, in addition to the physical health of the health care workforce, is of utmost importance.

We can accomplish this in many ways, but we have to access our health care workers. Similar to our patient population, health care workers also experience stigma and anxiety tied to the disclosure of mental health challenges. This was reported in a study conducted in China, in which a specific psychological intervention using a hotline program was used for the medical team.¹⁴ This program provided psychological interventions/group activities aimed at releasing stress and anxiety. However, initially, the implementation of psychological interventions encountered obstacles.

For example, some members of the medical staff declined to participate in group or individual psychological interventions. Moreover, nurses showed irritability, unwillingness to join, and some staff refused, stating that “they did not have any problems.” Finally, psychological counselors regularly visited the facility to listen to difficulties or stories encountered by staff at work and provide support accordingly. More than 100 frontline medical staff participated and reported feeling better.¹⁵

Currently, several U.S. universities/institutes have implemented programs aimed at protecting the health and well-being of their staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Hackensack Meridian Health has put comprehensive system programs in place for at 16 affiliated medical centers and other patient care facilities to provide support during the COVID-19 crisis. A 24/7 team member support hotline connecting team members with a behavioral health specialist has become available when needed. This hotline is backed up by social workers, who provide mental health resources. In addition, another service called “Coping with COVID Talks” is available. This service is a virtual psychoeducational group facilitated by psychologists focusing on building coping skills and resilience.

Also, the consultation-liaison psychiatrists in the medical centers provide daily support to clinicians working in ICUs. These efforts have led to paradoxical benefits for employers, further leading to less commuting, more safety, and enhanced productivity for the clinician, according to Ramon Solhkhah, MD, MBA, chairman of the psychiatry department.¹⁶

Some universities, such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have created mental health/telehealth support for health care workers, where they are conducting webinars on coping with uncertainty tied to COVID-19.¹⁷ The University of California, San Francisco, also has been a leader in this effort. That institution has employed its psychiatric workforce as volunteers – encouraging health care workers to use digital health apps and referral resources. Also, these volunteers provide peer counseling, phone support, and spiritual counseling to their health care workers.¹⁸

These approaches are crucial in this uncertain, challenging time. Our mental health system is deeply flawed, understaffed, and not well prepared to manage the mental health issues among health care workers. Psychiatric institutes/facilities should follow comprehensive and multifaceted approaches to combat the COVID-19 crisis. Several preventive measures can be considered in coping with this pandemic, such as stress reduction, mindfulness, and disseminating educational materials. Also, increased use of technology, such as in-the-moment measures, development of hotlines, crisis support, and treatment telepsychiatry for therapy and medication, should play a pivotal role in addressing the mental health needs of health care workers.

In addition, it is expected that, as a nation, we will see a surge of mental health needs for illnesses such as depression and PTSD, just as we do after “natural disasters” caused by a variety of reasons, including economic downturns. After the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, health care workers showed symptoms of PTSD. The COVID-19 pandemic could have a similar impact.

The severity of mental health challenges among clinicians cannot be predicted at this time, but we can speculate that the traumatic impact of COVID-19 will prove long lasting, particularly among clinicians who served vulnerable populations and witnessed suffering, misery, and deaths. The long-term consequences might range from stress and anxiety to fear, depression, and PTSD. Implementation of mental health programs/psychological interventions/support will reduce the impact of mental health issues among these clinicians.

We must think about the best ways to optimize mental health among health care workers while also come up with innovative ways to target this at-risk group. The mental health of people who are saving lives – our frontline heroes – should be taken into consideration seriously around the globe. We also must prioritize the mental health of these workers during this unprecedented, challenging, and anxiety-provoking time.

Dr. Malik and Mr. Van Wert are affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Kumari, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Doumas, and Dr. Solhkhah are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. All six authors disclosed having no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank Vinay Kumar for his assistance with the literature review and for proofreading and editing this article.

References

1. Wu P et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):302-11.

2. Lu YC et al. Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75(6):370-5.

3. Lai J et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e203976.

4. Kang L et al. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.028.

5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):477-81.

6. Arango C. Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.04.003.

7. Day M. BMJ. 2020 Apr 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1375.

8. Kirsch T. “Coronavirus, COVID-19: What happens if health care workers stop showing up?” The Atlantic. 2020 Mar 24.

9. Maunder RG et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(12):1924-32.

10. Wu P et al. Alcohol Alcohol. 2008;43(6):706-12.

11. Brooks SK et al. BMC Psychol. 2016 Apr 26;4:18.

12. Smith BW et al. Am J Infect Control. 2009; 37:371-80.

13. Chen Q et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 1;7(14):PE15-6.

14. Xiao H et al. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923549.

15. Bergus GR et al. Acad Med. 2001;76:1148-52.

16. Bergeron T. “Working from home will be stressful. Here’s how employees (and employers) can handle it.” roi-nj.com. 2020 Mar 23.

17. UNChealthcare.org. “Mental Health/Emotional Support Resources for Coworkers and Providers Coping with COVID-19.”

18. Psych.ucsf.edu/coronoavirus. “Resources to Support Your Mental Health During the COVID-19 Outbreak.”

SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes, COVID-19, continues to spread around the world with a devastating social and economic impact. Undoubtedly, health care workers are essential to overcoming this crisis. If these issues are left unaddressed, low morale, burnout, or absenteeism could lead to the collapse of health care systems.

Historically, the health care industry has been one of the most hazardous environments in which to work. Employees in this industry are constantly exposed to a complex variety of health and safety hazards.

Particularly, risks from biological exposure to diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV, and currently COVID-19 are taking a considerable toll on health care workers’ health and well-being. Health care workers are leaving their families to work extra shifts, dealing with limited resources, and navigating the chaos. On top of all that, they are sacrificing their lives through these uncertain times.

Despite their resilience, health care workers – like the general population – can have strong psychological reactions of anxiety and fear during a pandemic. Still, they are required to continue their work amid uncertainty and danger.
 

Current research studies on COVID-19

Several studies have identified the impact of working in this type of environment during previous pandemics and disasters. In a study of hospital employees in China during the SARS epidemic (2002-2003), Ping Wu, PhD, and colleagues found that 10% of the participants experienced high levels of posttraumatic stress.¹ In a similar study in Taiwan, researchers found that 17.3% of employees had developed significant mental health symptoms during the SARS outbreak.²

The impact of COVID-19 on health care workers seems to be much worse. A recent study from China indicates that 50.4% of hospital employees showed signs of depression, 44.6% had anxiety, and 34% had insomnia.³

Another recent cross-sectional study conducted by Lijun Kang, PhD, and associates evaluated the impact on mental health among health care workers in Wuhan, China, during the COVID-19 outbreak. This was the first study on the mental health of health care workers. This study recruited health care workers in Wuhan to participate in the survey from Jan. 29 to Feb. 4, 2020. The data were collected online with an anonymous, self-rated questionnaire that was distributed to all workstations. All subjects provided informed consent electronically prior to participating in the survey.

The survey questionnaire was made up of six components: primary demographic data, mental health assessment, risks of direct and indirect exposure to COVID-19, mental health care services accessed, psychological needs, and self-perceived health status, compared with that before the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 994 health care workers responded to this survey, and the results are fascinating: 36.9% had subthreshold mental health distress (mean Patient Health Questionnaire–9 score, 2.4), 34.4% reported mild disturbances (mean PHQ-9, 5.4), 22.4% had moderate (mean PHQ-9, 9.0), and 6.2% reported severe disturbance (mean PHQ-9, 15.1). In this study, young women experienced more significant psychological distress. Regarding access to mental health services, 36.3% reported access to psychological materials, such as books on mental health; 50.4% used psychological resources available through media, such as online self-help coping methods; and 17.5% participated in counseling or psychotherapy.⁴

These findings emphasize the importance of being equipped to ensure the health and safety of health care workers through mental health interventions, both at work and in the community during this time of anxiety and uncertainty.

We are unaware of any current studies that are addressing the mental health needs of health care workers during the COVID-19 outbreak in United States. Future studies will become more critical in addressing this issue.

Risks to clinicians, families prevail

According to a recent report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 9,000 health care workers across the United States had contracted COVID-19 as of mid-April, and 27 had died since the start of the pandemic.⁵

Health care workers are at risk around the globe, not only by the nature of their jobs but also by the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). In addition, the scarcity of N95 masks, respirators, and COVID-19 testing programs is causing the virus to spread among health care workers all over the world.

A study published recently by Celso Arango, MD, PhD, reported that 18% of staff at a hospital in Madrid had been infected with COVID-19. Dr. Arango speculated that transmission might be attributable to interactions with colleagues rather than with patients.⁶ We know, for example, that large proportions of people in China reportedly carried the virus while being asymptomatic.⁷ Those findings might not be generalizable, but they do suggest that an asymptomatic person could be a cause of contagion among professionals. Therefore, early screening and testing are critical – and should be priorities in health care settings.

Another problem clinicians can encounter is that, when they are called on to deal with very agitated patients, they might not get enough time to put on PPE. In addition, PPE can easily break and tear during the physical restraint process.

Working long hours is also putting a significant strain on health care workers and exposes them to the risk of infection. Also, health care workers not only worry about their safety but also fear bringing the virus to their families. They can also feel guilty about their conflicting feelings about exposing themselves and their families to risk. It is quite possible that, during this COVID-19 pandemic, health care workers will face a “care paradox,” in which they must choose between patients’ safety and their own. This care paradox can significantly contribute to a feeling of burnout, stress, and anxiety. Ultimately, this pandemic could lead to attrition ^{from the field at a time when we most need all hands on deck.8}

Further, according to a World Health Organization report on mental health and psychosocial consideration during the COVID-19 outbreak, some health care workers, unfortunately, experience avoidance by their family members or communities because of stigma, fear, and anxiety. This avoidance threatens to make an already challenging situation far worse for health care workers by increasing isolation.

Even after acute outbreak are over, the effects on health care workers can persist for years. In a follow-up study 13-26 months after the SARS outbreak, Robert G. Maunder, MD, and associates found that Toronto-area health care workers reported significantly higher levels of burnout, psychological distress, and posttraumatic stress. They were more likely to have reduced patient contact and work hours, and to have avoided behavioral consequences of stress.⁹ Exposure to stressful work conditions during a pandemic also might put hospital employees at a much higher risk of alcohol and substance use disorders.¹⁰
 

Potential solutions for improving care

COVID-19 has had a massive impact on the mental health of health care workers around the globe. Fortunately, there are evidence-based strategies aimed at mitigating the effects of this pandemic on health care workers. Fostering self-efficacy and optimism has been shown to improve coping and efficiency during disasters.⁹ Higher perceived workplace safety is associated with a lower risk of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress among health care workers, while a lack of social support has been linked to adverse behavioral outcomes.¹⁰

A recent study found that, among Chinese physicians who cared for COVID-19 victims, more significant social support was associated with better sleep quality, greater self-effectiveness, and less psychological distress.¹¹ Positive leadership and a professional culture of trust, and openness with unambiguous communication have been shown to improve the engagement of the medical workforce.^12,13 Psychiatrists must advocate for the adoption of these practices in the workplace. Assessing and addressing mental health needs, in addition to the physical health of the health care workforce, is of utmost importance.

We can accomplish this in many ways, but we have to access our health care workers. Similar to our patient population, health care workers also experience stigma and anxiety tied to the disclosure of mental health challenges. This was reported in a study conducted in China, in which a specific psychological intervention using a hotline program was used for the medical team.¹⁴ This program provided psychological interventions/group activities aimed at releasing stress and anxiety. However, initially, the implementation of psychological interventions encountered obstacles.

For example, some members of the medical staff declined to participate in group or individual psychological interventions. Moreover, nurses showed irritability, unwillingness to join, and some staff refused, stating that “they did not have any problems.” Finally, psychological counselors regularly visited the facility to listen to difficulties or stories encountered by staff at work and provide support accordingly. More than 100 frontline medical staff participated and reported feeling better.¹⁵

Currently, several U.S. universities/institutes have implemented programs aimed at protecting the health and well-being of their staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, the department of psychiatry and behavioral health at Hackensack Meridian Health has put comprehensive system programs in place for at 16 affiliated medical centers and other patient care facilities to provide support during the COVID-19 crisis. A 24/7 team member support hotline connecting team members with a behavioral health specialist has become available when needed. This hotline is backed up by social workers, who provide mental health resources. In addition, another service called “Coping with COVID Talks” is available. This service is a virtual psychoeducational group facilitated by psychologists focusing on building coping skills and resilience.

Also, the consultation-liaison psychiatrists in the medical centers provide daily support to clinicians working in ICUs. These efforts have led to paradoxical benefits for employers, further leading to less commuting, more safety, and enhanced productivity for the clinician, according to Ramon Solhkhah, MD, MBA, chairman of the psychiatry department.¹⁶

Some universities, such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have created mental health/telehealth support for health care workers, where they are conducting webinars on coping with uncertainty tied to COVID-19.¹⁷ The University of California, San Francisco, also has been a leader in this effort. That institution has employed its psychiatric workforce as volunteers – encouraging health care workers to use digital health apps and referral resources. Also, these volunteers provide peer counseling, phone support, and spiritual counseling to their health care workers.¹⁸

These approaches are crucial in this uncertain, challenging time. Our mental health system is deeply flawed, understaffed, and not well prepared to manage the mental health issues among health care workers. Psychiatric institutes/facilities should follow comprehensive and multifaceted approaches to combat the COVID-19 crisis. Several preventive measures can be considered in coping with this pandemic, such as stress reduction, mindfulness, and disseminating educational materials. Also, increased use of technology, such as in-the-moment measures, development of hotlines, crisis support, and treatment telepsychiatry for therapy and medication, should play a pivotal role in addressing the mental health needs of health care workers.

In addition, it is expected that, as a nation, we will see a surge of mental health needs for illnesses such as depression and PTSD, just as we do after “natural disasters” caused by a variety of reasons, including economic downturns. After the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, health care workers showed symptoms of PTSD. The COVID-19 pandemic could have a similar impact.

The severity of mental health challenges among clinicians cannot be predicted at this time, but we can speculate that the traumatic impact of COVID-19 will prove long lasting, particularly among clinicians who served vulnerable populations and witnessed suffering, misery, and deaths. The long-term consequences might range from stress and anxiety to fear, depression, and PTSD. Implementation of mental health programs/psychological interventions/support will reduce the impact of mental health issues among these clinicians.

We must think about the best ways to optimize mental health among health care workers while also come up with innovative ways to target this at-risk group. The mental health of people who are saving lives – our frontline heroes – should be taken into consideration seriously around the globe. We also must prioritize the mental health of these workers during this unprecedented, challenging, and anxiety-provoking time.

Dr. Malik and Mr. Van Wert are affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Dr. Kumari, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Doumas, and Dr. Solhkhah are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. All six authors disclosed having no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to thank Vinay Kumar for his assistance with the literature review and for proofreading and editing this article.

References

1. Wu P et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2009;54(5):302-11.

2. Lu YC et al. Psychother Psychosom. 2006;75(6):370-5.

3. Lai J et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e203976.

4. Kang L et al. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.028.

5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):477-81.

6. Arango C. Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.04.003.

7. Day M. BMJ. 2020 Apr 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1375.

8. Kirsch T. “Coronavirus, COVID-19: What happens if health care workers stop showing up?” The Atlantic. 2020 Mar 24.

9. Maunder RG et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(12):1924-32.

10. Wu P et al. Alcohol Alcohol. 2008;43(6):706-12.

11. Brooks SK et al. BMC Psychol. 2016 Apr 26;4:18.

12. Smith BW et al. Am J Infect Control. 2009; 37:371-80.

13. Chen Q et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 1;7(14):PE15-6.

14. Xiao H et al. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923549.

15. Bergus GR et al. Acad Med. 2001;76:1148-52.

16. Bergeron T. “Working from home will be stressful. Here’s how employees (and employers) can handle it.” roi-nj.com. 2020 Mar 23.

17. UNChealthcare.org. “Mental Health/Emotional Support Resources for Coworkers and Providers Coping with COVID-19.”

18. Psych.ucsf.edu/coronoavirus. “Resources to Support Your Mental Health During the COVID-19 Outbreak.”

The tragic death by suicide of an emergency department physician who had been caring for COVID-19 patients in New York City underscores the huge psychological impact of the pandemic – which will linger long after the virus is gone, experts say.

“For frontline responders, the trauma of witnessing so much illness and death will have lasting effects for many,” Bruce Schwartz, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), said during the opening session of the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event, replacing the organization’s canceled annual meeting.

“We will need the full workforce to cope with the psychiatric effects” of the pandemic, added Dr. Schwartz, deputy chairman and professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

Joshua Morganstein, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on the Psychiatric Dimensions of Disaster, led an afternoon session at the virtual meeting on “healthcare worker and organizational sustainment during COVID-19.”

The crisis is shaping up to be “a marathon, not a sprint; and self-care will remain a critical and ongoing issue. We are in this together,” he said.

Once the pandemic passes, “if history is any predictor, we should expect a significant ‘tail’ of mental health needs that extend for a considerable period of time,” Dr. Morganstein added.
 

Psychological first aid

It is important to realize that the psychological and behavioral effects of disasters are experienced by “more people, over a greater geography, across a much longer period of time than all other medical effects combined. This is important for disaster resource planning,” Dr. Morganstein told meeting attendees.

At times of crisis, many people will experience distress reactions and engage in behaviors that put their health at risk. Insomnia, increased alcohol and substance use, and family conflict are common and have a negative impact on functioning, he said.

In addition, pandemics result in unique responses. Protracted fear and uncertainty, elements of isolation, anger, misinformation, and faltering confidence in government/institutions may alter perceptions of risk.

“It’s the perception of risk, not the actual risk, that will ultimately determine how people behave,” Dr. Morganstein said.

“The ability to influence risk perception will alter the degree to which any group, community, or population ultimately chooses to engage in or reject recommended health behaviors,” he added.

In times of crisis, it’s also helpful to keep in mind and act upon the five essential elements of “psychological first aid,” he noted. These are safety, calming, self/community efficacy, social connectedness, and hope/optimism.

Psychological first aid is an evidence-based framework of supporting resilience in individuals, communities, and organizations, Dr. Morganstein said.

Individuals have a wide range of needs during times of crisis, and support should be tailored accordingly, he noted. As with many crises, instrumental support needs are significant and may be the primary need for many people. These include the need for food, clothing, rent/mortgage, financial relief, and child care.

Providing emotional support – empathy, validation, self-actualization, encouragement, and insight – will help individuals engage with instrumental supports.

“The reality is that it’s often difficult to talk about being sad when you feel hungry or worried you can’t pay the rent,” said Dr. Morganstein.

He also emphasized the importance of appropriate messaging and language during a crisis. These can have a profound impact on community well-being and the willingness of the public to engage in recommended health behaviors.

“As psychiatrists, we understand [that] the words we choose when we discuss this pandemic will have power. Communication is not only a means by which we deliver interventions, but it is, in and of itself, a behavioral health intervention. Good communication can serve to normalize experiences and function as an antidote to distress during times of uncertainty,” Dr. Morganstein said.

Importantly, “we need to remind people that eventually this will end and the vast majority of people, including those who have difficulties along the way, will ultimately be okay.”

The APA has provided a COVID-19 resource page on its website.

Dr. Morganstein and Dr. Schwartz have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The tragic death by suicide of an emergency department physician who had been caring for COVID-19 patients in New York City underscores the huge psychological impact of the pandemic – which will linger long after the virus is gone, experts say.

“For frontline responders, the trauma of witnessing so much illness and death will have lasting effects for many,” Bruce Schwartz, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), said during the opening session of the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event, replacing the organization’s canceled annual meeting.

“We will need the full workforce to cope with the psychiatric effects” of the pandemic, added Dr. Schwartz, deputy chairman and professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

Joshua Morganstein, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on the Psychiatric Dimensions of Disaster, led an afternoon session at the virtual meeting on “healthcare worker and organizational sustainment during COVID-19.”

The crisis is shaping up to be “a marathon, not a sprint; and self-care will remain a critical and ongoing issue. We are in this together,” he said.

Once the pandemic passes, “if history is any predictor, we should expect a significant ‘tail’ of mental health needs that extend for a considerable period of time,” Dr. Morganstein added.
 

Psychological first aid

It is important to realize that the psychological and behavioral effects of disasters are experienced by “more people, over a greater geography, across a much longer period of time than all other medical effects combined. This is important for disaster resource planning,” Dr. Morganstein told meeting attendees.

At times of crisis, many people will experience distress reactions and engage in behaviors that put their health at risk. Insomnia, increased alcohol and substance use, and family conflict are common and have a negative impact on functioning, he said.

In addition, pandemics result in unique responses. Protracted fear and uncertainty, elements of isolation, anger, misinformation, and faltering confidence in government/institutions may alter perceptions of risk.

“It’s the perception of risk, not the actual risk, that will ultimately determine how people behave,” Dr. Morganstein said.

“The ability to influence risk perception will alter the degree to which any group, community, or population ultimately chooses to engage in or reject recommended health behaviors,” he added.

In times of crisis, it’s also helpful to keep in mind and act upon the five essential elements of “psychological first aid,” he noted. These are safety, calming, self/community efficacy, social connectedness, and hope/optimism.

Psychological first aid is an evidence-based framework of supporting resilience in individuals, communities, and organizations, Dr. Morganstein said.

Individuals have a wide range of needs during times of crisis, and support should be tailored accordingly, he noted. As with many crises, instrumental support needs are significant and may be the primary need for many people. These include the need for food, clothing, rent/mortgage, financial relief, and child care.

Providing emotional support – empathy, validation, self-actualization, encouragement, and insight – will help individuals engage with instrumental supports.

“The reality is that it’s often difficult to talk about being sad when you feel hungry or worried you can’t pay the rent,” said Dr. Morganstein.

He also emphasized the importance of appropriate messaging and language during a crisis. These can have a profound impact on community well-being and the willingness of the public to engage in recommended health behaviors.

“As psychiatrists, we understand [that] the words we choose when we discuss this pandemic will have power. Communication is not only a means by which we deliver interventions, but it is, in and of itself, a behavioral health intervention. Good communication can serve to normalize experiences and function as an antidote to distress during times of uncertainty,” Dr. Morganstein said.

Importantly, “we need to remind people that eventually this will end and the vast majority of people, including those who have difficulties along the way, will ultimately be okay.”

The APA has provided a COVID-19 resource page on its website.

Dr. Morganstein and Dr. Schwartz have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The tragic death by suicide of an emergency department physician who had been caring for COVID-19 patients in New York City underscores the huge psychological impact of the pandemic – which will linger long after the virus is gone, experts say.

“For frontline responders, the trauma of witnessing so much illness and death will have lasting effects for many,” Bruce Schwartz, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), said during the opening session of the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event, replacing the organization’s canceled annual meeting.

“We will need the full workforce to cope with the psychiatric effects” of the pandemic, added Dr. Schwartz, deputy chairman and professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.

Joshua Morganstein, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on the Psychiatric Dimensions of Disaster, led an afternoon session at the virtual meeting on “healthcare worker and organizational sustainment during COVID-19.”

The crisis is shaping up to be “a marathon, not a sprint; and self-care will remain a critical and ongoing issue. We are in this together,” he said.

Once the pandemic passes, “if history is any predictor, we should expect a significant ‘tail’ of mental health needs that extend for a considerable period of time,” Dr. Morganstein added.
 

Psychological first aid

It is important to realize that the psychological and behavioral effects of disasters are experienced by “more people, over a greater geography, across a much longer period of time than all other medical effects combined. This is important for disaster resource planning,” Dr. Morganstein told meeting attendees.

At times of crisis, many people will experience distress reactions and engage in behaviors that put their health at risk. Insomnia, increased alcohol and substance use, and family conflict are common and have a negative impact on functioning, he said.

In addition, pandemics result in unique responses. Protracted fear and uncertainty, elements of isolation, anger, misinformation, and faltering confidence in government/institutions may alter perceptions of risk.

“It’s the perception of risk, not the actual risk, that will ultimately determine how people behave,” Dr. Morganstein said.

“The ability to influence risk perception will alter the degree to which any group, community, or population ultimately chooses to engage in or reject recommended health behaviors,” he added.

In times of crisis, it’s also helpful to keep in mind and act upon the five essential elements of “psychological first aid,” he noted. These are safety, calming, self/community efficacy, social connectedness, and hope/optimism.

Psychological first aid is an evidence-based framework of supporting resilience in individuals, communities, and organizations, Dr. Morganstein said.

Individuals have a wide range of needs during times of crisis, and support should be tailored accordingly, he noted. As with many crises, instrumental support needs are significant and may be the primary need for many people. These include the need for food, clothing, rent/mortgage, financial relief, and child care.

Providing emotional support – empathy, validation, self-actualization, encouragement, and insight – will help individuals engage with instrumental supports.

“The reality is that it’s often difficult to talk about being sad when you feel hungry or worried you can’t pay the rent,” said Dr. Morganstein.

He also emphasized the importance of appropriate messaging and language during a crisis. These can have a profound impact on community well-being and the willingness of the public to engage in recommended health behaviors.

“As psychiatrists, we understand [that] the words we choose when we discuss this pandemic will have power. Communication is not only a means by which we deliver interventions, but it is, in and of itself, a behavioral health intervention. Good communication can serve to normalize experiences and function as an antidote to distress during times of uncertainty,” Dr. Morganstein said.

Importantly, “we need to remind people that eventually this will end and the vast majority of people, including those who have difficulties along the way, will ultimately be okay.”

The APA has provided a COVID-19 resource page on its website.

Dr. Morganstein and Dr. Schwartz have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.

The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).

“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.

And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.

“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.

However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.

These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.

Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
 

“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”

Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”

It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.

Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.

“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.

“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.

Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.

“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.

Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”

DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined

The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.

Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.

Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.

Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.

Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.

Rationale for the study

Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.

Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”

“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.

“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.

And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.

“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.

The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.

Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.

The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).

“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.

And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.

“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.

However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.

These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.

Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
 

“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”

Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”

It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.

Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.

“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.

“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.

Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.

“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.

Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”

DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined

The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.

Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.

Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.

Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.

Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.

Rationale for the study

Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.

Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”

“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.

“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.

And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.

“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.

The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.

Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.

The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).

“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.

And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.

“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.

However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.

These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.

Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
 

“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”

Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”

It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.

Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.

“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.

“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.

Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.

“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.

Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”

DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined

The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.

Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.

Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.

Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.

Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.

Rationale for the study

Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.

Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”

“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.

“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.

And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.

“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.

The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.

Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors was not associated with worse outcomes in 86 people with inflammatory diseases who contracted COVID-19, according to a case series from New York University Langone Health.

“We are not seeing worse outcomes with overall use of either. It’s reassuring” that the data support continued use during the pandemic, said rheumatologist and senior investigator Jose Scher, MD, an associate professor at New York University.

There have been concerns among rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, and dermatologists that underlying inflammatory diseases and the agents used to treat them would impact outcomes in COVID-19.

Dr. Scher and colleagues, including lead author and rheumatologist Rebecca Haberman, MD, wanted to address the issue, so they reviewed the experience in their own health system of patients with inflammatory diseases – most commonly psoriatic arthritis, RA, and Crohn’s disease – who were assessed for COVID-19 from March 3 to April 3.

Fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most common symptoms. The infection was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction in 59 (69%) and highly suspected in 27.

A total of 62 patients (72%) were on JAK inhibitors or biologics at baseline, including 38 (44%) on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

Overall, 14 patients (16%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, which is consistent the 26% hospitalization rate among the general population in New York City.

Baseline biologic and JAK inhibitor use was actually lower among hospitalized patients than among those who weren’t hospitalized (50% vs. 76%), and the hospitalization rate was only 11% among 62 subjects who had been on the agents long term, more than a year among most.

Hospitalized patients tended to be slightly older (mean, 50 vs. 46 years) with a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They also had a higher prevalence of RA (43% vs. 19%), methotrexate use (43% vs. 15%), and use of hydroxychloroquine (21% vs. 7%) and oral glucocorticoids (29% vs. 6%).

It’s unknown what to make of those findings for now, Dr. Scher said. The study didn’t address differences in the severity of the underlying inflammatory illness, but a new and significantly larger case series is in the works that will analyze that and other potential confounders.

Dr. Scher noted that he’s particularly interested in drilling down further on the higher prevalence of RA and methotrexate in hospitalized patients. “We want to understand those signals better. All of this needs further validation,” he said.

Of the 14 hospitalized patients, 11 (79%) were discharged after a mean of 5.6 days. One died in the ED, and two remained hospitalized as of April 3, including one in the ICU.

The investigators are contributing to COVID-19 registries for inflammatory disease patients. The registries are tending to report higher hospitalization rates, but Dr. Scher noted they might be biased towards more severe cases, among other issues.

As for the current situation in New York City, he said that the “last week in March and first 3 in April were indescribable in terms of admissions, intubations, and deaths. Over the last week or so, it has calmed down significantly.”

There was no external funding. Dr. Haberman reported ties to Janssen, and Dr. Scher reported ties to Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Haberman R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009567.

Use of biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors was not associated with worse outcomes in 86 people with inflammatory diseases who contracted COVID-19, according to a case series from New York University Langone Health.

“We are not seeing worse outcomes with overall use of either. It’s reassuring” that the data support continued use during the pandemic, said rheumatologist and senior investigator Jose Scher, MD, an associate professor at New York University.

There have been concerns among rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, and dermatologists that underlying inflammatory diseases and the agents used to treat them would impact outcomes in COVID-19.

Dr. Scher and colleagues, including lead author and rheumatologist Rebecca Haberman, MD, wanted to address the issue, so they reviewed the experience in their own health system of patients with inflammatory diseases – most commonly psoriatic arthritis, RA, and Crohn’s disease – who were assessed for COVID-19 from March 3 to April 3.

Fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most common symptoms. The infection was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction in 59 (69%) and highly suspected in 27.

A total of 62 patients (72%) were on JAK inhibitors or biologics at baseline, including 38 (44%) on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

Overall, 14 patients (16%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, which is consistent the 26% hospitalization rate among the general population in New York City.

Baseline biologic and JAK inhibitor use was actually lower among hospitalized patients than among those who weren’t hospitalized (50% vs. 76%), and the hospitalization rate was only 11% among 62 subjects who had been on the agents long term, more than a year among most.

Hospitalized patients tended to be slightly older (mean, 50 vs. 46 years) with a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They also had a higher prevalence of RA (43% vs. 19%), methotrexate use (43% vs. 15%), and use of hydroxychloroquine (21% vs. 7%) and oral glucocorticoids (29% vs. 6%).

It’s unknown what to make of those findings for now, Dr. Scher said. The study didn’t address differences in the severity of the underlying inflammatory illness, but a new and significantly larger case series is in the works that will analyze that and other potential confounders.

Dr. Scher noted that he’s particularly interested in drilling down further on the higher prevalence of RA and methotrexate in hospitalized patients. “We want to understand those signals better. All of this needs further validation,” he said.

Of the 14 hospitalized patients, 11 (79%) were discharged after a mean of 5.6 days. One died in the ED, and two remained hospitalized as of April 3, including one in the ICU.

The investigators are contributing to COVID-19 registries for inflammatory disease patients. The registries are tending to report higher hospitalization rates, but Dr. Scher noted they might be biased towards more severe cases, among other issues.

As for the current situation in New York City, he said that the “last week in March and first 3 in April were indescribable in terms of admissions, intubations, and deaths. Over the last week or so, it has calmed down significantly.”

There was no external funding. Dr. Haberman reported ties to Janssen, and Dr. Scher reported ties to Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Haberman R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009567.

Use of biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors was not associated with worse outcomes in 86 people with inflammatory diseases who contracted COVID-19, according to a case series from New York University Langone Health.

“We are not seeing worse outcomes with overall use of either. It’s reassuring” that the data support continued use during the pandemic, said rheumatologist and senior investigator Jose Scher, MD, an associate professor at New York University.

There have been concerns among rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, and dermatologists that underlying inflammatory diseases and the agents used to treat them would impact outcomes in COVID-19.

Dr. Scher and colleagues, including lead author and rheumatologist Rebecca Haberman, MD, wanted to address the issue, so they reviewed the experience in their own health system of patients with inflammatory diseases – most commonly psoriatic arthritis, RA, and Crohn’s disease – who were assessed for COVID-19 from March 3 to April 3.

Fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most common symptoms. The infection was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction in 59 (69%) and highly suspected in 27.

A total of 62 patients (72%) were on JAK inhibitors or biologics at baseline, including 38 (44%) on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

Overall, 14 patients (16%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, which is consistent the 26% hospitalization rate among the general population in New York City.

Baseline biologic and JAK inhibitor use was actually lower among hospitalized patients than among those who weren’t hospitalized (50% vs. 76%), and the hospitalization rate was only 11% among 62 subjects who had been on the agents long term, more than a year among most.

Hospitalized patients tended to be slightly older (mean, 50 vs. 46 years) with a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They also had a higher prevalence of RA (43% vs. 19%), methotrexate use (43% vs. 15%), and use of hydroxychloroquine (21% vs. 7%) and oral glucocorticoids (29% vs. 6%).

It’s unknown what to make of those findings for now, Dr. Scher said. The study didn’t address differences in the severity of the underlying inflammatory illness, but a new and significantly larger case series is in the works that will analyze that and other potential confounders.

Dr. Scher noted that he’s particularly interested in drilling down further on the higher prevalence of RA and methotrexate in hospitalized patients. “We want to understand those signals better. All of this needs further validation,” he said.

Of the 14 hospitalized patients, 11 (79%) were discharged after a mean of 5.6 days. One died in the ED, and two remained hospitalized as of April 3, including one in the ICU.

The investigators are contributing to COVID-19 registries for inflammatory disease patients. The registries are tending to report higher hospitalization rates, but Dr. Scher noted they might be biased towards more severe cases, among other issues.

As for the current situation in New York City, he said that the “last week in March and first 3 in April were indescribable in terms of admissions, intubations, and deaths. Over the last week or so, it has calmed down significantly.”

There was no external funding. Dr. Haberman reported ties to Janssen, and Dr. Scher reported ties to Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Haberman R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009567.

Cancer patients who received antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis had an increased risk of severe events, according to data from three hospitals in Wuhan.

Patients with patchy consolidation at hospital admission also had an increased risk of severe events, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death.

However, these findings are limited by the small number of patients studied and the retrospective nature of the analysis, according to researchers.

Li Zhang, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, presented this research at the AACR virtual meeting I. Some of the data were previously published in Annals of Oncology.

The researchers studied 28 patients with cancer among 1,276 patients with COVID-19 treated at three hospitals in Wuhan. The most common cancer types were lung (n = 7), esophageal (n = 4), and breast (n = 3). Patients had other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, genitourinary, and head and neck cancers as well.

The patients’ median age was 65 years (range, 56-70 years), 60.9% were men, 35.7% had stage IV cancer, and 28.6% had hospital-acquired COVID-19. Antitumor treatments included chemotherapy (n = 22), surgery (n = 21), radiotherapy (n = 21), targeted therapy (n = 5), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 2).
 

COVID-19 treatment

Most patients (n = 22) received oxygen as their only respiratory intervention, although 10 received mechanical ventilation.

For systemic therapy, patients received antibiotic treatment (n = 23), corticosteroids (n = 15), intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 1).

Antiviral treatments included umifenovir (n = 14), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 10), ganciclovir (n = 9), ribavirin (n = 1), or a combination of antiviral drugs (n = 9).

“No cancer patients were enrolled in clinical trials, so no one received hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir,” Dr. Zhang noted.
 

Outcomes

In all, 15 patients (53.6%) had severe events. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to severe events was 7 days (range, 5-15 days).

A total of eight patients (28.6%) died – three with lung cancer, two with prostate cancer, one with liver cancer, one with rectal cancer, and one with testicular cancer.

Causes of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5), septic shock (n = 1), suspected pulmonary embolism (n = 1), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1).

By April 4, 14 patients had been discharged from the hospital, and 6 were still hospitalized. The median duration of hospitalization was 18.4 days for discharged patients and 29.4 days for patients still in hospital.

Follow-up CT scans showed improvement in 13 patients, no changes in 5 patients, and deterioration in 6 patients.
 

Factors associated with severe events

In a multivariable analysis, receiving antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with severe events (hazard ratio, 4.079; P = .037).

However, only seven patients received antitumor treatments within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis – three chemotherapy, two targeted therapy, one radiotherapy, and one immune checkpoint inhibitor. Five of these seven patients had severe events.

Another factor associated with severe events in multivariable analysis was patchy consolidation on CT scan at admission (HR, 5.438; P = .01). Age and gender were not significantly associated with severe events.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitors

Dr. Zhang and colleagues also analyzed a second group of cancer patients and their family members to determine if patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors have an increased risk of COVID-19.

This group included 124 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for at least 2 months. The patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 54-65 years), and 61.8% were men. Most patients (95.2%) had stage IV cancer, and the most common cancers were lung (54.0%), esophageal (18.6%), and head and neck (10.7%).

In this group, only one cancer patient developed COVID-19 (via nosocomial infection). In another case, a patient’s spouse developed COVID-19, but the patient did not.

Dr. Zhang said this “limited information did not suggest cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were more vulnerable to COVID infection.”

Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Huazhong University of Science and Technology COVID-19 Rapid Response Call China.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang L et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.

Cancer patients who received antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis had an increased risk of severe events, according to data from three hospitals in Wuhan.

Patients with patchy consolidation at hospital admission also had an increased risk of severe events, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death.

However, these findings are limited by the small number of patients studied and the retrospective nature of the analysis, according to researchers.

Li Zhang, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, presented this research at the AACR virtual meeting I. Some of the data were previously published in Annals of Oncology.

The researchers studied 28 patients with cancer among 1,276 patients with COVID-19 treated at three hospitals in Wuhan. The most common cancer types were lung (n = 7), esophageal (n = 4), and breast (n = 3). Patients had other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, genitourinary, and head and neck cancers as well.

The patients’ median age was 65 years (range, 56-70 years), 60.9% were men, 35.7% had stage IV cancer, and 28.6% had hospital-acquired COVID-19. Antitumor treatments included chemotherapy (n = 22), surgery (n = 21), radiotherapy (n = 21), targeted therapy (n = 5), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 2).
 

COVID-19 treatment

Most patients (n = 22) received oxygen as their only respiratory intervention, although 10 received mechanical ventilation.

For systemic therapy, patients received antibiotic treatment (n = 23), corticosteroids (n = 15), intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 1).

Antiviral treatments included umifenovir (n = 14), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 10), ganciclovir (n = 9), ribavirin (n = 1), or a combination of antiviral drugs (n = 9).

“No cancer patients were enrolled in clinical trials, so no one received hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir,” Dr. Zhang noted.
 

Outcomes

In all, 15 patients (53.6%) had severe events. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to severe events was 7 days (range, 5-15 days).

A total of eight patients (28.6%) died – three with lung cancer, two with prostate cancer, one with liver cancer, one with rectal cancer, and one with testicular cancer.

Causes of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5), septic shock (n = 1), suspected pulmonary embolism (n = 1), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1).

By April 4, 14 patients had been discharged from the hospital, and 6 were still hospitalized. The median duration of hospitalization was 18.4 days for discharged patients and 29.4 days for patients still in hospital.

Follow-up CT scans showed improvement in 13 patients, no changes in 5 patients, and deterioration in 6 patients.
 

Factors associated with severe events

In a multivariable analysis, receiving antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with severe events (hazard ratio, 4.079; P = .037).

However, only seven patients received antitumor treatments within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis – three chemotherapy, two targeted therapy, one radiotherapy, and one immune checkpoint inhibitor. Five of these seven patients had severe events.

Another factor associated with severe events in multivariable analysis was patchy consolidation on CT scan at admission (HR, 5.438; P = .01). Age and gender were not significantly associated with severe events.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitors

Dr. Zhang and colleagues also analyzed a second group of cancer patients and their family members to determine if patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors have an increased risk of COVID-19.

This group included 124 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for at least 2 months. The patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 54-65 years), and 61.8% were men. Most patients (95.2%) had stage IV cancer, and the most common cancers were lung (54.0%), esophageal (18.6%), and head and neck (10.7%).

In this group, only one cancer patient developed COVID-19 (via nosocomial infection). In another case, a patient’s spouse developed COVID-19, but the patient did not.

Dr. Zhang said this “limited information did not suggest cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were more vulnerable to COVID infection.”

Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Huazhong University of Science and Technology COVID-19 Rapid Response Call China.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang L et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.

Cancer patients who received antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis had an increased risk of severe events, according to data from three hospitals in Wuhan.

Patients with patchy consolidation at hospital admission also had an increased risk of severe events, defined as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death.

However, these findings are limited by the small number of patients studied and the retrospective nature of the analysis, according to researchers.

Li Zhang, MD, PhD, of Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, presented this research at the AACR virtual meeting I. Some of the data were previously published in Annals of Oncology.

The researchers studied 28 patients with cancer among 1,276 patients with COVID-19 treated at three hospitals in Wuhan. The most common cancer types were lung (n = 7), esophageal (n = 4), and breast (n = 3). Patients had other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, genitourinary, and head and neck cancers as well.

The patients’ median age was 65 years (range, 56-70 years), 60.9% were men, 35.7% had stage IV cancer, and 28.6% had hospital-acquired COVID-19. Antitumor treatments included chemotherapy (n = 22), surgery (n = 21), radiotherapy (n = 21), targeted therapy (n = 5), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 2).
 

COVID-19 treatment

Most patients (n = 22) received oxygen as their only respiratory intervention, although 10 received mechanical ventilation.

For systemic therapy, patients received antibiotic treatment (n = 23), corticosteroids (n = 15), intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 10), and tocilizumab (n = 1).

Antiviral treatments included umifenovir (n = 14), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 10), ganciclovir (n = 9), ribavirin (n = 1), or a combination of antiviral drugs (n = 9).

“No cancer patients were enrolled in clinical trials, so no one received hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir,” Dr. Zhang noted.
 

Outcomes

In all, 15 patients (53.6%) had severe events. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to severe events was 7 days (range, 5-15 days).

A total of eight patients (28.6%) died – three with lung cancer, two with prostate cancer, one with liver cancer, one with rectal cancer, and one with testicular cancer.

Causes of death were acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 5), septic shock (n = 1), suspected pulmonary embolism (n = 1), and acute myocardial infarction (n = 1).

By April 4, 14 patients had been discharged from the hospital, and 6 were still hospitalized. The median duration of hospitalization was 18.4 days for discharged patients and 29.4 days for patients still in hospital.

Follow-up CT scans showed improvement in 13 patients, no changes in 5 patients, and deterioration in 6 patients.
 

Factors associated with severe events

In a multivariable analysis, receiving antitumor treatment within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with severe events (hazard ratio, 4.079; P = .037).

However, only seven patients received antitumor treatments within 14 days of COVID-19 diagnosis – three chemotherapy, two targeted therapy, one radiotherapy, and one immune checkpoint inhibitor. Five of these seven patients had severe events.

Another factor associated with severe events in multivariable analysis was patchy consolidation on CT scan at admission (HR, 5.438; P = .01). Age and gender were not significantly associated with severe events.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitors

Dr. Zhang and colleagues also analyzed a second group of cancer patients and their family members to determine if patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors have an increased risk of COVID-19.

This group included 124 cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for at least 2 months. The patients had a median age of 59 years (range, 54-65 years), and 61.8% were men. Most patients (95.2%) had stage IV cancer, and the most common cancers were lung (54.0%), esophageal (18.6%), and head and neck (10.7%).

In this group, only one cancer patient developed COVID-19 (via nosocomial infection). In another case, a patient’s spouse developed COVID-19, but the patient did not.

Dr. Zhang said this “limited information did not suggest cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors were more vulnerable to COVID infection.”

Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Huazhong University of Science and Technology COVID-19 Rapid Response Call China.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang L et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.03.296.

Redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a reasonably safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR, new registry data suggest.

“Redo TAVR is about to become a much more common procedure and it’s reassuring to see that the outcomes that can be achieved by these procedures are quite good,” said Uri Landes, MD, Vancouver General Hospital, British Columbia, Canada.

Landes and colleagues reported results from the Redo-TAVR Registry in the April 28 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The Redo-TAVR Registry is an investigator-initiated effort designed to collect information on patients who undergo a second TAVR within a dysfunctional transcatheter heart valve (THV).

From 63,876 TAVR procedures done at 37 participating centers, 212 (0.33%) were redo-TAVR procedures. Seventy-four of the redo procedures were done within 1 year of the initial TAVR and the remaining 138 were beyond 1 year. Median time from TAVR-to-redo-TAVR for these two groups was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years, respectively.

“It’s important to understand that this is probably a highly selected group of patients and these numbers do no reliably reflect the ratio of patients who will need a redo TAVR,” said Landes in an interview with theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“We don’t know how many patients were excluded from redo TAVR because of prohibitive anatomical factors, such as an anticipated high risk for coronary occlusion, or a patient prosthesis mismatch. Also, some of these individuals received their THVs more recently, so if they will suffer THV valve dysfunction, it may not have happened yet,” he added.

In the early redo group, the indication for redo-TAVR was most often combined aortic THV stenosis and regurgitation (83.8%). Pure THV stenosis was seen in only 16.2% of patients.

For those with redo procedures after 1 year, THV stenosis was seen in 51 (37.0%) patients and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 86 (62.3%).

Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 85.1%, with no difference seen between those presenting within or beyond 1 year. Most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%).

No significant difference was seen in 30-day (94.6% and 98.5%) and 1-year survival (83.6% and 88.3%) in patients who presented within 1 year or later.

At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg, respectively. High residual gradients (³20 mm Hg) were seen in about 14% of patients.

Aortic valve areas were 1.63 ± 0.61 cm2 at 30 days and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm2 at 1 year. Regurgitation was mild or less in 91% of patients at both time points.

Periprocedural complication rates were relatively low. There were three strokes (1.4%), one valve malposition (3.3%), two coronary obstructions (0.9%), and 20 new permanent pacemaker implants (9.6%). Importantly, no procedure-related mortality was seen, only one patient converted to open heart surgery, and symptomatic improvements were substantial.

“We are currently working on an analysis that compares TAVI-in-TAVI versus TAVI in surgical valves, and we are happy to see that it appears as if TAVI-in-TAVI outcomes don’t fall short,” said Landes. More analysis is also needed to see if perhaps some THVs work better or worse for redo procedures.

“We also want to understand which of the many combinations of heart valves available are better than others, thinking that supra-annular leaflets inside intra-annular leaflet devices may function differently than vice versa,” said Landes.

Vinod Thourani, MD, chief of cardiovascular surgery at Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, considers these new observational data “reassuring” and “robust,” albeit with some limitations. He was first author on an editorial comment on this paper and spoke to theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“This is unadjudicated registry data but you can’t lie about death and I feel good seeing that if you need a second TAVR inside of a TAVR, your mortality risk is pretty good,” said Thourani.

That said, he questions whether these data can really be extrapolated to lower-risk patients. “I think this is an early snapshot and it’s a relatively big sample, but it’s a selected sample and we don’t know how many patients needed redo TAVR and didn’t get it or didn’t want it,” he added.

On the comforting side, there has been ongoing concern that a redo procedure that involves “propping open” a degenerated TAVR prosthesis’s leaflets with a new TAVR valve may occlude the coronary ostium by closing the flow within the open cells.

“Luckily, the investigators show an extremely low risk of coronary obstruction of only 0.9% in an anatomically high-risk patient population,” he said. This incidence, however, may increase as the use of TAVR rises in younger and less risky patients, he added.

Thourani would also like to see a longer follow-up on these patients. Median follow-up post redo TAVR was 15 months in this analysis.

“What I think we need to concentrate on as we do these studies is the life-long management of aortic stenosis wherein we try to minimize the overall number of invasive procedures as much as we can,” said Thourani.

Landes reported no conflict of interest. Thourani reported he is an advisor and/or researcher for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a reasonably safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR, new registry data suggest.

“Redo TAVR is about to become a much more common procedure and it’s reassuring to see that the outcomes that can be achieved by these procedures are quite good,” said Uri Landes, MD, Vancouver General Hospital, British Columbia, Canada.

Landes and colleagues reported results from the Redo-TAVR Registry in the April 28 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The Redo-TAVR Registry is an investigator-initiated effort designed to collect information on patients who undergo a second TAVR within a dysfunctional transcatheter heart valve (THV).

From 63,876 TAVR procedures done at 37 participating centers, 212 (0.33%) were redo-TAVR procedures. Seventy-four of the redo procedures were done within 1 year of the initial TAVR and the remaining 138 were beyond 1 year. Median time from TAVR-to-redo-TAVR for these two groups was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years, respectively.

“It’s important to understand that this is probably a highly selected group of patients and these numbers do no reliably reflect the ratio of patients who will need a redo TAVR,” said Landes in an interview with theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“We don’t know how many patients were excluded from redo TAVR because of prohibitive anatomical factors, such as an anticipated high risk for coronary occlusion, or a patient prosthesis mismatch. Also, some of these individuals received their THVs more recently, so if they will suffer THV valve dysfunction, it may not have happened yet,” he added.

In the early redo group, the indication for redo-TAVR was most often combined aortic THV stenosis and regurgitation (83.8%). Pure THV stenosis was seen in only 16.2% of patients.

For those with redo procedures after 1 year, THV stenosis was seen in 51 (37.0%) patients and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 86 (62.3%).

Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 85.1%, with no difference seen between those presenting within or beyond 1 year. Most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%).

No significant difference was seen in 30-day (94.6% and 98.5%) and 1-year survival (83.6% and 88.3%) in patients who presented within 1 year or later.

At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg, respectively. High residual gradients (³20 mm Hg) were seen in about 14% of patients.

Aortic valve areas were 1.63 ± 0.61 cm2 at 30 days and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm2 at 1 year. Regurgitation was mild or less in 91% of patients at both time points.

Periprocedural complication rates were relatively low. There were three strokes (1.4%), one valve malposition (3.3%), two coronary obstructions (0.9%), and 20 new permanent pacemaker implants (9.6%). Importantly, no procedure-related mortality was seen, only one patient converted to open heart surgery, and symptomatic improvements were substantial.

“We are currently working on an analysis that compares TAVI-in-TAVI versus TAVI in surgical valves, and we are happy to see that it appears as if TAVI-in-TAVI outcomes don’t fall short,” said Landes. More analysis is also needed to see if perhaps some THVs work better or worse for redo procedures.

“We also want to understand which of the many combinations of heart valves available are better than others, thinking that supra-annular leaflets inside intra-annular leaflet devices may function differently than vice versa,” said Landes.

Vinod Thourani, MD, chief of cardiovascular surgery at Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, considers these new observational data “reassuring” and “robust,” albeit with some limitations. He was first author on an editorial comment on this paper and spoke to theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“This is unadjudicated registry data but you can’t lie about death and I feel good seeing that if you need a second TAVR inside of a TAVR, your mortality risk is pretty good,” said Thourani.

That said, he questions whether these data can really be extrapolated to lower-risk patients. “I think this is an early snapshot and it’s a relatively big sample, but it’s a selected sample and we don’t know how many patients needed redo TAVR and didn’t get it or didn’t want it,” he added.

On the comforting side, there has been ongoing concern that a redo procedure that involves “propping open” a degenerated TAVR prosthesis’s leaflets with a new TAVR valve may occlude the coronary ostium by closing the flow within the open cells.

“Luckily, the investigators show an extremely low risk of coronary obstruction of only 0.9% in an anatomically high-risk patient population,” he said. This incidence, however, may increase as the use of TAVR rises in younger and less risky patients, he added.

Thourani would also like to see a longer follow-up on these patients. Median follow-up post redo TAVR was 15 months in this analysis.

“What I think we need to concentrate on as we do these studies is the life-long management of aortic stenosis wherein we try to minimize the overall number of invasive procedures as much as we can,” said Thourani.

Landes reported no conflict of interest. Thourani reported he is an advisor and/or researcher for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a reasonably safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR, new registry data suggest.

“Redo TAVR is about to become a much more common procedure and it’s reassuring to see that the outcomes that can be achieved by these procedures are quite good,” said Uri Landes, MD, Vancouver General Hospital, British Columbia, Canada.

Landes and colleagues reported results from the Redo-TAVR Registry in the April 28 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The Redo-TAVR Registry is an investigator-initiated effort designed to collect information on patients who undergo a second TAVR within a dysfunctional transcatheter heart valve (THV).

From 63,876 TAVR procedures done at 37 participating centers, 212 (0.33%) were redo-TAVR procedures. Seventy-four of the redo procedures were done within 1 year of the initial TAVR and the remaining 138 were beyond 1 year. Median time from TAVR-to-redo-TAVR for these two groups was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years, respectively.

“It’s important to understand that this is probably a highly selected group of patients and these numbers do no reliably reflect the ratio of patients who will need a redo TAVR,” said Landes in an interview with theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“We don’t know how many patients were excluded from redo TAVR because of prohibitive anatomical factors, such as an anticipated high risk for coronary occlusion, or a patient prosthesis mismatch. Also, some of these individuals received their THVs more recently, so if they will suffer THV valve dysfunction, it may not have happened yet,” he added.

In the early redo group, the indication for redo-TAVR was most often combined aortic THV stenosis and regurgitation (83.8%). Pure THV stenosis was seen in only 16.2% of patients.

For those with redo procedures after 1 year, THV stenosis was seen in 51 (37.0%) patients and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 86 (62.3%).

Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 85.1%, with no difference seen between those presenting within or beyond 1 year. Most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%).

No significant difference was seen in 30-day (94.6% and 98.5%) and 1-year survival (83.6% and 88.3%) in patients who presented within 1 year or later.

At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg, respectively. High residual gradients (³20 mm Hg) were seen in about 14% of patients.

Aortic valve areas were 1.63 ± 0.61 cm2 at 30 days and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm2 at 1 year. Regurgitation was mild or less in 91% of patients at both time points.

Periprocedural complication rates were relatively low. There were three strokes (1.4%), one valve malposition (3.3%), two coronary obstructions (0.9%), and 20 new permanent pacemaker implants (9.6%). Importantly, no procedure-related mortality was seen, only one patient converted to open heart surgery, and symptomatic improvements were substantial.

“We are currently working on an analysis that compares TAVI-in-TAVI versus TAVI in surgical valves, and we are happy to see that it appears as if TAVI-in-TAVI outcomes don’t fall short,” said Landes. More analysis is also needed to see if perhaps some THVs work better or worse for redo procedures.

“We also want to understand which of the many combinations of heart valves available are better than others, thinking that supra-annular leaflets inside intra-annular leaflet devices may function differently than vice versa,” said Landes.

Vinod Thourani, MD, chief of cardiovascular surgery at Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, considers these new observational data “reassuring” and “robust,” albeit with some limitations. He was first author on an editorial comment on this paper and spoke to theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“This is unadjudicated registry data but you can’t lie about death and I feel good seeing that if you need a second TAVR inside of a TAVR, your mortality risk is pretty good,” said Thourani.

That said, he questions whether these data can really be extrapolated to lower-risk patients. “I think this is an early snapshot and it’s a relatively big sample, but it’s a selected sample and we don’t know how many patients needed redo TAVR and didn’t get it or didn’t want it,” he added.

On the comforting side, there has been ongoing concern that a redo procedure that involves “propping open” a degenerated TAVR prosthesis’s leaflets with a new TAVR valve may occlude the coronary ostium by closing the flow within the open cells.

“Luckily, the investigators show an extremely low risk of coronary obstruction of only 0.9% in an anatomically high-risk patient population,” he said. This incidence, however, may increase as the use of TAVR rises in younger and less risky patients, he added.

Thourani would also like to see a longer follow-up on these patients. Median follow-up post redo TAVR was 15 months in this analysis.

“What I think we need to concentrate on as we do these studies is the life-long management of aortic stenosis wherein we try to minimize the overall number of invasive procedures as much as we can,” said Thourani.

Landes reported no conflict of interest. Thourani reported he is an advisor and/or researcher for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hydroxychloroquine is currently first-line, and tocilizumab second-line, for people hospitalized with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 in the Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health System, which operates hospitals across Connecticut, many of them hard hit by the pandemic.

Patients enter the treatment algorithm if they have an oxygen saturation at or below 93% on room air or chronic supplementation, or by being acutely ill with fever, respiratory signs, or opacities on chest x-ray, plus risk factors for severe illness such as age over 60 years, chronic heart or lung disease, immunosuppression, diabetes, hypertension, or obesity, which makes it harder to ventilate.

Physicians at Yale have seen both presentations – oxygen desaturation and frank illness – and “wanted to make sure we weren’t missing anyone,” said Nihar Desai, MD, a Yale cardiologist who is helping to coordinate the health system’s response to COVID-19.

In either case, the initial treatment is the same at Yale hospitals: hydroxychloroquine for 5 days, with tocilizumab (Actemra) considered when not contraindicated and oxygen requirements reach or pass 3 L, or 2 L with C-reactive protein levels above 70 mg/L.

Patients are put on prophylactic enoxaparin to thin the blood unless contraindicated; inflammatory, cardiac, kidney, and other markers are checked every 12 or 24 hours; and ECGs are taken daily if telemetry isn’t used. Chest x-rays are repeated if clinical signs worsen, and transthoracic echocardiograms are ordered for suspected heart problems.

ICUs are notified early if the clinical situation worsens because patients “can deteriorate very quickly; at the first sign of trouble, people are really aggressive,” said Dr. Desai, also the associate chief of clinical operations in the Section of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Yale University, New Haven.

The haze of battle

Yale has updated its algorithm several times since the virus first hit Connecticut weeks ago. A team including pulmonologists, critical care physicians, pharmacologists, infectious disease experts, and cardiologists, including Dr. Desai, are constantly monitoring the situation and making changes as new information comes in.

Much of what’s being done at Yale and elsewhere is empiric because there are simply not much data to go on. “We are trying to do the best we can” in “the haze of battle. People really came together quickly to develop this. One hopes we never have to go through anything like this again,” he said.

Hydroxychloroquine is first-line at Yale because in-vitro data show potent inhibition of the virus and possible clinical benefit, which is about as good as evidence gets at the moment. Also, “it’s cheap, it’s been used for decades, and people are relatively comfortable with it,” Dr. Desai said.

Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist, is second-line because it might counter the cytokine storm thought to be at least partly responsible for severe complications, and retrospective data suggest possible benefit. The antiviral remdesivir and IL-6 blocker sarulimab (Kevzara) are also potential candidates, available through clinical trials.

Dr. Desai wanted to share the algorithm with other providers because, he noted, “there are a lot of places that may not have all the resources we have.”

His home institution, Yale New Haven Hospital, is almost half full with COVID-19 patients, at more than 400.
 

A moving target

Yale’s approach is similar in confirmed COVID-19 cases already in respiratory failure, including those on mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: hydroxychloroquine and possibly tocilizumab, but also methylprednisolone if clinical status worsens or inflammatory markers go up. The steroid is for additional help battling the cytokine storm, Dr. Desai said.

The degree of anticoagulation in the ICU is based on d-dimer levels or suspicion or confirmation of venous thromboembolism. Telemetry is monitored closely for QTc prolongation, and point of care ultrasound is considered to check left ventricular function in the setting of markedly increased cardiac troponin levels, ECG abnormalities, or hemodynamic instability.

Previous versions of Yale’s algorithm included HIV protease inhibitors, but they were pulled after a recent trial found no benefit. Frequency of monitoring was also reduced from every 8 hours because it didn’t improve decision making and put staff collecting specimens at risk (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282).

Anticoagulation was added to newer versions after it became clear that COVID-19 is prothrombotic. “We are still seeing thrombotic events that might warrant further intensification,” Dr. Desai said.

Newer algorithms also have Yale watching QTc intervals more closely. It’s unclear if the prolongation risk is caused by the infection or hydroxychloroquine.

On April 24, the Food and Drug Administration reiterated it’s concern about the arrhythmia risk with hydroxychloroquine and emphasized that it should only be used for COVID-19 patients when they are hospitalized and it is not feasible for them to participate in a clinical trial.

To help keep patients safe, ECGs from confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases are now first in line to be reviewed by cardiologists across Yale hospitals to pick up prolongations and notify providers as soon as possible. Hydroxychloroquine is held if there are no other explanations.

Cardiologists are on the fontline at Yale and elsewhere, Dr. Desai said, because heart complications like myocarditis and arrhythmias emerged early as common problems in hospitalized patients.

[email protected]

This article was updated with the latest treatment algorithm on 5/6/2020.

Hydroxychloroquine is currently first-line, and tocilizumab second-line, for people hospitalized with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 in the Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health System, which operates hospitals across Connecticut, many of them hard hit by the pandemic.

Patients enter the treatment algorithm if they have an oxygen saturation at or below 93% on room air or chronic supplementation, or by being acutely ill with fever, respiratory signs, or opacities on chest x-ray, plus risk factors for severe illness such as age over 60 years, chronic heart or lung disease, immunosuppression, diabetes, hypertension, or obesity, which makes it harder to ventilate.

Physicians at Yale have seen both presentations – oxygen desaturation and frank illness – and “wanted to make sure we weren’t missing anyone,” said Nihar Desai, MD, a Yale cardiologist who is helping to coordinate the health system’s response to COVID-19.

In either case, the initial treatment is the same at Yale hospitals: hydroxychloroquine for 5 days, with tocilizumab (Actemra) considered when not contraindicated and oxygen requirements reach or pass 3 L, or 2 L with C-reactive protein levels above 70 mg/L.

Patients are put on prophylactic enoxaparin to thin the blood unless contraindicated; inflammatory, cardiac, kidney, and other markers are checked every 12 or 24 hours; and ECGs are taken daily if telemetry isn’t used. Chest x-rays are repeated if clinical signs worsen, and transthoracic echocardiograms are ordered for suspected heart problems.

ICUs are notified early if the clinical situation worsens because patients “can deteriorate very quickly; at the first sign of trouble, people are really aggressive,” said Dr. Desai, also the associate chief of clinical operations in the Section of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Yale University, New Haven.

The haze of battle

Yale has updated its algorithm several times since the virus first hit Connecticut weeks ago. A team including pulmonologists, critical care physicians, pharmacologists, infectious disease experts, and cardiologists, including Dr. Desai, are constantly monitoring the situation and making changes as new information comes in.

Much of what’s being done at Yale and elsewhere is empiric because there are simply not much data to go on. “We are trying to do the best we can” in “the haze of battle. People really came together quickly to develop this. One hopes we never have to go through anything like this again,” he said.

Hydroxychloroquine is first-line at Yale because in-vitro data show potent inhibition of the virus and possible clinical benefit, which is about as good as evidence gets at the moment. Also, “it’s cheap, it’s been used for decades, and people are relatively comfortable with it,” Dr. Desai said.

Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist, is second-line because it might counter the cytokine storm thought to be at least partly responsible for severe complications, and retrospective data suggest possible benefit. The antiviral remdesivir and IL-6 blocker sarulimab (Kevzara) are also potential candidates, available through clinical trials.

Dr. Desai wanted to share the algorithm with other providers because, he noted, “there are a lot of places that may not have all the resources we have.”

His home institution, Yale New Haven Hospital, is almost half full with COVID-19 patients, at more than 400.
 

A moving target

Yale’s approach is similar in confirmed COVID-19 cases already in respiratory failure, including those on mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: hydroxychloroquine and possibly tocilizumab, but also methylprednisolone if clinical status worsens or inflammatory markers go up. The steroid is for additional help battling the cytokine storm, Dr. Desai said.

The degree of anticoagulation in the ICU is based on d-dimer levels or suspicion or confirmation of venous thromboembolism. Telemetry is monitored closely for QTc prolongation, and point of care ultrasound is considered to check left ventricular function in the setting of markedly increased cardiac troponin levels, ECG abnormalities, or hemodynamic instability.

Previous versions of Yale’s algorithm included HIV protease inhibitors, but they were pulled after a recent trial found no benefit. Frequency of monitoring was also reduced from every 8 hours because it didn’t improve decision making and put staff collecting specimens at risk (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282).

Anticoagulation was added to newer versions after it became clear that COVID-19 is prothrombotic. “We are still seeing thrombotic events that might warrant further intensification,” Dr. Desai said.

Newer algorithms also have Yale watching QTc intervals more closely. It’s unclear if the prolongation risk is caused by the infection or hydroxychloroquine.

On April 24, the Food and Drug Administration reiterated it’s concern about the arrhythmia risk with hydroxychloroquine and emphasized that it should only be used for COVID-19 patients when they are hospitalized and it is not feasible for them to participate in a clinical trial.

To help keep patients safe, ECGs from confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases are now first in line to be reviewed by cardiologists across Yale hospitals to pick up prolongations and notify providers as soon as possible. Hydroxychloroquine is held if there are no other explanations.

Cardiologists are on the fontline at Yale and elsewhere, Dr. Desai said, because heart complications like myocarditis and arrhythmias emerged early as common problems in hospitalized patients.

[email protected]

This article was updated with the latest treatment algorithm on 5/6/2020.

Hydroxychloroquine is currently first-line, and tocilizumab second-line, for people hospitalized with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 in the Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health System, which operates hospitals across Connecticut, many of them hard hit by the pandemic.

Patients enter the treatment algorithm if they have an oxygen saturation at or below 93% on room air or chronic supplementation, or by being acutely ill with fever, respiratory signs, or opacities on chest x-ray, plus risk factors for severe illness such as age over 60 years, chronic heart or lung disease, immunosuppression, diabetes, hypertension, or obesity, which makes it harder to ventilate.

Physicians at Yale have seen both presentations – oxygen desaturation and frank illness – and “wanted to make sure we weren’t missing anyone,” said Nihar Desai, MD, a Yale cardiologist who is helping to coordinate the health system’s response to COVID-19.

In either case, the initial treatment is the same at Yale hospitals: hydroxychloroquine for 5 days, with tocilizumab (Actemra) considered when not contraindicated and oxygen requirements reach or pass 3 L, or 2 L with C-reactive protein levels above 70 mg/L.

Patients are put on prophylactic enoxaparin to thin the blood unless contraindicated; inflammatory, cardiac, kidney, and other markers are checked every 12 or 24 hours; and ECGs are taken daily if telemetry isn’t used. Chest x-rays are repeated if clinical signs worsen, and transthoracic echocardiograms are ordered for suspected heart problems.

ICUs are notified early if the clinical situation worsens because patients “can deteriorate very quickly; at the first sign of trouble, people are really aggressive,” said Dr. Desai, also the associate chief of clinical operations in the Section of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Yale University, New Haven.

The haze of battle

Yale has updated its algorithm several times since the virus first hit Connecticut weeks ago. A team including pulmonologists, critical care physicians, pharmacologists, infectious disease experts, and cardiologists, including Dr. Desai, are constantly monitoring the situation and making changes as new information comes in.

Much of what’s being done at Yale and elsewhere is empiric because there are simply not much data to go on. “We are trying to do the best we can” in “the haze of battle. People really came together quickly to develop this. One hopes we never have to go through anything like this again,” he said.

Hydroxychloroquine is first-line at Yale because in-vitro data show potent inhibition of the virus and possible clinical benefit, which is about as good as evidence gets at the moment. Also, “it’s cheap, it’s been used for decades, and people are relatively comfortable with it,” Dr. Desai said.

Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist, is second-line because it might counter the cytokine storm thought to be at least partly responsible for severe complications, and retrospective data suggest possible benefit. The antiviral remdesivir and IL-6 blocker sarulimab (Kevzara) are also potential candidates, available through clinical trials.

Dr. Desai wanted to share the algorithm with other providers because, he noted, “there are a lot of places that may not have all the resources we have.”

His home institution, Yale New Haven Hospital, is almost half full with COVID-19 patients, at more than 400.
 

A moving target

Yale’s approach is similar in confirmed COVID-19 cases already in respiratory failure, including those on mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: hydroxychloroquine and possibly tocilizumab, but also methylprednisolone if clinical status worsens or inflammatory markers go up. The steroid is for additional help battling the cytokine storm, Dr. Desai said.

The degree of anticoagulation in the ICU is based on d-dimer levels or suspicion or confirmation of venous thromboembolism. Telemetry is monitored closely for QTc prolongation, and point of care ultrasound is considered to check left ventricular function in the setting of markedly increased cardiac troponin levels, ECG abnormalities, or hemodynamic instability.

Previous versions of Yale’s algorithm included HIV protease inhibitors, but they were pulled after a recent trial found no benefit. Frequency of monitoring was also reduced from every 8 hours because it didn’t improve decision making and put staff collecting specimens at risk (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282).

Anticoagulation was added to newer versions after it became clear that COVID-19 is prothrombotic. “We are still seeing thrombotic events that might warrant further intensification,” Dr. Desai said.

Newer algorithms also have Yale watching QTc intervals more closely. It’s unclear if the prolongation risk is caused by the infection or hydroxychloroquine.

On April 24, the Food and Drug Administration reiterated it’s concern about the arrhythmia risk with hydroxychloroquine and emphasized that it should only be used for COVID-19 patients when they are hospitalized and it is not feasible for them to participate in a clinical trial.

To help keep patients safe, ECGs from confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases are now first in line to be reviewed by cardiologists across Yale hospitals to pick up prolongations and notify providers as soon as possible. Hydroxychloroquine is held if there are no other explanations.

Cardiologists are on the fontline at Yale and elsewhere, Dr. Desai said, because heart complications like myocarditis and arrhythmias emerged early as common problems in hospitalized patients.

[email protected]

This article was updated with the latest treatment algorithm on 5/6/2020.

As U.S. health care systems prepare for inpatient surges linked to hospitalizations of critically ill COVID-19 patients, two hospitalists with med-peds training (combined training in internal medicine and pediatrics) have launched an innovative solution to help facilities deal with the challenge.

The Pediatric Overflow Planning Contingency Response Network (POPCoRN network) has quickly linked almost 400 physicians and other health professionals, including hospitalists, attending physicians, residents, medical students, and nurses. The network wants to help provide more information about how pediatric-focused institutions can safely gear up to admit adult patients in children’s hospitals, in order to offset the predicted demand for hospital beds for patients with COVID-19.

According to the POPCoRN network website (www.popcornetwork.org), the majority of providers who have contacted the network say they have already started or are committed to planning for their pediatric facilities to be used for adult overflow. The Children’s Hospital Association has issued a guidance on this kind of community collaboration for children’s hospitals partnering with adult hospitals in their community and with policy makers.

“We are a network of folks from different institutions, many med-peds–trained hospitalists but quickly growing,” said Leah Ratner, MD, a second-year fellow in the Global Pediatrics Program at Boston Children’s Hospital and cofounder of the POPCoRN network. “We came together to think about how to increase capacity – both in the work force and for actual hospital space – by helping to train pediatric hospitalists and pediatrics-trained nurses to care for adult patients.”

A web-based platform filled with a rapidly expanding list of resources, an active Twitter account, and utilization of Zoom networking software for webinars and working group meetings have facilitated the network’s growth. “Social media has helped us,” Dr. Ratner said. But equally important are personal connections.

“It all started just a few weeks ago,” added cofounder Ashley Jenkins, MD, a med-peds hospital medicine and general academics research fellow in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. “I sent out some emails in mid-March, asking what other people were doing about these issues. Leah and I met as a result of these initial emails. We immediately started connecting with other health systems and it just expanded from there. Once we knew that enough other systems were thinking about it and trying to build capacity, we started pulling the people and information together.”
 

High-yield one-pagers

A third or more of those on the POPCoRN contact list are also participating as volunteers on its varied working groups, including health system operation groups exploring the needs of three distinct hospital models: freestanding children’s hospitals; community hospitals, which may see small numbers of children; and integrated mixed hospitals, which often means a pediatric hospital or pediatric units located within an adult hospital.

An immediate goal is to develop high-yield informational “one-pagers,” culling essential clinical facts on a variety of topics in adult inpatient medicine that may no longer be familiar to working pediatric hospitalists. These one-pagers, designed with the help of network members with graphic design skills, address topics such as syncope or chest pain or managing exacerbation of COPD in adults. They draw upon existing informational sources, encapsulating practical information tips that can be used at the bedside, including test workups, differential diagnoses, treatment approaches, and other pearls for providers. Drafts are reviewed for content by specialists, and then by pediatricians to make sure the information covers what they need.

Also under development are educational materials for nurses trained in pediatrics, a section for outpatient providers redeployed to triage or telehealth, and information for other team members including occupational, physical, and respiratory therapists. Another section offers critical care lectures for the nonintensivist. A metrics and outcomes working group is looking for ways to evaluate how the network is doing and who is being reached without having to ask frontline providers to fill out surveys.

Dr. Ratner and Dr. Jenkins have created an intentional structure for encouraging mentoring. They also call on their own mentors – Ahmet Uluer, DO, director of Weitzman Family Bridges Adult Transition Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, and Brian Herbst Jr., MD, medical director of the Hospital Medicine Adult Care Service at Cincinnati Children’s – for advice.
 

Beyond the silos

Pediatric hospitalists may have been doing similar things, working on similar projects, but not necessarily reaching out to each other across a system that tends to promote staying within administrative silos, Dr. Uluer said. “Through our personal contacts in POPCoRN, we’ve been able to reach beyond the silos. This network has worked like medical crowd sourcing, and the founders have been inspirational.”

Dr. Herbst added, “How do we expand bandwidth and safely expand services to take young patients and adults from other hospitals? What other populations do we need to expand to take? This network is a workplace of ideas. It’s amazing to see what has been built in a few weeks and how useful it can be.”

Med-peds hospitalists are an important resource for bridging the two specialties. Their experience with transitioning young adults with long-standing chronic conditions of childhood, who have received most of their care at a children’s hospital before reaching adulthood, offers a helpful model. “We’ve also tried to target junior physicians who could step up into leadership roles and to pull in medical students – who are the backbone of this network through their administrative support,” Dr. Jenkins said.

Marie Pfarr, MD, also a med-peds trained hospital medicine fellow at Cincinnati Children’s, was contacted in March by Dr. Jenkins. “She said they had this brainstorm, and they were getting feedback that it would be helpful to provide educational materials for pediatric providers. Because I have an interest in medical education, she asked if I wanted to help. I was at home struggling with what I could contribute during this crazy time, so I said yes.”

Dr. Pfarr leads POPCoRN’s educational working group, which came up with a list of 50 topics in need of one-pagers and people willing to create them, mostly still under development. The aim for the one-pagers is to offer a good starting point for pediatricians, helping them, for example, to ask the right questions during history and physical exams. “We also want to offer additional resources for those who want to do a deeper dive.”

Dr. Pfarr said she has enjoyed working closely with medical students, who really want to help. “That’s been great to see. We are all working toward the same goal, and we help to keep each other in check. I think there’s a future for this kind of mobilization through collaborations to connect pediatric to adult providers. A lot of good things will come out of the network, which is an example of how folks can talk to each other. It’s very dynamic and changing every day.”

One of those medical students is Chinma Onyewuenyi, finishing her fourth year at Baylor College of Medicine. Scheduled to start a med-peds residency at Geisinger Health on July 1, she had completed all of her rotations and was looking for ways to get involved in the pandemic response while respecting the shelter-in-place order. “I had heard about the network, which was recruiting medical students to play administrative roles for the working groups. I said, ‘If you have anything else you need help with, I have time on my hands.’”

Ms. Onyewuenyi says she fell into the role of a lead administrative volunteer, and her responsibilities grew from there, eventually taking charge of all the medical students’ recruiting, screening, and assignments, freeing up the project’s physician leaders from administrative tasks. “I wanted something active to do to contribute, and I appreciate all that I’m learning. With a master’s degree in public health, I have researched how health care is delivered,” she said.

“This experience has really opened my eyes to what’s required to deliver care, and just the level of collaboration that needs to go on with something like this. Even as a medical student, I felt glad to have an opportunity to contribute beyond the administrative tasks. At meetings, they ask for my opinion.”


 

Equitable access to resources

Another major focus for the network is promoting health equity – giving pediatric providers and health systems equitable access to information that meets their needs, Dr. Ratner said. “We’ve made a particular effort to reach out to hospitals that are the most vulnerable, including rural hospitals, and to those serving the most vulnerable patients,” she noted. These also include the homeless and refugees.

“We’ve been trying to be mindful of avoiding the sometimes-intimidating power structure that has been traditional in medicine,” Dr. Ratner said. The network’s equity working group is trying to provide content with structural competency and cultural humility. “We’re learning a lot about the ways the health care system is broken,” she added. “We all agree that we have a fragmented health care system, but there are ways to make it less fragmented and learn from each other.”

In the tragedy of the COVID epidemic, there are also unique opportunities to learn to work collaboratively and make the health care system stronger for those in greatest need, Dr. Ratner added. “What we hope is that our network becomes an example of that, even as it is moving so quickly.”

Audrey Uong, MD, an attending physician in the division of hospital medicine at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, connected with POPCoRN for an educational presentation reviewing resuscitation in adult patients. She wanted to talk with peers about what’s going on, so as not to feel alone in her practice. She has also found the network’s website useful for identifying educational resources.

“As pediatricians, we have been asked to care for adult patients. One of our units has been admitting mostly patients under age 30, and we are accepting older patients in another unit on the pediatric wing.” This kind of thing is also happening in a lot of other places, Dr. Uong said. Keeping up with these changes in her own practice has been challenging.

She tries to take one day at a time. “Everyone at this institution feels the same – that we’re locked in on meeting the need. Even our child life specialists, when they’re not working with younger patients, have created this amazing support room for staff, with snacks and soothing music. There’s been a lot of attention paid to making us feel supported in this work.”

As U.S. health care systems prepare for inpatient surges linked to hospitalizations of critically ill COVID-19 patients, two hospitalists with med-peds training (combined training in internal medicine and pediatrics) have launched an innovative solution to help facilities deal with the challenge.

The Pediatric Overflow Planning Contingency Response Network (POPCoRN network) has quickly linked almost 400 physicians and other health professionals, including hospitalists, attending physicians, residents, medical students, and nurses. The network wants to help provide more information about how pediatric-focused institutions can safely gear up to admit adult patients in children’s hospitals, in order to offset the predicted demand for hospital beds for patients with COVID-19.

According to the POPCoRN network website (www.popcornetwork.org), the majority of providers who have contacted the network say they have already started or are committed to planning for their pediatric facilities to be used for adult overflow. The Children’s Hospital Association has issued a guidance on this kind of community collaboration for children’s hospitals partnering with adult hospitals in their community and with policy makers.

“We are a network of folks from different institutions, many med-peds–trained hospitalists but quickly growing,” said Leah Ratner, MD, a second-year fellow in the Global Pediatrics Program at Boston Children’s Hospital and cofounder of the POPCoRN network. “We came together to think about how to increase capacity – both in the work force and for actual hospital space – by helping to train pediatric hospitalists and pediatrics-trained nurses to care for adult patients.”

A web-based platform filled with a rapidly expanding list of resources, an active Twitter account, and utilization of Zoom networking software for webinars and working group meetings have facilitated the network’s growth. “Social media has helped us,” Dr. Ratner said. But equally important are personal connections.

“It all started just a few weeks ago,” added cofounder Ashley Jenkins, MD, a med-peds hospital medicine and general academics research fellow in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. “I sent out some emails in mid-March, asking what other people were doing about these issues. Leah and I met as a result of these initial emails. We immediately started connecting with other health systems and it just expanded from there. Once we knew that enough other systems were thinking about it and trying to build capacity, we started pulling the people and information together.”
 

High-yield one-pagers

A third or more of those on the POPCoRN contact list are also participating as volunteers on its varied working groups, including health system operation groups exploring the needs of three distinct hospital models: freestanding children’s hospitals; community hospitals, which may see small numbers of children; and integrated mixed hospitals, which often means a pediatric hospital or pediatric units located within an adult hospital.

An immediate goal is to develop high-yield informational “one-pagers,” culling essential clinical facts on a variety of topics in adult inpatient medicine that may no longer be familiar to working pediatric hospitalists. These one-pagers, designed with the help of network members with graphic design skills, address topics such as syncope or chest pain or managing exacerbation of COPD in adults. They draw upon existing informational sources, encapsulating practical information tips that can be used at the bedside, including test workups, differential diagnoses, treatment approaches, and other pearls for providers. Drafts are reviewed for content by specialists, and then by pediatricians to make sure the information covers what they need.

Also under development are educational materials for nurses trained in pediatrics, a section for outpatient providers redeployed to triage or telehealth, and information for other team members including occupational, physical, and respiratory therapists. Another section offers critical care lectures for the nonintensivist. A metrics and outcomes working group is looking for ways to evaluate how the network is doing and who is being reached without having to ask frontline providers to fill out surveys.

Dr. Ratner and Dr. Jenkins have created an intentional structure for encouraging mentoring. They also call on their own mentors – Ahmet Uluer, DO, director of Weitzman Family Bridges Adult Transition Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, and Brian Herbst Jr., MD, medical director of the Hospital Medicine Adult Care Service at Cincinnati Children’s – for advice.
 

Beyond the silos

Pediatric hospitalists may have been doing similar things, working on similar projects, but not necessarily reaching out to each other across a system that tends to promote staying within administrative silos, Dr. Uluer said. “Through our personal contacts in POPCoRN, we’ve been able to reach beyond the silos. This network has worked like medical crowd sourcing, and the founders have been inspirational.”

Dr. Herbst added, “How do we expand bandwidth and safely expand services to take young patients and adults from other hospitals? What other populations do we need to expand to take? This network is a workplace of ideas. It’s amazing to see what has been built in a few weeks and how useful it can be.”

Med-peds hospitalists are an important resource for bridging the two specialties. Their experience with transitioning young adults with long-standing chronic conditions of childhood, who have received most of their care at a children’s hospital before reaching adulthood, offers a helpful model. “We’ve also tried to target junior physicians who could step up into leadership roles and to pull in medical students – who are the backbone of this network through their administrative support,” Dr. Jenkins said.

Marie Pfarr, MD, also a med-peds trained hospital medicine fellow at Cincinnati Children’s, was contacted in March by Dr. Jenkins. “She said they had this brainstorm, and they were getting feedback that it would be helpful to provide educational materials for pediatric providers. Because I have an interest in medical education, she asked if I wanted to help. I was at home struggling with what I could contribute during this crazy time, so I said yes.”

Dr. Pfarr leads POPCoRN’s educational working group, which came up with a list of 50 topics in need of one-pagers and people willing to create them, mostly still under development. The aim for the one-pagers is to offer a good starting point for pediatricians, helping them, for example, to ask the right questions during history and physical exams. “We also want to offer additional resources for those who want to do a deeper dive.”

Dr. Pfarr said she has enjoyed working closely with medical students, who really want to help. “That’s been great to see. We are all working toward the same goal, and we help to keep each other in check. I think there’s a future for this kind of mobilization through collaborations to connect pediatric to adult providers. A lot of good things will come out of the network, which is an example of how folks can talk to each other. It’s very dynamic and changing every day.”

One of those medical students is Chinma Onyewuenyi, finishing her fourth year at Baylor College of Medicine. Scheduled to start a med-peds residency at Geisinger Health on July 1, she had completed all of her rotations and was looking for ways to get involved in the pandemic response while respecting the shelter-in-place order. “I had heard about the network, which was recruiting medical students to play administrative roles for the working groups. I said, ‘If you have anything else you need help with, I have time on my hands.’”

Ms. Onyewuenyi says she fell into the role of a lead administrative volunteer, and her responsibilities grew from there, eventually taking charge of all the medical students’ recruiting, screening, and assignments, freeing up the project’s physician leaders from administrative tasks. “I wanted something active to do to contribute, and I appreciate all that I’m learning. With a master’s degree in public health, I have researched how health care is delivered,” she said.

“This experience has really opened my eyes to what’s required to deliver care, and just the level of collaboration that needs to go on with something like this. Even as a medical student, I felt glad to have an opportunity to contribute beyond the administrative tasks. At meetings, they ask for my opinion.”


 

Equitable access to resources

Another major focus for the network is promoting health equity – giving pediatric providers and health systems equitable access to information that meets their needs, Dr. Ratner said. “We’ve made a particular effort to reach out to hospitals that are the most vulnerable, including rural hospitals, and to those serving the most vulnerable patients,” she noted. These also include the homeless and refugees.

“We’ve been trying to be mindful of avoiding the sometimes-intimidating power structure that has been traditional in medicine,” Dr. Ratner said. The network’s equity working group is trying to provide content with structural competency and cultural humility. “We’re learning a lot about the ways the health care system is broken,” she added. “We all agree that we have a fragmented health care system, but there are ways to make it less fragmented and learn from each other.”

In the tragedy of the COVID epidemic, there are also unique opportunities to learn to work collaboratively and make the health care system stronger for those in greatest need, Dr. Ratner added. “What we hope is that our network becomes an example of that, even as it is moving so quickly.”

Audrey Uong, MD, an attending physician in the division of hospital medicine at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, connected with POPCoRN for an educational presentation reviewing resuscitation in adult patients. She wanted to talk with peers about what’s going on, so as not to feel alone in her practice. She has also found the network’s website useful for identifying educational resources.

“As pediatricians, we have been asked to care for adult patients. One of our units has been admitting mostly patients under age 30, and we are accepting older patients in another unit on the pediatric wing.” This kind of thing is also happening in a lot of other places, Dr. Uong said. Keeping up with these changes in her own practice has been challenging.

She tries to take one day at a time. “Everyone at this institution feels the same – that we’re locked in on meeting the need. Even our child life specialists, when they’re not working with younger patients, have created this amazing support room for staff, with snacks and soothing music. There’s been a lot of attention paid to making us feel supported in this work.”

As U.S. health care systems prepare for inpatient surges linked to hospitalizations of critically ill COVID-19 patients, two hospitalists with med-peds training (combined training in internal medicine and pediatrics) have launched an innovative solution to help facilities deal with the challenge.

The Pediatric Overflow Planning Contingency Response Network (POPCoRN network) has quickly linked almost 400 physicians and other health professionals, including hospitalists, attending physicians, residents, medical students, and nurses. The network wants to help provide more information about how pediatric-focused institutions can safely gear up to admit adult patients in children’s hospitals, in order to offset the predicted demand for hospital beds for patients with COVID-19.

According to the POPCoRN network website (www.popcornetwork.org), the majority of providers who have contacted the network say they have already started or are committed to planning for their pediatric facilities to be used for adult overflow. The Children’s Hospital Association has issued a guidance on this kind of community collaboration for children’s hospitals partnering with adult hospitals in their community and with policy makers.

“We are a network of folks from different institutions, many med-peds–trained hospitalists but quickly growing,” said Leah Ratner, MD, a second-year fellow in the Global Pediatrics Program at Boston Children’s Hospital and cofounder of the POPCoRN network. “We came together to think about how to increase capacity – both in the work force and for actual hospital space – by helping to train pediatric hospitalists and pediatrics-trained nurses to care for adult patients.”

A web-based platform filled with a rapidly expanding list of resources, an active Twitter account, and utilization of Zoom networking software for webinars and working group meetings have facilitated the network’s growth. “Social media has helped us,” Dr. Ratner said. But equally important are personal connections.

“It all started just a few weeks ago,” added cofounder Ashley Jenkins, MD, a med-peds hospital medicine and general academics research fellow in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. “I sent out some emails in mid-March, asking what other people were doing about these issues. Leah and I met as a result of these initial emails. We immediately started connecting with other health systems and it just expanded from there. Once we knew that enough other systems were thinking about it and trying to build capacity, we started pulling the people and information together.”
 

High-yield one-pagers

A third or more of those on the POPCoRN contact list are also participating as volunteers on its varied working groups, including health system operation groups exploring the needs of three distinct hospital models: freestanding children’s hospitals; community hospitals, which may see small numbers of children; and integrated mixed hospitals, which often means a pediatric hospital or pediatric units located within an adult hospital.

An immediate goal is to develop high-yield informational “one-pagers,” culling essential clinical facts on a variety of topics in adult inpatient medicine that may no longer be familiar to working pediatric hospitalists. These one-pagers, designed with the help of network members with graphic design skills, address topics such as syncope or chest pain or managing exacerbation of COPD in adults. They draw upon existing informational sources, encapsulating practical information tips that can be used at the bedside, including test workups, differential diagnoses, treatment approaches, and other pearls for providers. Drafts are reviewed for content by specialists, and then by pediatricians to make sure the information covers what they need.

Also under development are educational materials for nurses trained in pediatrics, a section for outpatient providers redeployed to triage or telehealth, and information for other team members including occupational, physical, and respiratory therapists. Another section offers critical care lectures for the nonintensivist. A metrics and outcomes working group is looking for ways to evaluate how the network is doing and who is being reached without having to ask frontline providers to fill out surveys.

Dr. Ratner and Dr. Jenkins have created an intentional structure for encouraging mentoring. They also call on their own mentors – Ahmet Uluer, DO, director of Weitzman Family Bridges Adult Transition Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, and Brian Herbst Jr., MD, medical director of the Hospital Medicine Adult Care Service at Cincinnati Children’s – for advice.
 

Beyond the silos

Pediatric hospitalists may have been doing similar things, working on similar projects, but not necessarily reaching out to each other across a system that tends to promote staying within administrative silos, Dr. Uluer said. “Through our personal contacts in POPCoRN, we’ve been able to reach beyond the silos. This network has worked like medical crowd sourcing, and the founders have been inspirational.”

Dr. Herbst added, “How do we expand bandwidth and safely expand services to take young patients and adults from other hospitals? What other populations do we need to expand to take? This network is a workplace of ideas. It’s amazing to see what has been built in a few weeks and how useful it can be.”

Med-peds hospitalists are an important resource for bridging the two specialties. Their experience with transitioning young adults with long-standing chronic conditions of childhood, who have received most of their care at a children’s hospital before reaching adulthood, offers a helpful model. “We’ve also tried to target junior physicians who could step up into leadership roles and to pull in medical students – who are the backbone of this network through their administrative support,” Dr. Jenkins said.

Marie Pfarr, MD, also a med-peds trained hospital medicine fellow at Cincinnati Children’s, was contacted in March by Dr. Jenkins. “She said they had this brainstorm, and they were getting feedback that it would be helpful to provide educational materials for pediatric providers. Because I have an interest in medical education, she asked if I wanted to help. I was at home struggling with what I could contribute during this crazy time, so I said yes.”

Dr. Pfarr leads POPCoRN’s educational working group, which came up with a list of 50 topics in need of one-pagers and people willing to create them, mostly still under development. The aim for the one-pagers is to offer a good starting point for pediatricians, helping them, for example, to ask the right questions during history and physical exams. “We also want to offer additional resources for those who want to do a deeper dive.”

Dr. Pfarr said she has enjoyed working closely with medical students, who really want to help. “That’s been great to see. We are all working toward the same goal, and we help to keep each other in check. I think there’s a future for this kind of mobilization through collaborations to connect pediatric to adult providers. A lot of good things will come out of the network, which is an example of how folks can talk to each other. It’s very dynamic and changing every day.”

One of those medical students is Chinma Onyewuenyi, finishing her fourth year at Baylor College of Medicine. Scheduled to start a med-peds residency at Geisinger Health on July 1, she had completed all of her rotations and was looking for ways to get involved in the pandemic response while respecting the shelter-in-place order. “I had heard about the network, which was recruiting medical students to play administrative roles for the working groups. I said, ‘If you have anything else you need help with, I have time on my hands.’”

Ms. Onyewuenyi says she fell into the role of a lead administrative volunteer, and her responsibilities grew from there, eventually taking charge of all the medical students’ recruiting, screening, and assignments, freeing up the project’s physician leaders from administrative tasks. “I wanted something active to do to contribute, and I appreciate all that I’m learning. With a master’s degree in public health, I have researched how health care is delivered,” she said.

“This experience has really opened my eyes to what’s required to deliver care, and just the level of collaboration that needs to go on with something like this. Even as a medical student, I felt glad to have an opportunity to contribute beyond the administrative tasks. At meetings, they ask for my opinion.”


 

Equitable access to resources

Another major focus for the network is promoting health equity – giving pediatric providers and health systems equitable access to information that meets their needs, Dr. Ratner said. “We’ve made a particular effort to reach out to hospitals that are the most vulnerable, including rural hospitals, and to those serving the most vulnerable patients,” she noted. These also include the homeless and refugees.

“We’ve been trying to be mindful of avoiding the sometimes-intimidating power structure that has been traditional in medicine,” Dr. Ratner said. The network’s equity working group is trying to provide content with structural competency and cultural humility. “We’re learning a lot about the ways the health care system is broken,” she added. “We all agree that we have a fragmented health care system, but there are ways to make it less fragmented and learn from each other.”

In the tragedy of the COVID epidemic, there are also unique opportunities to learn to work collaboratively and make the health care system stronger for those in greatest need, Dr. Ratner added. “What we hope is that our network becomes an example of that, even as it is moving so quickly.”

Audrey Uong, MD, an attending physician in the division of hospital medicine at Children’s Hospital at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, connected with POPCoRN for an educational presentation reviewing resuscitation in adult patients. She wanted to talk with peers about what’s going on, so as not to feel alone in her practice. She has also found the network’s website useful for identifying educational resources.

“As pediatricians, we have been asked to care for adult patients. One of our units has been admitting mostly patients under age 30, and we are accepting older patients in another unit on the pediatric wing.” This kind of thing is also happening in a lot of other places, Dr. Uong said. Keeping up with these changes in her own practice has been challenging.

She tries to take one day at a time. “Everyone at this institution feels the same – that we’re locked in on meeting the need. Even our child life specialists, when they’re not working with younger patients, have created this amazing support room for staff, with snacks and soothing music. There’s been a lot of attention paid to making us feel supported in this work.”

A clinical score may help clinicians predict which patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy up to 24 hours after a stroke are at higher risk of developing symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), new research suggests. In a study of nearly 600 patients undergoing thrombectomy, investigators combined a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (TICI) score, an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS), and glucose levels (the “TAG score”) to predict risk. Results showed that each unit increase in the combination score was associated with a significant, nearly twofold greater likelihood of symptomatic ICH.

“It is very easy” to calculate the new score in a clinical setting, lead author Mayra Johana Montalvo Perero, MD, Department of Neurology, Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, said. “You just need three variables.”

The findings were presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
 

Limited data

High TAG scores are associated with symptomatic ICH in patients receiving mechanical thrombectomy, Dr. Montalvo Perero and colleagues said.

Although clinical predictors of symptomatic ICH are well established, “there is limited data in patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy,” the researchers noted.

To learn more, they assessed 578 patients (52% women; mean age, 73 years) who had mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at a comprehensive stroke center. Within this cohort, 19 patients (3.3%) developed symptomatic ICH.

The investigators compared clinical and radiographic findings between patients who experienced symptomatic ICH and those who did not.

The TICI score emerged as a predictor when each unit decrease in this score was associated with greater risk for symptomatic ICH (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-14.29; P = .002).

Each one-point decrease in the ASPECTS score also predicted increased risk (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = .003).

“The main driver is the size of the stroke core, which is correlated with the ASPECTS score,” Dr. Montalvo Perero said.

Each 10 mg/dL increase in glucose level also correlated with increased risk (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .018).
 

Twice the risk

The investigators then combined these three independent variables into a weighted TAG score based on a multivariate analysis. Each unit increase in this composite score was associated with increased risk of symptomatic ICH (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.48-2.66; P < .001).

A step in the right direction?

Commenting on the study, Jeremy Payne, MD, PhD, director of the Stroke Center at Banner Health’s University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, noted the importance of predicting which patients might have secondary bleeding after interventional treatment of a large vessel occlusion stroke

“In aggregate, the role of endovascular thrombectomy is quite clear, but we still struggle to predict at the individual patient level who will benefit,” said Dr. Payne, who was not involved with the research.

Transfer and treatment of these patients also carries an economic cost. “Just getting patients to our center, where about 80% of the complex stroke patients come by helicopter, costs upwards of $30,000,” Dr. Payne said. “The financial argument isn’t one we like to talk much about, but we’re committing to spending probably $100,000-$200,000 on each person’s care.”

This study “attempts to address an important issue,” he said.

Predicting who is more likely to benefit leads to the assumption that if that were to happen, “we could skip all the rigamarole of helicopters and procedures, avoid the extra expense and particularly not make things worse than they already are,” explained Dr. Payne.

Potential limitations include that this is a single-center study and is based on an analysis of 19 patients out of 578. As a result, it is not clear that these findings will necessarily be generalizable to other centers, said Dr. Payne.

The TICI and ASPECTS “are pretty obvious markers of risk,” he noted. “The glucose levels, however, are more subtly interesting.”

He also pointed out that an association between diabetes and worse stroke outcomes is well established.

“The mechanisms are poorly understood, but the role of glucose keeps popping up as a potential marker of risk, and so it’s interesting that it bubbles up in their work too,” Dr. Payne said.

Furthermore, unlike TICI and ASPECTS, glucose levels are modifiable.

“Overall, then, we will continue to study this,” Dr. Payne said. “It’s very important to refine our ability to predict which patients may receive benefit versus harm from such procedures, and this is a step in the right direction.”

Some findings were also published December 2019 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

Montalvo Perero and Payne have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Motalvo Perero MJ et al. AAN 2020, Abstract S20.001.

A clinical score may help clinicians predict which patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy up to 24 hours after a stroke are at higher risk of developing symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), new research suggests. In a study of nearly 600 patients undergoing thrombectomy, investigators combined a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (TICI) score, an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS), and glucose levels (the “TAG score”) to predict risk. Results showed that each unit increase in the combination score was associated with a significant, nearly twofold greater likelihood of symptomatic ICH.

“It is very easy” to calculate the new score in a clinical setting, lead author Mayra Johana Montalvo Perero, MD, Department of Neurology, Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, said. “You just need three variables.”

The findings were presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
 

Limited data

High TAG scores are associated with symptomatic ICH in patients receiving mechanical thrombectomy, Dr. Montalvo Perero and colleagues said.

Although clinical predictors of symptomatic ICH are well established, “there is limited data in patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy,” the researchers noted.

To learn more, they assessed 578 patients (52% women; mean age, 73 years) who had mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at a comprehensive stroke center. Within this cohort, 19 patients (3.3%) developed symptomatic ICH.

The investigators compared clinical and radiographic findings between patients who experienced symptomatic ICH and those who did not.

The TICI score emerged as a predictor when each unit decrease in this score was associated with greater risk for symptomatic ICH (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-14.29; P = .002).

Each one-point decrease in the ASPECTS score also predicted increased risk (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = .003).

“The main driver is the size of the stroke core, which is correlated with the ASPECTS score,” Dr. Montalvo Perero said.

Each 10 mg/dL increase in glucose level also correlated with increased risk (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .018).
 

Twice the risk

The investigators then combined these three independent variables into a weighted TAG score based on a multivariate analysis. Each unit increase in this composite score was associated with increased risk of symptomatic ICH (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.48-2.66; P < .001).

A step in the right direction?

Commenting on the study, Jeremy Payne, MD, PhD, director of the Stroke Center at Banner Health’s University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, noted the importance of predicting which patients might have secondary bleeding after interventional treatment of a large vessel occlusion stroke

“In aggregate, the role of endovascular thrombectomy is quite clear, but we still struggle to predict at the individual patient level who will benefit,” said Dr. Payne, who was not involved with the research.

Transfer and treatment of these patients also carries an economic cost. “Just getting patients to our center, where about 80% of the complex stroke patients come by helicopter, costs upwards of $30,000,” Dr. Payne said. “The financial argument isn’t one we like to talk much about, but we’re committing to spending probably $100,000-$200,000 on each person’s care.”

This study “attempts to address an important issue,” he said.

Predicting who is more likely to benefit leads to the assumption that if that were to happen, “we could skip all the rigamarole of helicopters and procedures, avoid the extra expense and particularly not make things worse than they already are,” explained Dr. Payne.

Potential limitations include that this is a single-center study and is based on an analysis of 19 patients out of 578. As a result, it is not clear that these findings will necessarily be generalizable to other centers, said Dr. Payne.

The TICI and ASPECTS “are pretty obvious markers of risk,” he noted. “The glucose levels, however, are more subtly interesting.”

He also pointed out that an association between diabetes and worse stroke outcomes is well established.

“The mechanisms are poorly understood, but the role of glucose keeps popping up as a potential marker of risk, and so it’s interesting that it bubbles up in their work too,” Dr. Payne said.

Furthermore, unlike TICI and ASPECTS, glucose levels are modifiable.

“Overall, then, we will continue to study this,” Dr. Payne said. “It’s very important to refine our ability to predict which patients may receive benefit versus harm from such procedures, and this is a step in the right direction.”

Some findings were also published December 2019 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

Montalvo Perero and Payne have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Motalvo Perero MJ et al. AAN 2020, Abstract S20.001.

A clinical score may help clinicians predict which patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy up to 24 hours after a stroke are at higher risk of developing symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), new research suggests. In a study of nearly 600 patients undergoing thrombectomy, investigators combined a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (TICI) score, an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS), and glucose levels (the “TAG score”) to predict risk. Results showed that each unit increase in the combination score was associated with a significant, nearly twofold greater likelihood of symptomatic ICH.

“It is very easy” to calculate the new score in a clinical setting, lead author Mayra Johana Montalvo Perero, MD, Department of Neurology, Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, said. “You just need three variables.”

The findings were presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
 

Limited data

High TAG scores are associated with symptomatic ICH in patients receiving mechanical thrombectomy, Dr. Montalvo Perero and colleagues said.

Although clinical predictors of symptomatic ICH are well established, “there is limited data in patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy,” the researchers noted.

To learn more, they assessed 578 patients (52% women; mean age, 73 years) who had mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at a comprehensive stroke center. Within this cohort, 19 patients (3.3%) developed symptomatic ICH.

The investigators compared clinical and radiographic findings between patients who experienced symptomatic ICH and those who did not.

The TICI score emerged as a predictor when each unit decrease in this score was associated with greater risk for symptomatic ICH (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-14.29; P = .002).

Each one-point decrease in the ASPECTS score also predicted increased risk (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = .003).

“The main driver is the size of the stroke core, which is correlated with the ASPECTS score,” Dr. Montalvo Perero said.

Each 10 mg/dL increase in glucose level also correlated with increased risk (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .018).
 

Twice the risk

The investigators then combined these three independent variables into a weighted TAG score based on a multivariate analysis. Each unit increase in this composite score was associated with increased risk of symptomatic ICH (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.48-2.66; P < .001).

A step in the right direction?

Commenting on the study, Jeremy Payne, MD, PhD, director of the Stroke Center at Banner Health’s University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, noted the importance of predicting which patients might have secondary bleeding after interventional treatment of a large vessel occlusion stroke

“In aggregate, the role of endovascular thrombectomy is quite clear, but we still struggle to predict at the individual patient level who will benefit,” said Dr. Payne, who was not involved with the research.

Transfer and treatment of these patients also carries an economic cost. “Just getting patients to our center, where about 80% of the complex stroke patients come by helicopter, costs upwards of $30,000,” Dr. Payne said. “The financial argument isn’t one we like to talk much about, but we’re committing to spending probably $100,000-$200,000 on each person’s care.”

This study “attempts to address an important issue,” he said.

Predicting who is more likely to benefit leads to the assumption that if that were to happen, “we could skip all the rigamarole of helicopters and procedures, avoid the extra expense and particularly not make things worse than they already are,” explained Dr. Payne.

Potential limitations include that this is a single-center study and is based on an analysis of 19 patients out of 578. As a result, it is not clear that these findings will necessarily be generalizable to other centers, said Dr. Payne.

The TICI and ASPECTS “are pretty obvious markers of risk,” he noted. “The glucose levels, however, are more subtly interesting.”

He also pointed out that an association between diabetes and worse stroke outcomes is well established.

“The mechanisms are poorly understood, but the role of glucose keeps popping up as a potential marker of risk, and so it’s interesting that it bubbles up in their work too,” Dr. Payne said.

Furthermore, unlike TICI and ASPECTS, glucose levels are modifiable.

“Overall, then, we will continue to study this,” Dr. Payne said. “It’s very important to refine our ability to predict which patients may receive benefit versus harm from such procedures, and this is a step in the right direction.”

Some findings were also published December 2019 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

Montalvo Perero and Payne have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Motalvo Perero MJ et al. AAN 2020, Abstract S20.001.

The Infectious Disease Society of America has released new guidelines on the use and reuse of personal protective equipment, most of which address the use of face protection, for health care workers caring for COVID-19 patients. In releasing the guidelines, the IDSA expert guideline panel acknowledged gaps in evidence to support the recommendations, which is why they will be updated regularly as new evidence emerges.

“Our real goal here is to update these guidelines as a live document,” panel chair John Lynch III, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in a press briefing. “Looking at whatever research is coming out where it gets to the point where we find that the evidence is strong enough to make a change, I think we’ll need to readdress these recommendations.”

The panel tailored recommendations to the availability of supplies: conventional capacity for usual supplies; contingency capacity, when supplies are conserved, adapted and substituted with occasional reuse of select supplies; and crisis capacity, when critical supplies are lacking.

The guidelines contain the following eight recommendations for encounters with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients:

1) Either a surgical mask or N95 (or N99 or PAPR [powered & supplied air respiratory protection]) respirator for routine patient care in a conventional setting.

2) Either a surgical mask or reprocessed respirator as opposed to no mask for routine care in a contingency or crisis setting.

3) No recommendation on the use of double gloves vs. single gloves.

4) No recommendation on the use of shoe covers for any setting.

5) An N95 (or N99 or PAPR) respirator for aerosol-generating procedures in a conventional setting.

6) A reprocessed N95 respirator as opposed to a surgical mask for aerosol-generating procedures in a contingency or crisis setting.

7) Adding a face shield or surgical mask as a cover for an N95 respirator to allow for extended use during respirator shortages when performing aerosol-generating procedures in a contingency or crisis setting. This recommendation carries a caveat: It assumes correct doffing sequence and hand hygiene before and after taking off the face shield or surgical mask cover.

8) In the same scenario, adding a face shield or surgical mask over the N95 respirator so it can be reused, again assuming the correct sequence for hand hygiene.

The guideline was developed using the GRADE approach – for Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation – and a modified methodology for developing rapid recommendations. The levels of evidence supporting each recommendation vary from moderate for the first two to knowledge gap for the third and fourth to very low certainty for the last four.

“You can see that the eight recommendations that were made, a large part of them are really focused on masks, but there are a huge number of other disparate questions that need to be answered where there is really no good evidence basis,” Dr. Lynch said. “If we see any new evidence around that, we can at least provide commentary but I would really hope evidence-based recommendations around some of those interventions.”

Panel member Allison McGeer, MD, FRCPC, of the University of Toronto, explained the lack of evidence supporting infection prevention in hospitals. “In medicine we tend to look at individual patterns and individual patient outcomes,” she said. “When you’re looking at infection prevention, you’re looking at health systems and their outcomes, and it’s much harder to randomize hospitals or a state or a country to one particular policy about how to protect patients from infections in hospitals.”

SOURCE: Lynch JB et al. IDSA. April 27, 2020.

The Infectious Disease Society of America has released new guidelines on the use and reuse of personal protective equipment, most of which address the use of face protection, for health care workers caring for COVID-19 patients. In releasing the guidelines, the IDSA expert guideline panel acknowledged gaps in evidence to support the recommendations, which is why they will be updated regularly as new evidence emerges.

“Our real goal here is to update these guidelines as a live document,” panel chair John Lynch III, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in a press briefing. “Looking at whatever research is coming out where it gets to the point where we find that the evidence is strong enough to make a change, I think we’ll need to readdress these recommendations.”

The panel tailored recommendations to the availability of supplies: conventional capacity for usual supplies; contingency capacity, when supplies are conserved, adapted and substituted with occasional reuse of select supplies; and crisis capacity, when critical supplies are lacking.

The guidelines contain the following eight recommendations for encounters with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients:

1) Either a surgical mask or N95 (or N99 or PAPR [powered & supplied air respiratory protection]) respirator for routine patient care in a conventional setting.

2) Either a surgical mask or reprocessed respirator as opposed to no mask for routine care in a contingency or crisis setting.

3) No recommendation on the use of double gloves vs. single gloves.

4) No recommendation on the use of shoe covers for any setting.

5) An N95 (or N99 or PAPR) respirator for aerosol-generating procedures in a conventional setting.

6) A reprocessed N95 respirator as opposed to a surgical mask for aerosol-generating procedures in a contingency or crisis setting.

7) Adding a face shield or surgical mask as a cover for an N95 respirator to allow for extended use during respirator shortages when performing aerosol-generating procedures in a contingency or crisis setting. This recommendation carries a caveat: It assumes correct doffing sequence and hand hygiene before and after taking off the face shield or surgical mask cover.

8) In the same scenario, adding a face shield or surgical mask over the N95 respirator so it can be reused, again assuming the correct sequence for hand hygiene.

The guideline was developed using the GRADE approach – for Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation – and a modified methodology for developing rapid recommendations. The levels of evidence supporting each recommendation vary from moderate for the first two to knowledge gap for the third and fourth to very low certainty for the last four.

“You can see that the eight recommendations that were made, a large part of them are really focused on masks, but there are a huge number of other disparate questions that need to be answered where there is really no good evidence basis,” Dr. Lynch said. “If we see any new evidence around that, we can at least provide commentary but I would really hope evidence-based recommendations around some of those interventions.”

Panel member Allison McGeer, MD, FRCPC, of the University of Toronto, explained the lack of evidence supporting infection prevention in hospitals. “In medicine we tend to look at individual patterns and individual patient outcomes,” she said. “When you’re looking at infection prevention, you’re looking at health systems and their outcomes, and it’s much harder to randomize hospitals or a state or a country to one particular policy about how to protect patients from infections in hospitals.”

SOURCE: Lynch JB et al. IDSA. April 27, 2020.

The Infectious Disease Society of America has released new guidelines on the use and reuse of personal protective equipment, most of which address the use of face protection, for health care workers caring for COVID-19 patients. In releasing the guidelines, the IDSA expert guideline panel acknowledged gaps in evidence to support the recommendations, which is why they will be updated regularly as new evidence emerges.

“Our real goal here is to update these guidelines as a live document,” panel chair John Lynch III, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in a press briefing. “Looking at whatever research is coming out where it gets to the point where we find that the evidence is strong enough to make a change, I think we’ll need to readdress these recommendations.”

The panel tailored recommendations to the availability of supplies: conventional capacity for usual supplies; contingency capacity, when supplies are conserved, adapted and substituted with occasional reuse of select supplies; and crisis capacity, when critical supplies are lacking.

The guidelines contain the following eight recommendations for encounters with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients:

1) Either a surgical mask or N95 (or N99 or PAPR [powered & supplied air respiratory protection]) respirator for routine patient care in a conventional setting.

2) Either a surgical mask or reprocessed respirator as opposed to no mask for routine care in a contingency or crisis setting.

3) No recommendation on the use of double gloves vs. single gloves.

4) No recommendation on the use of shoe covers for any setting.

5) An N95 (or N99 or PAPR) respirator for aerosol-generating procedures in a conventional setting.

6) A reprocessed N95 respirator as opposed to a surgical mask for aerosol-generating procedures in a contingency or crisis setting.

7) Adding a face shield or surgical mask as a cover for an N95 respirator to allow for extended use during respirator shortages when performing aerosol-generating procedures in a contingency or crisis setting. This recommendation carries a caveat: It assumes correct doffing sequence and hand hygiene before and after taking off the face shield or surgical mask cover.

8) In the same scenario, adding a face shield or surgical mask over the N95 respirator so it can be reused, again assuming the correct sequence for hand hygiene.

The guideline was developed using the GRADE approach – for Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation – and a modified methodology for developing rapid recommendations. The levels of evidence supporting each recommendation vary from moderate for the first two to knowledge gap for the third and fourth to very low certainty for the last four.

“You can see that the eight recommendations that were made, a large part of them are really focused on masks, but there are a huge number of other disparate questions that need to be answered where there is really no good evidence basis,” Dr. Lynch said. “If we see any new evidence around that, we can at least provide commentary but I would really hope evidence-based recommendations around some of those interventions.”

Panel member Allison McGeer, MD, FRCPC, of the University of Toronto, explained the lack of evidence supporting infection prevention in hospitals. “In medicine we tend to look at individual patterns and individual patient outcomes,” she said. “When you’re looking at infection prevention, you’re looking at health systems and their outcomes, and it’s much harder to randomize hospitals or a state or a country to one particular policy about how to protect patients from infections in hospitals.”

SOURCE: Lynch JB et al. IDSA. April 27, 2020.