MDedge Emergency Medicine

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the COVID-19 pandemic drove down the number of primary care visits and altered the method – moving many to telehealth appointments instead of in-person visits – the content of those appointments also changed, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. Specifically, researchers found that preventive and chronic care for cardiovascular risk management dropped off during the first half of 2020 vs previous years.

For the study, G. Caleb Alexander, MD, from the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues analyzed data from the IQVIA National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative audit of outpatient care in the United States, from the first quarter of 2018 through the second quarter of 2020.

Most primary care visits in 2018 and 2019 were office based, the authors noted. In the second quarter (Q2, April-May) of 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the country, the total number of primary care encounters decreased by 21.4%, and the number of office visits dropped by 50.2%, compared with the average of visits during Q2 in 2018 and 2019.

At the same time, telemedicine visits increased from just 1.1% of total visits in Q2 of 2018 and 2019 to 4.1% of visits in the first quarter (January through March) of 2020 and to 35.3% of visits in Q2 of 2020.

The authors also found that the use of telemedicine in the first half of 2020 varied by geographical region and was not associated with the regional COVID-19 burden. In the Pacific region (Washington, Oregon, and California), 26.8% of encounters were virtual. By contrast, the proportion of telemedicine encounters accounted for only 15.1% of visits in the East North Central states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio).

Adults between the ages of 19 and 55 years were more likely to attend telemedicine visits than were those younger or older. Additionally, adults who were commercially insured were more likely to adopt telemedicine versus those with public or no insurance. The study did not find substantial differences in telemedicine use by payer type, nor evidence of a racial disparity between Black and White people in their use of telemedicine.
 

Drop-off in preventive and chronic care

During the second quarter of this year, the authors reported, the number of visits that included blood pressure assessments dropped by 50.1% and the number of visits in which cholesterol levels were assessed fell by 36.9%, compared with the Q2 of 2018 and 2019.

Visits in which providers prescribed new antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering medications decreased by 26% in Q2 of 2020 versus the same periods in the previous 2 years. The number of visits in which such prescriptions were renewed dropped by 8.9%.

New treatments also decreased significantly in Q2 of 2020 for patients with chronic conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, asthma, depression, and insomnia.

When the authors compared the content of telemedicine versus in-person visits in Q2 of 2020, they found a substantial difference. Blood pressure was assessed in 69.7% of office visits, compared with 9.6% of telemedicine. Similarly, cholesterol levels were evaluated in 21.6% of office visits versus 13.5% of telemedicine encounters. New medications were ordered in similar proportions of office-based and telemedicine visits.

The authors concluded that “the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with changes in the structure of primary care delivery, with the content of telemedicine visits differing from that of office-based encounters.”

While limited in scope, the authors noted, their study is one of the first to evaluate the changes in the content of primary care visits during the pandemic. They attributed the decline in evaluations of cardiovascular risk factors such as blood pressure and cholesterol to “fewer total visits and less frequent assessments during telemedicine encounters.”

While pointing to the inherent limitations of telemedicine, the study did not mention the availability of digital home blood pressure cuffs or home cholesterol test kits. Both kinds of devices are available at consumer-friendly price points and can help people track their indicators, but they’re not considered a substitute for sphygmomanometers used in offices or conventional lab tests. It’s not known how many consumers with cardiovascular risk factors have this kind of home monitoring equipment or how many doctors look at this kind of data.

Dr. Alexander reported serving as a paid adviser to IQVIA; that he is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation; and that he is a member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. One coauthor reported serving as an unpaid adviser to IQVIA and receiving personal fees from the states of California, Washington, and Alaska outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic drove down the number of primary care visits and altered the method – moving many to telehealth appointments instead of in-person visits – the content of those appointments also changed, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. Specifically, researchers found that preventive and chronic care for cardiovascular risk management dropped off during the first half of 2020 vs previous years.

For the study, G. Caleb Alexander, MD, from the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues analyzed data from the IQVIA National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative audit of outpatient care in the United States, from the first quarter of 2018 through the second quarter of 2020.

Most primary care visits in 2018 and 2019 were office based, the authors noted. In the second quarter (Q2, April-May) of 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the country, the total number of primary care encounters decreased by 21.4%, and the number of office visits dropped by 50.2%, compared with the average of visits during Q2 in 2018 and 2019.

At the same time, telemedicine visits increased from just 1.1% of total visits in Q2 of 2018 and 2019 to 4.1% of visits in the first quarter (January through March) of 2020 and to 35.3% of visits in Q2 of 2020.

The authors also found that the use of telemedicine in the first half of 2020 varied by geographical region and was not associated with the regional COVID-19 burden. In the Pacific region (Washington, Oregon, and California), 26.8% of encounters were virtual. By contrast, the proportion of telemedicine encounters accounted for only 15.1% of visits in the East North Central states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio).

Adults between the ages of 19 and 55 years were more likely to attend telemedicine visits than were those younger or older. Additionally, adults who were commercially insured were more likely to adopt telemedicine versus those with public or no insurance. The study did not find substantial differences in telemedicine use by payer type, nor evidence of a racial disparity between Black and White people in their use of telemedicine.
 

Drop-off in preventive and chronic care

During the second quarter of this year, the authors reported, the number of visits that included blood pressure assessments dropped by 50.1% and the number of visits in which cholesterol levels were assessed fell by 36.9%, compared with the Q2 of 2018 and 2019.

Visits in which providers prescribed new antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering medications decreased by 26% in Q2 of 2020 versus the same periods in the previous 2 years. The number of visits in which such prescriptions were renewed dropped by 8.9%.

New treatments also decreased significantly in Q2 of 2020 for patients with chronic conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, asthma, depression, and insomnia.

When the authors compared the content of telemedicine versus in-person visits in Q2 of 2020, they found a substantial difference. Blood pressure was assessed in 69.7% of office visits, compared with 9.6% of telemedicine. Similarly, cholesterol levels were evaluated in 21.6% of office visits versus 13.5% of telemedicine encounters. New medications were ordered in similar proportions of office-based and telemedicine visits.

The authors concluded that “the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with changes in the structure of primary care delivery, with the content of telemedicine visits differing from that of office-based encounters.”

While limited in scope, the authors noted, their study is one of the first to evaluate the changes in the content of primary care visits during the pandemic. They attributed the decline in evaluations of cardiovascular risk factors such as blood pressure and cholesterol to “fewer total visits and less frequent assessments during telemedicine encounters.”

While pointing to the inherent limitations of telemedicine, the study did not mention the availability of digital home blood pressure cuffs or home cholesterol test kits. Both kinds of devices are available at consumer-friendly price points and can help people track their indicators, but they’re not considered a substitute for sphygmomanometers used in offices or conventional lab tests. It’s not known how many consumers with cardiovascular risk factors have this kind of home monitoring equipment or how many doctors look at this kind of data.

Dr. Alexander reported serving as a paid adviser to IQVIA; that he is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation; and that he is a member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. One coauthor reported serving as an unpaid adviser to IQVIA and receiving personal fees from the states of California, Washington, and Alaska outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic drove down the number of primary care visits and altered the method – moving many to telehealth appointments instead of in-person visits – the content of those appointments also changed, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. Specifically, researchers found that preventive and chronic care for cardiovascular risk management dropped off during the first half of 2020 vs previous years.

For the study, G. Caleb Alexander, MD, from the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues analyzed data from the IQVIA National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative audit of outpatient care in the United States, from the first quarter of 2018 through the second quarter of 2020.

Most primary care visits in 2018 and 2019 were office based, the authors noted. In the second quarter (Q2, April-May) of 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the country, the total number of primary care encounters decreased by 21.4%, and the number of office visits dropped by 50.2%, compared with the average of visits during Q2 in 2018 and 2019.

At the same time, telemedicine visits increased from just 1.1% of total visits in Q2 of 2018 and 2019 to 4.1% of visits in the first quarter (January through March) of 2020 and to 35.3% of visits in Q2 of 2020.

The authors also found that the use of telemedicine in the first half of 2020 varied by geographical region and was not associated with the regional COVID-19 burden. In the Pacific region (Washington, Oregon, and California), 26.8% of encounters were virtual. By contrast, the proportion of telemedicine encounters accounted for only 15.1% of visits in the East North Central states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio).

Adults between the ages of 19 and 55 years were more likely to attend telemedicine visits than were those younger or older. Additionally, adults who were commercially insured were more likely to adopt telemedicine versus those with public or no insurance. The study did not find substantial differences in telemedicine use by payer type, nor evidence of a racial disparity between Black and White people in their use of telemedicine.
 

Drop-off in preventive and chronic care

During the second quarter of this year, the authors reported, the number of visits that included blood pressure assessments dropped by 50.1% and the number of visits in which cholesterol levels were assessed fell by 36.9%, compared with the Q2 of 2018 and 2019.

Visits in which providers prescribed new antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering medications decreased by 26% in Q2 of 2020 versus the same periods in the previous 2 years. The number of visits in which such prescriptions were renewed dropped by 8.9%.

New treatments also decreased significantly in Q2 of 2020 for patients with chronic conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, asthma, depression, and insomnia.

When the authors compared the content of telemedicine versus in-person visits in Q2 of 2020, they found a substantial difference. Blood pressure was assessed in 69.7% of office visits, compared with 9.6% of telemedicine. Similarly, cholesterol levels were evaluated in 21.6% of office visits versus 13.5% of telemedicine encounters. New medications were ordered in similar proportions of office-based and telemedicine visits.

The authors concluded that “the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with changes in the structure of primary care delivery, with the content of telemedicine visits differing from that of office-based encounters.”

While limited in scope, the authors noted, their study is one of the first to evaluate the changes in the content of primary care visits during the pandemic. They attributed the decline in evaluations of cardiovascular risk factors such as blood pressure and cholesterol to “fewer total visits and less frequent assessments during telemedicine encounters.”

While pointing to the inherent limitations of telemedicine, the study did not mention the availability of digital home blood pressure cuffs or home cholesterol test kits. Both kinds of devices are available at consumer-friendly price points and can help people track their indicators, but they’re not considered a substitute for sphygmomanometers used in offices or conventional lab tests. It’s not known how many consumers with cardiovascular risk factors have this kind of home monitoring equipment or how many doctors look at this kind of data.

Dr. Alexander reported serving as a paid adviser to IQVIA; that he is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation; and that he is a member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. One coauthor reported serving as an unpaid adviser to IQVIA and receiving personal fees from the states of California, Washington, and Alaska outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Increased psychosocial resilience, which captures a sense of purpose, optimism, and life-coping strategies, correlates with improved cardiovascular (CV) health in Black Americans, according to a study that might hold a key for identifying new strategies for CV disease prevention.

Courtesy Yale University

“Our findings highlight the importance of individual psychosocial factors that promote cardiovascular health among Black adults, traditionally considered to be a high-risk population,” according to a team of authors collaborating on a study produced by the Morehouse-Emory Cardiovascular Center for Health Equity in Atlanta.

Studies associating psychosocial resilience with improved health outcomes have been published before. In a 12-study review of this concept, it was emphasized that resilience is a dynamic process, not a personality trait, and has shown promise as a target of efforts to relieve the burden of disease (Johnston MC et al. Psychosomatics 2015;56:168-80).

In this study, which received partial support from the American Heart Association, psychosocial resilience was evaluated at both the individual level and at the community level among 389 Black adults living in Atlanta. The senior author was Tené T. Lewis, PhD, of the department of epidemiology at Emory’s Rollins School of Public Health (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020 Oct 7;13:3006638).

Psychosocial resilience was calculated across the domains of environmental mastery, purpose of life, optimism, coping, and lack of depression with standardized tests, such as the Life Orientation Test-Revised questionnaire for optimism and the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being for the domains of environmental mastery and purpose of life. A composite score for psychosocial resilience was reached by calculating the median score across the measured domains.

Patients with high psychosocial resilience, defined as a composite score above the median, or low resilience, defined as a lower score, were then compared for CV health based on the AHA’s Life’s Simple 7 (LS7) score.

LS7 scores incorporate measures for exercise, diet, smoking history, blood pressure, glucose, cholesterol, and body mass index. Composite LS7 scores range from 0 to 14. Prior work cited by the authors have associated each 1-unit increase in LS7 score with a 13% lower risk of CVD.

As a continuous variable for CV risk at the individual level, each higher standard-deviation increment in the composite psychosocial resilience score was associated with a highly significant 0.42-point increase in LS7 score (P < .001) for study participants. In other words, increasing resilience predicted lower CV risk scores.

Resilience was also calculated at the community level by looking at census tract-level rates of CV mortality and morbidity relative to socioeconomic status. Again, high CV resilience, defined as scores above the median, were compared with lower scores across neighborhoods with similar median household income. As a continuous variable in this analysis, each higher standard-deviation increment in the resilience score was associated with a 0.27-point increase in LS7 score (P = .01).

After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, the association between psychosocial resilience and CV health remained significant for both the individual and community calculations, according to the authors. When examined jointly, high individual psychosocial resilience remained independently associated with improved CV health, but living in a high-resilience neighborhood was not an independent predictor.

When evaluated individually, each of the domains in the psychosocial resistance score were positively correlated with higher LS7 scores, meaning lower CV risk. The strongest associations on a statistical level were low depressive symptoms (P = .001), environmental mastery (P = .006), and purpose in life (P = .009).

The impact of high psychosocial resistance scores was greatest in Black adults living in low-resilience neighborhoods. Among these subjects, high resilience was associated with a nearly 1-point increase in LS7 score relative to low resilience (8.38 vs. 7.42). This was unexpected, but it “is consistent with some broader conceptual literature that posits that individual psychosocial resilience matters more under conditions of adversity,” the authors reported.
 

Understanding disparities is key

Black race has repeatedly been associated with an increased risk of CV events, but this study is valuable for providing a fresh perspective on the potential reasons, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial, Amber E. Johnson, MD, and Jared Magnani, MD, who are both affiliated with the division of cardiology at the University of Pittsburgh (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020 Oct 7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.120.007357.

“Clinicians increasingly recognize that race-based disparities do not stem inherently from race; instead, the disparities stem from the underlying social determinations of health,” they wrote, citing such variables as unequal access to pay and acceptable living conditions “and the structural racism that perpetuates them.”

They agreed with the authors that promotion of psychosocial resilience among Black people living in communities with poor CV health has the potential to improve CV outcomes, but they warned that this is complex. Although they contend that resilience techniques can be taught, they cautioned there might be limitations if the underlying factors associated with poor psychosocial resilience remain unchanged.

“Thus, the superficial application of positive psychology strategies is likely insufficient to bring parity to CV health outcomes,” they wrote, concluding that strategies to promote health equity would negate the need for interventions to bolster resilience.

Studies that focus on Black adults and cardiovascular health, including this investigation into the role of psychosocial factors “are much needed and very welcome,” said Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist and professor in the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

He sees a broad array of potential directions of research.

“The study opens many questions about whether the resilience can be strengthened by interventions; whether addressing structural racism could reduce the need for such resilience, and whether this association is specific to Black adults in an urban center or is generally present in other settings and in other populations,” Dr. Krumholz said.

An effort is now needed to determine “whether this is a marker or a mediator of cardiovascular health,” he added.

In either case, resilience is a potentially important factor for understanding racial disparities in CV-disease prevalence and outcomes, according to the authors of the accompanying editorial and Dr. Krumholz.

SOURCE: Kim JH et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Oct 7;13:e006638.

Increased psychosocial resilience, which captures a sense of purpose, optimism, and life-coping strategies, correlates with improved cardiovascular (CV) health in Black Americans, according to a study that might hold a key for identifying new strategies for CV disease prevention.

Courtesy Yale University

“Our findings highlight the importance of individual psychosocial factors that promote cardiovascular health among Black adults, traditionally considered to be a high-risk population,” according to a team of authors collaborating on a study produced by the Morehouse-Emory Cardiovascular Center for Health Equity in Atlanta.

Studies associating psychosocial resilience with improved health outcomes have been published before. In a 12-study review of this concept, it was emphasized that resilience is a dynamic process, not a personality trait, and has shown promise as a target of efforts to relieve the burden of disease (Johnston MC et al. Psychosomatics 2015;56:168-80).

In this study, which received partial support from the American Heart Association, psychosocial resilience was evaluated at both the individual level and at the community level among 389 Black adults living in Atlanta. The senior author was Tené T. Lewis, PhD, of the department of epidemiology at Emory’s Rollins School of Public Health (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020 Oct 7;13:3006638).

Psychosocial resilience was calculated across the domains of environmental mastery, purpose of life, optimism, coping, and lack of depression with standardized tests, such as the Life Orientation Test-Revised questionnaire for optimism and the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being for the domains of environmental mastery and purpose of life. A composite score for psychosocial resilience was reached by calculating the median score across the measured domains.

Patients with high psychosocial resilience, defined as a composite score above the median, or low resilience, defined as a lower score, were then compared for CV health based on the AHA’s Life’s Simple 7 (LS7) score.

LS7 scores incorporate measures for exercise, diet, smoking history, blood pressure, glucose, cholesterol, and body mass index. Composite LS7 scores range from 0 to 14. Prior work cited by the authors have associated each 1-unit increase in LS7 score with a 13% lower risk of CVD.

As a continuous variable for CV risk at the individual level, each higher standard-deviation increment in the composite psychosocial resilience score was associated with a highly significant 0.42-point increase in LS7 score (P < .001) for study participants. In other words, increasing resilience predicted lower CV risk scores.

Resilience was also calculated at the community level by looking at census tract-level rates of CV mortality and morbidity relative to socioeconomic status. Again, high CV resilience, defined as scores above the median, were compared with lower scores across neighborhoods with similar median household income. As a continuous variable in this analysis, each higher standard-deviation increment in the resilience score was associated with a 0.27-point increase in LS7 score (P = .01).

After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, the association between psychosocial resilience and CV health remained significant for both the individual and community calculations, according to the authors. When examined jointly, high individual psychosocial resilience remained independently associated with improved CV health, but living in a high-resilience neighborhood was not an independent predictor.

When evaluated individually, each of the domains in the psychosocial resistance score were positively correlated with higher LS7 scores, meaning lower CV risk. The strongest associations on a statistical level were low depressive symptoms (P = .001), environmental mastery (P = .006), and purpose in life (P = .009).

The impact of high psychosocial resistance scores was greatest in Black adults living in low-resilience neighborhoods. Among these subjects, high resilience was associated with a nearly 1-point increase in LS7 score relative to low resilience (8.38 vs. 7.42). This was unexpected, but it “is consistent with some broader conceptual literature that posits that individual psychosocial resilience matters more under conditions of adversity,” the authors reported.
 

Understanding disparities is key

Black race has repeatedly been associated with an increased risk of CV events, but this study is valuable for providing a fresh perspective on the potential reasons, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial, Amber E. Johnson, MD, and Jared Magnani, MD, who are both affiliated with the division of cardiology at the University of Pittsburgh (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020 Oct 7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.120.007357.

“Clinicians increasingly recognize that race-based disparities do not stem inherently from race; instead, the disparities stem from the underlying social determinations of health,” they wrote, citing such variables as unequal access to pay and acceptable living conditions “and the structural racism that perpetuates them.”

They agreed with the authors that promotion of psychosocial resilience among Black people living in communities with poor CV health has the potential to improve CV outcomes, but they warned that this is complex. Although they contend that resilience techniques can be taught, they cautioned there might be limitations if the underlying factors associated with poor psychosocial resilience remain unchanged.

“Thus, the superficial application of positive psychology strategies is likely insufficient to bring parity to CV health outcomes,” they wrote, concluding that strategies to promote health equity would negate the need for interventions to bolster resilience.

Studies that focus on Black adults and cardiovascular health, including this investigation into the role of psychosocial factors “are much needed and very welcome,” said Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist and professor in the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

He sees a broad array of potential directions of research.

“The study opens many questions about whether the resilience can be strengthened by interventions; whether addressing structural racism could reduce the need for such resilience, and whether this association is specific to Black adults in an urban center or is generally present in other settings and in other populations,” Dr. Krumholz said.

An effort is now needed to determine “whether this is a marker or a mediator of cardiovascular health,” he added.

In either case, resilience is a potentially important factor for understanding racial disparities in CV-disease prevalence and outcomes, according to the authors of the accompanying editorial and Dr. Krumholz.

SOURCE: Kim JH et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Oct 7;13:e006638.

Increased psychosocial resilience, which captures a sense of purpose, optimism, and life-coping strategies, correlates with improved cardiovascular (CV) health in Black Americans, according to a study that might hold a key for identifying new strategies for CV disease prevention.

Courtesy Yale University

“Our findings highlight the importance of individual psychosocial factors that promote cardiovascular health among Black adults, traditionally considered to be a high-risk population,” according to a team of authors collaborating on a study produced by the Morehouse-Emory Cardiovascular Center for Health Equity in Atlanta.

Studies associating psychosocial resilience with improved health outcomes have been published before. In a 12-study review of this concept, it was emphasized that resilience is a dynamic process, not a personality trait, and has shown promise as a target of efforts to relieve the burden of disease (Johnston MC et al. Psychosomatics 2015;56:168-80).

In this study, which received partial support from the American Heart Association, psychosocial resilience was evaluated at both the individual level and at the community level among 389 Black adults living in Atlanta. The senior author was Tené T. Lewis, PhD, of the department of epidemiology at Emory’s Rollins School of Public Health (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020 Oct 7;13:3006638).

Psychosocial resilience was calculated across the domains of environmental mastery, purpose of life, optimism, coping, and lack of depression with standardized tests, such as the Life Orientation Test-Revised questionnaire for optimism and the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being for the domains of environmental mastery and purpose of life. A composite score for psychosocial resilience was reached by calculating the median score across the measured domains.

Patients with high psychosocial resilience, defined as a composite score above the median, or low resilience, defined as a lower score, were then compared for CV health based on the AHA’s Life’s Simple 7 (LS7) score.

LS7 scores incorporate measures for exercise, diet, smoking history, blood pressure, glucose, cholesterol, and body mass index. Composite LS7 scores range from 0 to 14. Prior work cited by the authors have associated each 1-unit increase in LS7 score with a 13% lower risk of CVD.

As a continuous variable for CV risk at the individual level, each higher standard-deviation increment in the composite psychosocial resilience score was associated with a highly significant 0.42-point increase in LS7 score (P < .001) for study participants. In other words, increasing resilience predicted lower CV risk scores.

Resilience was also calculated at the community level by looking at census tract-level rates of CV mortality and morbidity relative to socioeconomic status. Again, high CV resilience, defined as scores above the median, were compared with lower scores across neighborhoods with similar median household income. As a continuous variable in this analysis, each higher standard-deviation increment in the resilience score was associated with a 0.27-point increase in LS7 score (P = .01).

After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, the association between psychosocial resilience and CV health remained significant for both the individual and community calculations, according to the authors. When examined jointly, high individual psychosocial resilience remained independently associated with improved CV health, but living in a high-resilience neighborhood was not an independent predictor.

When evaluated individually, each of the domains in the psychosocial resistance score were positively correlated with higher LS7 scores, meaning lower CV risk. The strongest associations on a statistical level were low depressive symptoms (P = .001), environmental mastery (P = .006), and purpose in life (P = .009).

The impact of high psychosocial resistance scores was greatest in Black adults living in low-resilience neighborhoods. Among these subjects, high resilience was associated with a nearly 1-point increase in LS7 score relative to low resilience (8.38 vs. 7.42). This was unexpected, but it “is consistent with some broader conceptual literature that posits that individual psychosocial resilience matters more under conditions of adversity,” the authors reported.
 

Understanding disparities is key

Black race has repeatedly been associated with an increased risk of CV events, but this study is valuable for providing a fresh perspective on the potential reasons, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial, Amber E. Johnson, MD, and Jared Magnani, MD, who are both affiliated with the division of cardiology at the University of Pittsburgh (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020 Oct 7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.120.007357.

“Clinicians increasingly recognize that race-based disparities do not stem inherently from race; instead, the disparities stem from the underlying social determinations of health,” they wrote, citing such variables as unequal access to pay and acceptable living conditions “and the structural racism that perpetuates them.”

They agreed with the authors that promotion of psychosocial resilience among Black people living in communities with poor CV health has the potential to improve CV outcomes, but they warned that this is complex. Although they contend that resilience techniques can be taught, they cautioned there might be limitations if the underlying factors associated with poor psychosocial resilience remain unchanged.

“Thus, the superficial application of positive psychology strategies is likely insufficient to bring parity to CV health outcomes,” they wrote, concluding that strategies to promote health equity would negate the need for interventions to bolster resilience.

Studies that focus on Black adults and cardiovascular health, including this investigation into the role of psychosocial factors “are much needed and very welcome,” said Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist and professor in the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

He sees a broad array of potential directions of research.

“The study opens many questions about whether the resilience can be strengthened by interventions; whether addressing structural racism could reduce the need for such resilience, and whether this association is specific to Black adults in an urban center or is generally present in other settings and in other populations,” Dr. Krumholz said.

An effort is now needed to determine “whether this is a marker or a mediator of cardiovascular health,” he added.

In either case, resilience is a potentially important factor for understanding racial disparities in CV-disease prevalence and outcomes, according to the authors of the accompanying editorial and Dr. Krumholz.

SOURCE: Kim JH et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Oct 7;13:e006638.

International normalized ratio (INR) does not predict periprocedural bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, according to a meta-analysis of 29 studies.

This finding should deter the common practice of delivering blood products to cirrhotic patients with an elevated INR, reported lead author Alexander J. Kovalic, MD, of Novant Forsyth Medical Center in Winston Salem, N.C., and colleagues.

“INR measurement among cirrhotic patients is important in MELD [Model for End-Stage Liver Disease] prognostication and assessment of underlying hepatic synthetic function, however the INR alone does not capture the complicated interplay of anticoagulant and procoagulant deficiencies present in cirrhotic coagulopathy,” Dr. Kovalic and colleagues wrote in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. “Yet, the ‘correction’ of these aberrancies among peripheral coagulation tests remains common ... even in modern practice, and not uncommonly occurs in the periprocedural setting.”

According to investigators, addressing INR with blood transfusion can have a litany of negative effects. Beyond the risks faced by all patient populations, increasing blood volume in those with cirrhosis can increase portal venous pressure, thereby raising risks of portal gastropathy or variceal hemorrhage. In addition, giving plasma products to patients with cirrhotic coagulopathy may further disrupt the balance between anticoagulants and procoagulants, potentially triggering disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Dr. Kovalic and colleagues noted that the lack of correlation between peripheral coagulation tests and bleeding risk has been a longstanding subject of investigation, citing studies from as early as 1981.

To add further weight to this body of evidence, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 13,276 patients with cirrhosis who underwent various procedures between 1999 and 2019. Primary outcomes included periprocedural bleeding events and the association between preprocedural INR and periprocedural bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included mortality, quantity of blood and/or plasma products used, and relationship between preprocedural platelet count and periprocedural bleeding events.

The analysis showed that preprocedural INR was not significantly associated with periprocedural bleeding events (pooled odds ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.33; P = .06), a finding that held across INR threshold subgroups. Similarly, no significant difference was found between mean INR of patients who had bleeding events versus that of those who did not (pooled mean difference, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.03-0.13; P = .23).

Preprocedural platelet count was also a poor predictor of periprocedural bleeding, with a pooled odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 0.55-2.77; P = .60), although the investigators noted that platelet count thresholds varied widely across studies, from 30 to 150 × 10⁹/L. When studies were stratified by procedural bleeding risk or procedure type, subgroup effects were no longer significant. Other secondary endpoints were incalculable because of insufficient data.

“Hopefully, these findings will spark initiation of more large-scale, higher-quality studies ... to reinforce minimizing administration of fresh frozen plasma for inappropriate correction of INR, which carries a multitude of adverse effects among cirrhotic [patients],” the investigators concluded.

According to Stephen H. Caldwell, MD, of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, “The present paper augments accumulating literature over the past 15 years that INR should be discarded as a measure of procedure-related bleeding risk.”

Dr. Caldwell pointed out that “bleeding in cirrhosis is usually related to portal hypertension not with impaired hemostasis, with the occasional exception of hyperfibrinolysis, which is very different from a prolonged INR.”

He went on to suggest that the present findings should dissuade clinicians from a practice that, for some, is reflexive rather than evidence based.

“It’s remarkable how many medical practices become entrenched based on hand-me-down teaching during our early training years, and remain so for many years beyond as we disperse into various medical and surgical fields,” Dr. Caldwell said. “These learned approaches to common problems can clearly persist for generations despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that usually evolve slowly and well-insulated within subspecialties or sub-subspecialties, and hence take several generations of training to diffuse into the wider practice of medical care for common problems. These may become matters of expedience in decision-making, much like the old antibiotic conundrum of ‘no-think-a-cillin,’ as critics referred to over-use of broad spectrum antibiotics. And so it has been with the INR.”The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Eisai, Gilead, and others. Dr. Caldwell disclosed research support from Daiichi concerning the potential role of anticoagulation therapy in preventing cirrhosis progression.

SOURCE: Kovalic AJ et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1111/apt.16078.

International normalized ratio (INR) does not predict periprocedural bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, according to a meta-analysis of 29 studies.

This finding should deter the common practice of delivering blood products to cirrhotic patients with an elevated INR, reported lead author Alexander J. Kovalic, MD, of Novant Forsyth Medical Center in Winston Salem, N.C., and colleagues.

“INR measurement among cirrhotic patients is important in MELD [Model for End-Stage Liver Disease] prognostication and assessment of underlying hepatic synthetic function, however the INR alone does not capture the complicated interplay of anticoagulant and procoagulant deficiencies present in cirrhotic coagulopathy,” Dr. Kovalic and colleagues wrote in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. “Yet, the ‘correction’ of these aberrancies among peripheral coagulation tests remains common ... even in modern practice, and not uncommonly occurs in the periprocedural setting.”

According to investigators, addressing INR with blood transfusion can have a litany of negative effects. Beyond the risks faced by all patient populations, increasing blood volume in those with cirrhosis can increase portal venous pressure, thereby raising risks of portal gastropathy or variceal hemorrhage. In addition, giving plasma products to patients with cirrhotic coagulopathy may further disrupt the balance between anticoagulants and procoagulants, potentially triggering disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Dr. Kovalic and colleagues noted that the lack of correlation between peripheral coagulation tests and bleeding risk has been a longstanding subject of investigation, citing studies from as early as 1981.

To add further weight to this body of evidence, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 13,276 patients with cirrhosis who underwent various procedures between 1999 and 2019. Primary outcomes included periprocedural bleeding events and the association between preprocedural INR and periprocedural bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included mortality, quantity of blood and/or plasma products used, and relationship between preprocedural platelet count and periprocedural bleeding events.

The analysis showed that preprocedural INR was not significantly associated with periprocedural bleeding events (pooled odds ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.33; P = .06), a finding that held across INR threshold subgroups. Similarly, no significant difference was found between mean INR of patients who had bleeding events versus that of those who did not (pooled mean difference, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.03-0.13; P = .23).

Preprocedural platelet count was also a poor predictor of periprocedural bleeding, with a pooled odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 0.55-2.77; P = .60), although the investigators noted that platelet count thresholds varied widely across studies, from 30 to 150 × 10⁹/L. When studies were stratified by procedural bleeding risk or procedure type, subgroup effects were no longer significant. Other secondary endpoints were incalculable because of insufficient data.

“Hopefully, these findings will spark initiation of more large-scale, higher-quality studies ... to reinforce minimizing administration of fresh frozen plasma for inappropriate correction of INR, which carries a multitude of adverse effects among cirrhotic [patients],” the investigators concluded.

According to Stephen H. Caldwell, MD, of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, “The present paper augments accumulating literature over the past 15 years that INR should be discarded as a measure of procedure-related bleeding risk.”

Dr. Caldwell pointed out that “bleeding in cirrhosis is usually related to portal hypertension not with impaired hemostasis, with the occasional exception of hyperfibrinolysis, which is very different from a prolonged INR.”

He went on to suggest that the present findings should dissuade clinicians from a practice that, for some, is reflexive rather than evidence based.

“It’s remarkable how many medical practices become entrenched based on hand-me-down teaching during our early training years, and remain so for many years beyond as we disperse into various medical and surgical fields,” Dr. Caldwell said. “These learned approaches to common problems can clearly persist for generations despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that usually evolve slowly and well-insulated within subspecialties or sub-subspecialties, and hence take several generations of training to diffuse into the wider practice of medical care for common problems. These may become matters of expedience in decision-making, much like the old antibiotic conundrum of ‘no-think-a-cillin,’ as critics referred to over-use of broad spectrum antibiotics. And so it has been with the INR.”The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Eisai, Gilead, and others. Dr. Caldwell disclosed research support from Daiichi concerning the potential role of anticoagulation therapy in preventing cirrhosis progression.

SOURCE: Kovalic AJ et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1111/apt.16078.

International normalized ratio (INR) does not predict periprocedural bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, according to a meta-analysis of 29 studies.

This finding should deter the common practice of delivering blood products to cirrhotic patients with an elevated INR, reported lead author Alexander J. Kovalic, MD, of Novant Forsyth Medical Center in Winston Salem, N.C., and colleagues.

“INR measurement among cirrhotic patients is important in MELD [Model for End-Stage Liver Disease] prognostication and assessment of underlying hepatic synthetic function, however the INR alone does not capture the complicated interplay of anticoagulant and procoagulant deficiencies present in cirrhotic coagulopathy,” Dr. Kovalic and colleagues wrote in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. “Yet, the ‘correction’ of these aberrancies among peripheral coagulation tests remains common ... even in modern practice, and not uncommonly occurs in the periprocedural setting.”

According to investigators, addressing INR with blood transfusion can have a litany of negative effects. Beyond the risks faced by all patient populations, increasing blood volume in those with cirrhosis can increase portal venous pressure, thereby raising risks of portal gastropathy or variceal hemorrhage. In addition, giving plasma products to patients with cirrhotic coagulopathy may further disrupt the balance between anticoagulants and procoagulants, potentially triggering disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Dr. Kovalic and colleagues noted that the lack of correlation between peripheral coagulation tests and bleeding risk has been a longstanding subject of investigation, citing studies from as early as 1981.

To add further weight to this body of evidence, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 13,276 patients with cirrhosis who underwent various procedures between 1999 and 2019. Primary outcomes included periprocedural bleeding events and the association between preprocedural INR and periprocedural bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included mortality, quantity of blood and/or plasma products used, and relationship between preprocedural platelet count and periprocedural bleeding events.

The analysis showed that preprocedural INR was not significantly associated with periprocedural bleeding events (pooled odds ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.33; P = .06), a finding that held across INR threshold subgroups. Similarly, no significant difference was found between mean INR of patients who had bleeding events versus that of those who did not (pooled mean difference, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.03-0.13; P = .23).

Preprocedural platelet count was also a poor predictor of periprocedural bleeding, with a pooled odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 0.55-2.77; P = .60), although the investigators noted that platelet count thresholds varied widely across studies, from 30 to 150 × 10⁹/L. When studies were stratified by procedural bleeding risk or procedure type, subgroup effects were no longer significant. Other secondary endpoints were incalculable because of insufficient data.

“Hopefully, these findings will spark initiation of more large-scale, higher-quality studies ... to reinforce minimizing administration of fresh frozen plasma for inappropriate correction of INR, which carries a multitude of adverse effects among cirrhotic [patients],” the investigators concluded.

According to Stephen H. Caldwell, MD, of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, “The present paper augments accumulating literature over the past 15 years that INR should be discarded as a measure of procedure-related bleeding risk.”

Dr. Caldwell pointed out that “bleeding in cirrhosis is usually related to portal hypertension not with impaired hemostasis, with the occasional exception of hyperfibrinolysis, which is very different from a prolonged INR.”

He went on to suggest that the present findings should dissuade clinicians from a practice that, for some, is reflexive rather than evidence based.

“It’s remarkable how many medical practices become entrenched based on hand-me-down teaching during our early training years, and remain so for many years beyond as we disperse into various medical and surgical fields,” Dr. Caldwell said. “These learned approaches to common problems can clearly persist for generations despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that usually evolve slowly and well-insulated within subspecialties or sub-subspecialties, and hence take several generations of training to diffuse into the wider practice of medical care for common problems. These may become matters of expedience in decision-making, much like the old antibiotic conundrum of ‘no-think-a-cillin,’ as critics referred to over-use of broad spectrum antibiotics. And so it has been with the INR.”The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Eisai, Gilead, and others. Dr. Caldwell disclosed research support from Daiichi concerning the potential role of anticoagulation therapy in preventing cirrhosis progression.

SOURCE: Kovalic AJ et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1111/apt.16078.

The latest drug shown to benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, works just as well when added on top of a second major agent used to treat these patients, the renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting combination of sacubitril/valsartan, based on a post-hoc analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

“When there are two very effective treatments, it’s common for people to ask: Which should I use?’ The goal of my presentation was to emphasize that the answer is both. We shouldn’t choose between neprilysin inhibition [sacubitril inhibits the enzyme neprilysin] and SGLT2 [sodium-glucose transporter 2] inhibition; we should use both,” said Milton Packer, MD at the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

EMPEROR-Reduced had the primary goal of testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The results showed that adding this drug on top of standard treatments led to a 25% relative cut in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo, and had this effect regardless of whether or not patients also had type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022190).

Among the 3,730 patients enrolled in the trial, 727 (19%) were on sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) at entry, which gave Dr. Packer the data to perform the analysis he reported. He presented the study’s three major endpoints as well as a quality of life analysis that compared the performance of empagliflozin in patients who were on sacubitril/valsartan at baseline with the other study patients, who were either on a different type of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (roughly 70% of study patients) or on no RAS inhibition (about 10% of patients).

The results showed no statistically significant indication of an interaction, suggesting that patients with sacubitril/valsartan on board had just as good response to empagliflozin as patients who were not on this combination. The landmark PARADIGM-HF trial proved several years ago that treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan led to significantly better outcomes than did treatment with another form of RAS inhibition (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).

For example, EMPEROR-Reduced’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, fell by 36% relative to placebo in patients who received empagliflozin on top of sacubitril/valsartan, and by 23% relative to placebo among the remaining patients who received empagliflozin on top of a different type of RAS inhibitor drug or no RAS inhibition.

“Background treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not diminish, and may have enhanced the efficacy of empagliflozin,” concluded Dr. Packer. Further analyses also showed that concurrent sacubitril/valsartan had no statistically significant impact on empagliflozin’s ability to reduce the rate of total heart failure hospitalizations, or to slow progressive loss of renal function, compared with placebo. The fourth efficacy analysis Dr. Packer presented showed that empagliflozin was also as effective for improving a quality-of-life measure in patients compared with placebo regardless of the type of RAS inhibition used. For all four outcomes, the point-estimate of empagliflozin’s benefit was higher when used along with sacubitril/valsartan.

Brian L. Claggett, PhD, a biostatistician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, designated discussant for the report, disagreed with Dr. Packer’s suggestion that the efficacy of empagliflozin may have been greater when administered against a background of sacubitril/valsartan. From a statistical perspective, there is no basis to suggest that patients did better when they were on both drugs, he cautioned. But Dr. Claggett acknowledged that the new analyses suggested that empagliflozin’s benefit wasn’t compromised by concurrent sacubitril/valsartan use. He also highlighted the value of more fully documenting the safety and efficacy of a new drug when used as part of “comprehensive therapy” with the established drugs that a patient may concurrently receive.

Dr. Packer also presented several measures of treatment safety that all showed similar rates of adverse effects between the empagliflozin and placebo recipients regardless of background RAS inhibition. A notable finding was that the incidence of hypokalemia was 5.9% in patients on empagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan and 7.5% among patients on empagliflozin and a different type of RAS inhibition.

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin. Dr. Packer has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and from several other companies. Dr. Claggett has been a consultant to Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Corvia, Myokardia, and Novartis.

[email protected]

The latest drug shown to benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, works just as well when added on top of a second major agent used to treat these patients, the renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting combination of sacubitril/valsartan, based on a post-hoc analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

“When there are two very effective treatments, it’s common for people to ask: Which should I use?’ The goal of my presentation was to emphasize that the answer is both. We shouldn’t choose between neprilysin inhibition [sacubitril inhibits the enzyme neprilysin] and SGLT2 [sodium-glucose transporter 2] inhibition; we should use both,” said Milton Packer, MD at the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

EMPEROR-Reduced had the primary goal of testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The results showed that adding this drug on top of standard treatments led to a 25% relative cut in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo, and had this effect regardless of whether or not patients also had type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022190).

Among the 3,730 patients enrolled in the trial, 727 (19%) were on sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) at entry, which gave Dr. Packer the data to perform the analysis he reported. He presented the study’s three major endpoints as well as a quality of life analysis that compared the performance of empagliflozin in patients who were on sacubitril/valsartan at baseline with the other study patients, who were either on a different type of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (roughly 70% of study patients) or on no RAS inhibition (about 10% of patients).

The results showed no statistically significant indication of an interaction, suggesting that patients with sacubitril/valsartan on board had just as good response to empagliflozin as patients who were not on this combination. The landmark PARADIGM-HF trial proved several years ago that treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan led to significantly better outcomes than did treatment with another form of RAS inhibition (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).

For example, EMPEROR-Reduced’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, fell by 36% relative to placebo in patients who received empagliflozin on top of sacubitril/valsartan, and by 23% relative to placebo among the remaining patients who received empagliflozin on top of a different type of RAS inhibitor drug or no RAS inhibition.

“Background treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not diminish, and may have enhanced the efficacy of empagliflozin,” concluded Dr. Packer. Further analyses also showed that concurrent sacubitril/valsartan had no statistically significant impact on empagliflozin’s ability to reduce the rate of total heart failure hospitalizations, or to slow progressive loss of renal function, compared with placebo. The fourth efficacy analysis Dr. Packer presented showed that empagliflozin was also as effective for improving a quality-of-life measure in patients compared with placebo regardless of the type of RAS inhibition used. For all four outcomes, the point-estimate of empagliflozin’s benefit was higher when used along with sacubitril/valsartan.

Brian L. Claggett, PhD, a biostatistician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, designated discussant for the report, disagreed with Dr. Packer’s suggestion that the efficacy of empagliflozin may have been greater when administered against a background of sacubitril/valsartan. From a statistical perspective, there is no basis to suggest that patients did better when they were on both drugs, he cautioned. But Dr. Claggett acknowledged that the new analyses suggested that empagliflozin’s benefit wasn’t compromised by concurrent sacubitril/valsartan use. He also highlighted the value of more fully documenting the safety and efficacy of a new drug when used as part of “comprehensive therapy” with the established drugs that a patient may concurrently receive.

Dr. Packer also presented several measures of treatment safety that all showed similar rates of adverse effects between the empagliflozin and placebo recipients regardless of background RAS inhibition. A notable finding was that the incidence of hypokalemia was 5.9% in patients on empagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan and 7.5% among patients on empagliflozin and a different type of RAS inhibition.

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin. Dr. Packer has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and from several other companies. Dr. Claggett has been a consultant to Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Corvia, Myokardia, and Novartis.

[email protected]

The latest drug shown to benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, works just as well when added on top of a second major agent used to treat these patients, the renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting combination of sacubitril/valsartan, based on a post-hoc analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

“When there are two very effective treatments, it’s common for people to ask: Which should I use?’ The goal of my presentation was to emphasize that the answer is both. We shouldn’t choose between neprilysin inhibition [sacubitril inhibits the enzyme neprilysin] and SGLT2 [sodium-glucose transporter 2] inhibition; we should use both,” said Milton Packer, MD at the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

EMPEROR-Reduced had the primary goal of testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The results showed that adding this drug on top of standard treatments led to a 25% relative cut in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo, and had this effect regardless of whether or not patients also had type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022190).

Among the 3,730 patients enrolled in the trial, 727 (19%) were on sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) at entry, which gave Dr. Packer the data to perform the analysis he reported. He presented the study’s three major endpoints as well as a quality of life analysis that compared the performance of empagliflozin in patients who were on sacubitril/valsartan at baseline with the other study patients, who were either on a different type of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (roughly 70% of study patients) or on no RAS inhibition (about 10% of patients).

The results showed no statistically significant indication of an interaction, suggesting that patients with sacubitril/valsartan on board had just as good response to empagliflozin as patients who were not on this combination. The landmark PARADIGM-HF trial proved several years ago that treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan led to significantly better outcomes than did treatment with another form of RAS inhibition (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).

For example, EMPEROR-Reduced’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, fell by 36% relative to placebo in patients who received empagliflozin on top of sacubitril/valsartan, and by 23% relative to placebo among the remaining patients who received empagliflozin on top of a different type of RAS inhibitor drug or no RAS inhibition.

“Background treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not diminish, and may have enhanced the efficacy of empagliflozin,” concluded Dr. Packer. Further analyses also showed that concurrent sacubitril/valsartan had no statistically significant impact on empagliflozin’s ability to reduce the rate of total heart failure hospitalizations, or to slow progressive loss of renal function, compared with placebo. The fourth efficacy analysis Dr. Packer presented showed that empagliflozin was also as effective for improving a quality-of-life measure in patients compared with placebo regardless of the type of RAS inhibition used. For all four outcomes, the point-estimate of empagliflozin’s benefit was higher when used along with sacubitril/valsartan.

Brian L. Claggett, PhD, a biostatistician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, designated discussant for the report, disagreed with Dr. Packer’s suggestion that the efficacy of empagliflozin may have been greater when administered against a background of sacubitril/valsartan. From a statistical perspective, there is no basis to suggest that patients did better when they were on both drugs, he cautioned. But Dr. Claggett acknowledged that the new analyses suggested that empagliflozin’s benefit wasn’t compromised by concurrent sacubitril/valsartan use. He also highlighted the value of more fully documenting the safety and efficacy of a new drug when used as part of “comprehensive therapy” with the established drugs that a patient may concurrently receive.

Dr. Packer also presented several measures of treatment safety that all showed similar rates of adverse effects between the empagliflozin and placebo recipients regardless of background RAS inhibition. A notable finding was that the incidence of hypokalemia was 5.9% in patients on empagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan and 7.5% among patients on empagliflozin and a different type of RAS inhibition.

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin. Dr. Packer has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and from several other companies. Dr. Claggett has been a consultant to Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Corvia, Myokardia, and Novartis.

[email protected]

Stroke may be the first presenting symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients, new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.

Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.

“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.

The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
 

Anecdotal reports

“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”

The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.

The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.

In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.

“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”

Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”

Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
 

Mortality ‘remarkably high’

The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.

Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.

Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.

“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

High-risk phenotype

Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).

Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).

“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.

The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).

“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

Not just elders

Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”

Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”

Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”

Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stroke may be the first presenting symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients, new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.

Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.

“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.

The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
 

Anecdotal reports

“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”

The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.

The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.

In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.

“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”

Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”

Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
 

Mortality ‘remarkably high’

The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.

Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.

Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.

“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

High-risk phenotype

Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).

Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).

“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.

The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).

“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

Not just elders

Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”

Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”

Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”

Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stroke may be the first presenting symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients, new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.

Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.

“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.

The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
 

Anecdotal reports

“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”

The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.

The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.

In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.

“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”

Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”

Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
 

Mortality ‘remarkably high’

The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.

Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.

Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.

“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

High-risk phenotype

Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).

Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).

“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.

The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).

“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

Not just elders

Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”

Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”

Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”

Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Black and Hispanic children comprised significantly more cases of COVID-19, compared with White children, based on data from a large, cross-sectional study of 1,000 cases.

“Data regarding disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes have been, thus far, mostly limited to adults,” wrote Monika K. Goyal, MD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. “Additional data further suggest that low socioeconomic status may further exacerbate health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,000 children from a registry of non–acutely ill pediatric patients seen at a drive-through and walk-up COVID-19 test site.
 

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

Overall, 207 (21%) of the children tested positive for COVID-19; of these 46% were Hispanic, 30% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7% were non-Hispanic White. The median age of the study population was 8 years, and approximately half were male.

The researchers also examined the association of median family income (MFI) using census block group estimates data from the American Community Survey (2014–2018) to represent socioeconomic status.

Infection rates were significantly higher among children in the lowest three quartiles of MFI (24%, 27%, and 38% for quartiles 3, 2, and 1, respectively), compared with the highest quartile of MFI (9%).

After adjusting for age, sex, and MFI, Hispanic children were six times more likely and non-Hispanic Black children were twice as likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratios, 6.3 and 2.3, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of clinician-reported ethnicity and thus potential for misclassification, the researchers noted. In addition, the socioeconomic and racial disparities may be underestimated because these groups have less access to primary care, and the study did not allow for confounding variables including housing conditions or occupancy.

“Although it was beyond the scope of this study to understand the causes for these differential rates of infection, the causes may be multifactorial, including, but not limited to, structural factors, poorer access to health care, limited resources, and bias and discrimination,” the researchers noted. In addition, the high infection rate among minority children may be impacted by parents who are less able to telework, find child care, or avoid public transportation, Dr. Goyal and associates wrote.

Future research should address “the modifiable reasons for these observed disparities as well as their differential impact in terms of SARS-CoV-2–related morbidity and mortality outcomes to mitigate the spread of infection and its health effects,” they concluded.
 

How to help

“This study is important because we need to understand which groups of children are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to maximize efforts for screening, allocating resources, and prioritizing vaccine administration,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised at the higher infection rates in general in minorities and low socioeconomic groups. “We already knew that adult COVID-19 rates were higher for people in certain racial/ethnic groups and those with socioeconomic disadvantages; however, I was shocked by the percentages. That is a huge burden for a population that already has disparities in health outcomes.”

“As the authors cite, this was not a research study of why these groups were more likely to be COVID-19 positive, but they speculated that crowded living conditions, multigenerational families living together, and many minorities being essential workers unable to work from home,” said Dr. Kinsella. Additional factors contributing to higher infection rates may include limited access to care, transportation issues, insurance coverage, schedule challenges, and fear of deportation. Some of these problems might be addressed by coming into communities in mobile vans, visiting community health centers and schools with free educational materials, using masks and hand sanitizer, and offering free access to testing.

“Future studies could confirm the cause of this discrepancy, as well as study community-based interventions and their outcomes,” Dr. Kinsella said. In the meantime, a take-home message for clinicians is the need to prioritize screening, resources, and vaccines to reflect the higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children from disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but lead author Dr. Goyal is a member of the Pediatrics editorial board. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Goyal MK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-009951.

Black and Hispanic children comprised significantly more cases of COVID-19, compared with White children, based on data from a large, cross-sectional study of 1,000 cases.

“Data regarding disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes have been, thus far, mostly limited to adults,” wrote Monika K. Goyal, MD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. “Additional data further suggest that low socioeconomic status may further exacerbate health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,000 children from a registry of non–acutely ill pediatric patients seen at a drive-through and walk-up COVID-19 test site.
 

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

Overall, 207 (21%) of the children tested positive for COVID-19; of these 46% were Hispanic, 30% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7% were non-Hispanic White. The median age of the study population was 8 years, and approximately half were male.

The researchers also examined the association of median family income (MFI) using census block group estimates data from the American Community Survey (2014–2018) to represent socioeconomic status.

Infection rates were significantly higher among children in the lowest three quartiles of MFI (24%, 27%, and 38% for quartiles 3, 2, and 1, respectively), compared with the highest quartile of MFI (9%).

After adjusting for age, sex, and MFI, Hispanic children were six times more likely and non-Hispanic Black children were twice as likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratios, 6.3 and 2.3, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of clinician-reported ethnicity and thus potential for misclassification, the researchers noted. In addition, the socioeconomic and racial disparities may be underestimated because these groups have less access to primary care, and the study did not allow for confounding variables including housing conditions or occupancy.

“Although it was beyond the scope of this study to understand the causes for these differential rates of infection, the causes may be multifactorial, including, but not limited to, structural factors, poorer access to health care, limited resources, and bias and discrimination,” the researchers noted. In addition, the high infection rate among minority children may be impacted by parents who are less able to telework, find child care, or avoid public transportation, Dr. Goyal and associates wrote.

Future research should address “the modifiable reasons for these observed disparities as well as their differential impact in terms of SARS-CoV-2–related morbidity and mortality outcomes to mitigate the spread of infection and its health effects,” they concluded.
 

How to help

“This study is important because we need to understand which groups of children are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to maximize efforts for screening, allocating resources, and prioritizing vaccine administration,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised at the higher infection rates in general in minorities and low socioeconomic groups. “We already knew that adult COVID-19 rates were higher for people in certain racial/ethnic groups and those with socioeconomic disadvantages; however, I was shocked by the percentages. That is a huge burden for a population that already has disparities in health outcomes.”

“As the authors cite, this was not a research study of why these groups were more likely to be COVID-19 positive, but they speculated that crowded living conditions, multigenerational families living together, and many minorities being essential workers unable to work from home,” said Dr. Kinsella. Additional factors contributing to higher infection rates may include limited access to care, transportation issues, insurance coverage, schedule challenges, and fear of deportation. Some of these problems might be addressed by coming into communities in mobile vans, visiting community health centers and schools with free educational materials, using masks and hand sanitizer, and offering free access to testing.

“Future studies could confirm the cause of this discrepancy, as well as study community-based interventions and their outcomes,” Dr. Kinsella said. In the meantime, a take-home message for clinicians is the need to prioritize screening, resources, and vaccines to reflect the higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children from disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but lead author Dr. Goyal is a member of the Pediatrics editorial board. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Goyal MK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-009951.

Black and Hispanic children comprised significantly more cases of COVID-19, compared with White children, based on data from a large, cross-sectional study of 1,000 cases.

“Data regarding disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes have been, thus far, mostly limited to adults,” wrote Monika K. Goyal, MD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. “Additional data further suggest that low socioeconomic status may further exacerbate health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,000 children from a registry of non–acutely ill pediatric patients seen at a drive-through and walk-up COVID-19 test site.
 

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

Overall, 207 (21%) of the children tested positive for COVID-19; of these 46% were Hispanic, 30% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7% were non-Hispanic White. The median age of the study population was 8 years, and approximately half were male.

The researchers also examined the association of median family income (MFI) using census block group estimates data from the American Community Survey (2014–2018) to represent socioeconomic status.

Infection rates were significantly higher among children in the lowest three quartiles of MFI (24%, 27%, and 38% for quartiles 3, 2, and 1, respectively), compared with the highest quartile of MFI (9%).

After adjusting for age, sex, and MFI, Hispanic children were six times more likely and non-Hispanic Black children were twice as likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratios, 6.3 and 2.3, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of clinician-reported ethnicity and thus potential for misclassification, the researchers noted. In addition, the socioeconomic and racial disparities may be underestimated because these groups have less access to primary care, and the study did not allow for confounding variables including housing conditions or occupancy.

“Although it was beyond the scope of this study to understand the causes for these differential rates of infection, the causes may be multifactorial, including, but not limited to, structural factors, poorer access to health care, limited resources, and bias and discrimination,” the researchers noted. In addition, the high infection rate among minority children may be impacted by parents who are less able to telework, find child care, or avoid public transportation, Dr. Goyal and associates wrote.

Future research should address “the modifiable reasons for these observed disparities as well as their differential impact in terms of SARS-CoV-2–related morbidity and mortality outcomes to mitigate the spread of infection and its health effects,” they concluded.
 

How to help

“This study is important because we need to understand which groups of children are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to maximize efforts for screening, allocating resources, and prioritizing vaccine administration,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised at the higher infection rates in general in minorities and low socioeconomic groups. “We already knew that adult COVID-19 rates were higher for people in certain racial/ethnic groups and those with socioeconomic disadvantages; however, I was shocked by the percentages. That is a huge burden for a population that already has disparities in health outcomes.”

“As the authors cite, this was not a research study of why these groups were more likely to be COVID-19 positive, but they speculated that crowded living conditions, multigenerational families living together, and many minorities being essential workers unable to work from home,” said Dr. Kinsella. Additional factors contributing to higher infection rates may include limited access to care, transportation issues, insurance coverage, schedule challenges, and fear of deportation. Some of these problems might be addressed by coming into communities in mobile vans, visiting community health centers and schools with free educational materials, using masks and hand sanitizer, and offering free access to testing.

“Future studies could confirm the cause of this discrepancy, as well as study community-based interventions and their outcomes,” Dr. Kinsella said. In the meantime, a take-home message for clinicians is the need to prioritize screening, resources, and vaccines to reflect the higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children from disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but lead author Dr. Goyal is a member of the Pediatrics editorial board. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Goyal MK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-009951.

Parents who did not vaccinate their children against influenza last year were significantly less likely to do so this year than parents whose children were vaccinated last year, based on survey data from more than 2,000 parents with babies and young children.

Choreograph/Thinkstock

“Pediatric vaccination will be an important component to mitigating a dual influenza/COVID-19 epidemic,” Rebeccah L. Sokol, PhD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, reported in Pediatrics.

Although the pandemic has increased acceptance of some healthy behaviors including handwashing and social distancing, the impact on influenza vaccination rates remains unknown, they said.

To assess parents’ current intentions for flu vaccination of young children this season, the researchers conducted an online survey of 2,164 parents or guardians of children aged between 6 months and 5 years in the United States. The 15-minute online survey was conducted in May 2020 and participants received gift cards. The primary outcome was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parental intentions for having their child vaccinated against seasonal flu this year.

“We measured change categorically, with response options ranging from 1 (I became much less likely to get my child the flu shot next year) to 5 (I became much more likely to get my child the flu shot next year),” the researchers said.
 

Pandemic changes some parents’ plans

Overall, 60% of parents said that the ongoing pandemic had altered their flu vaccination intentions for their children. About 34% percent of parents whose children did not receive flu vaccine last year said they would not seek the vaccine this year because of the pandemic, compared with 25% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

Approximately 21% of parents whose children received no flu vaccine last year said the pandemic made them more likely to seek vaccination for the 2020-2021 season, compared with 38% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine.

“These results suggest that overall seasonal influenza vaccination rates may not increase simply because of an ongoing infectious disease pandemic. Instead, a significant predictor of future behavior remains past behavior,” Dr. Sokol and Dr. Grummon said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of a convenience sample and the timing of the survey in May 2020, meaning that survey results might not be generalizable this fall as the pandemic persists, they noted. “Additionally, we assessed intentions to vaccinate; future research will clarify the COVID-19 pandemic’s influence on actual vaccination behaviors.”

The challenge of how to increase uptake of the influenza vaccine during the era of COVID-19 remains, and targeted efforts could include social norms messaging through social media, mass media, or health care providers to increase parents’ intentions to vaccinate, as well as vaccination reminders and presumptive announcements from health care providers that present vaccination as the default option, the researchers added.
 

Potential for ‘twindemic’ is real

The uptake of flu vaccination is especially important this year, Christopher J. Harrison, MD, director of the vaccine and treatment evaluation unit and professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, said in an interview.

“This year we are entering a flu season where the certainty of the timing as well as the potential severity of the season are not known. That said, social distancing and wearing masks – to the extent that enough people conform to COVID-19 precautions – could delay or even blunt the usual influenza season,” he noted.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have had their credibility damaged by the challenges of creating a successful response on the fly to a uniquely multifaceted virus to which previous rules do not apply, Dr. Harrison said. In addition, public confidence was eroded when information about testing and reopening policies were released by non-CDC nonscientists and labeled “CDC recommended,” with no opportunity for the scientific community to correct inaccuracies.

“The current study reveals that public trust in influenza vaccine and indirectly in health authorities has been affected by the pandemic,” said Dr. Harrison. “Vaccine hesitancy has increased somewhat even among previous vaccine accepters. One wonders if promises of a quick COVID-19 vaccine increased mistrust of the FDA because of safety concerns, even among the most ardent provaccine population, and whether these concerns are bleeding over into influenza vaccine concerns.

“This only adds to the anxiety that families feel about visiting any medical facility for routine vaccines while the pandemic rages, and we now are in a fall SARS-CoV-2 resurgence,” he added.

Although the current study data are concerning, “there could still be a net gain of pediatric influenza vaccine uptake this season because the 34% less likely to immunize among previously nonimmunizing families would be counterbalanced by 21% of the same group being more likely to immunize their children [theoretical net loss of 13%],” Dr. Harrison explained. “But the pandemic seems to have motivated previously influenza-immunizing families, i.e. while 24% were less likely, 39% are more likely to immunize [theoretical net gain of 15%]. That said, we would still be way short of the number needed to get to herd immunity.”

Dr. Harrison said he found the findings somewhat surprising, but perhaps he should not have. “I had hoped for more acceptance rather than most people staying in their prior vaccine ‘opinion lanes,’ ending up with likely little overall net change in plans to immunize despite increased health awareness caused by a pandemic.”

However, “the U.S. population has been polarized on vaccines and particularly influenza vaccines for more than 50 years, so why would a pandemic make us less polarized, particularly when the pandemic itself has been a polarizing event?” he questioned.

The greatest barriers to flu vaccination for children this year include a lack of motivation among families to visit immunization sites, given the ongoing need for social distancing and masks, Dr. Harrison said.

“Another barrier is the waning public confidence in our medical/scientific national leaders and organizations,” he emphasized. “This makes it crucial that primary care providers step up and be extra strong vaccine advocates, despite the fact that pandemic economics and necessary safety processes have stressed providers and devastated practices. Indeed, in times of medical stress, no one gets more trust from families than their own personal provider.”

Ultimately, avenues for future research include asking diverse groups of families what they feel they need to hear to be more engaged in immunizing children against influenza. But for now, the current study findings identify that “the public is not uniformly responding to the pandemic’s influence on their likelihood of immunizing their children against influenza,” Dr. Harrison said.

“We now know the size of the problem and hopefully governments, public health organizations, pediatric advocates and clinical care givers can find ways to magnify the message that a pandemic year is not a year to avoid seasonal influenza vaccine unless one has a true contraindication,” Dr. Harrison said.

In addition, “one wonders if the poll were taken today – post the president’s COVID-19 illness – would the answers be different?” he noted.

Dr. Sokol’s work was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development but otherwise had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Harrison disclosed that his institution receives grant funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline for pediatric noninfluenza vaccine studies on which he is a subinvestigator, and support from the CDC for pediatric respiratory and gastrointestinal virus surveillance studies on which he is an investigator.

SOURCE: Sokol RL, Grummon AH. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-022871.

Parents who did not vaccinate their children against influenza last year were significantly less likely to do so this year than parents whose children were vaccinated last year, based on survey data from more than 2,000 parents with babies and young children.

Choreograph/Thinkstock

“Pediatric vaccination will be an important component to mitigating a dual influenza/COVID-19 epidemic,” Rebeccah L. Sokol, PhD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, reported in Pediatrics.

Although the pandemic has increased acceptance of some healthy behaviors including handwashing and social distancing, the impact on influenza vaccination rates remains unknown, they said.

To assess parents’ current intentions for flu vaccination of young children this season, the researchers conducted an online survey of 2,164 parents or guardians of children aged between 6 months and 5 years in the United States. The 15-minute online survey was conducted in May 2020 and participants received gift cards. The primary outcome was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parental intentions for having their child vaccinated against seasonal flu this year.

“We measured change categorically, with response options ranging from 1 (I became much less likely to get my child the flu shot next year) to 5 (I became much more likely to get my child the flu shot next year),” the researchers said.
 

Pandemic changes some parents’ plans

Overall, 60% of parents said that the ongoing pandemic had altered their flu vaccination intentions for their children. About 34% percent of parents whose children did not receive flu vaccine last year said they would not seek the vaccine this year because of the pandemic, compared with 25% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

Approximately 21% of parents whose children received no flu vaccine last year said the pandemic made them more likely to seek vaccination for the 2020-2021 season, compared with 38% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine.

“These results suggest that overall seasonal influenza vaccination rates may not increase simply because of an ongoing infectious disease pandemic. Instead, a significant predictor of future behavior remains past behavior,” Dr. Sokol and Dr. Grummon said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of a convenience sample and the timing of the survey in May 2020, meaning that survey results might not be generalizable this fall as the pandemic persists, they noted. “Additionally, we assessed intentions to vaccinate; future research will clarify the COVID-19 pandemic’s influence on actual vaccination behaviors.”

The challenge of how to increase uptake of the influenza vaccine during the era of COVID-19 remains, and targeted efforts could include social norms messaging through social media, mass media, or health care providers to increase parents’ intentions to vaccinate, as well as vaccination reminders and presumptive announcements from health care providers that present vaccination as the default option, the researchers added.
 

Potential for ‘twindemic’ is real

The uptake of flu vaccination is especially important this year, Christopher J. Harrison, MD, director of the vaccine and treatment evaluation unit and professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, said in an interview.

“This year we are entering a flu season where the certainty of the timing as well as the potential severity of the season are not known. That said, social distancing and wearing masks – to the extent that enough people conform to COVID-19 precautions – could delay or even blunt the usual influenza season,” he noted.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have had their credibility damaged by the challenges of creating a successful response on the fly to a uniquely multifaceted virus to which previous rules do not apply, Dr. Harrison said. In addition, public confidence was eroded when information about testing and reopening policies were released by non-CDC nonscientists and labeled “CDC recommended,” with no opportunity for the scientific community to correct inaccuracies.

“The current study reveals that public trust in influenza vaccine and indirectly in health authorities has been affected by the pandemic,” said Dr. Harrison. “Vaccine hesitancy has increased somewhat even among previous vaccine accepters. One wonders if promises of a quick COVID-19 vaccine increased mistrust of the FDA because of safety concerns, even among the most ardent provaccine population, and whether these concerns are bleeding over into influenza vaccine concerns.

“This only adds to the anxiety that families feel about visiting any medical facility for routine vaccines while the pandemic rages, and we now are in a fall SARS-CoV-2 resurgence,” he added.

Although the current study data are concerning, “there could still be a net gain of pediatric influenza vaccine uptake this season because the 34% less likely to immunize among previously nonimmunizing families would be counterbalanced by 21% of the same group being more likely to immunize their children [theoretical net loss of 13%],” Dr. Harrison explained. “But the pandemic seems to have motivated previously influenza-immunizing families, i.e. while 24% were less likely, 39% are more likely to immunize [theoretical net gain of 15%]. That said, we would still be way short of the number needed to get to herd immunity.”

Dr. Harrison said he found the findings somewhat surprising, but perhaps he should not have. “I had hoped for more acceptance rather than most people staying in their prior vaccine ‘opinion lanes,’ ending up with likely little overall net change in plans to immunize despite increased health awareness caused by a pandemic.”

However, “the U.S. population has been polarized on vaccines and particularly influenza vaccines for more than 50 years, so why would a pandemic make us less polarized, particularly when the pandemic itself has been a polarizing event?” he questioned.

The greatest barriers to flu vaccination for children this year include a lack of motivation among families to visit immunization sites, given the ongoing need for social distancing and masks, Dr. Harrison said.

“Another barrier is the waning public confidence in our medical/scientific national leaders and organizations,” he emphasized. “This makes it crucial that primary care providers step up and be extra strong vaccine advocates, despite the fact that pandemic economics and necessary safety processes have stressed providers and devastated practices. Indeed, in times of medical stress, no one gets more trust from families than their own personal provider.”

Ultimately, avenues for future research include asking diverse groups of families what they feel they need to hear to be more engaged in immunizing children against influenza. But for now, the current study findings identify that “the public is not uniformly responding to the pandemic’s influence on their likelihood of immunizing their children against influenza,” Dr. Harrison said.

“We now know the size of the problem and hopefully governments, public health organizations, pediatric advocates and clinical care givers can find ways to magnify the message that a pandemic year is not a year to avoid seasonal influenza vaccine unless one has a true contraindication,” Dr. Harrison said.

In addition, “one wonders if the poll were taken today – post the president’s COVID-19 illness – would the answers be different?” he noted.

Dr. Sokol’s work was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development but otherwise had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Harrison disclosed that his institution receives grant funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline for pediatric noninfluenza vaccine studies on which he is a subinvestigator, and support from the CDC for pediatric respiratory and gastrointestinal virus surveillance studies on which he is an investigator.

SOURCE: Sokol RL, Grummon AH. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-022871.

Parents who did not vaccinate their children against influenza last year were significantly less likely to do so this year than parents whose children were vaccinated last year, based on survey data from more than 2,000 parents with babies and young children.

Choreograph/Thinkstock

“Pediatric vaccination will be an important component to mitigating a dual influenza/COVID-19 epidemic,” Rebeccah L. Sokol, PhD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, reported in Pediatrics.

Although the pandemic has increased acceptance of some healthy behaviors including handwashing and social distancing, the impact on influenza vaccination rates remains unknown, they said.

To assess parents’ current intentions for flu vaccination of young children this season, the researchers conducted an online survey of 2,164 parents or guardians of children aged between 6 months and 5 years in the United States. The 15-minute online survey was conducted in May 2020 and participants received gift cards. The primary outcome was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parental intentions for having their child vaccinated against seasonal flu this year.

“We measured change categorically, with response options ranging from 1 (I became much less likely to get my child the flu shot next year) to 5 (I became much more likely to get my child the flu shot next year),” the researchers said.
 

Pandemic changes some parents’ plans

Overall, 60% of parents said that the ongoing pandemic had altered their flu vaccination intentions for their children. About 34% percent of parents whose children did not receive flu vaccine last year said they would not seek the vaccine this year because of the pandemic, compared with 25% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

Approximately 21% of parents whose children received no flu vaccine last year said the pandemic made them more likely to seek vaccination for the 2020-2021 season, compared with 38% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine.

“These results suggest that overall seasonal influenza vaccination rates may not increase simply because of an ongoing infectious disease pandemic. Instead, a significant predictor of future behavior remains past behavior,” Dr. Sokol and Dr. Grummon said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of a convenience sample and the timing of the survey in May 2020, meaning that survey results might not be generalizable this fall as the pandemic persists, they noted. “Additionally, we assessed intentions to vaccinate; future research will clarify the COVID-19 pandemic’s influence on actual vaccination behaviors.”

The challenge of how to increase uptake of the influenza vaccine during the era of COVID-19 remains, and targeted efforts could include social norms messaging through social media, mass media, or health care providers to increase parents’ intentions to vaccinate, as well as vaccination reminders and presumptive announcements from health care providers that present vaccination as the default option, the researchers added.
 

Potential for ‘twindemic’ is real

The uptake of flu vaccination is especially important this year, Christopher J. Harrison, MD, director of the vaccine and treatment evaluation unit and professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, said in an interview.

“This year we are entering a flu season where the certainty of the timing as well as the potential severity of the season are not known. That said, social distancing and wearing masks – to the extent that enough people conform to COVID-19 precautions – could delay or even blunt the usual influenza season,” he noted.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have had their credibility damaged by the challenges of creating a successful response on the fly to a uniquely multifaceted virus to which previous rules do not apply, Dr. Harrison said. In addition, public confidence was eroded when information about testing and reopening policies were released by non-CDC nonscientists and labeled “CDC recommended,” with no opportunity for the scientific community to correct inaccuracies.

“The current study reveals that public trust in influenza vaccine and indirectly in health authorities has been affected by the pandemic,” said Dr. Harrison. “Vaccine hesitancy has increased somewhat even among previous vaccine accepters. One wonders if promises of a quick COVID-19 vaccine increased mistrust of the FDA because of safety concerns, even among the most ardent provaccine population, and whether these concerns are bleeding over into influenza vaccine concerns.

“This only adds to the anxiety that families feel about visiting any medical facility for routine vaccines while the pandemic rages, and we now are in a fall SARS-CoV-2 resurgence,” he added.

Although the current study data are concerning, “there could still be a net gain of pediatric influenza vaccine uptake this season because the 34% less likely to immunize among previously nonimmunizing families would be counterbalanced by 21% of the same group being more likely to immunize their children [theoretical net loss of 13%],” Dr. Harrison explained. “But the pandemic seems to have motivated previously influenza-immunizing families, i.e. while 24% were less likely, 39% are more likely to immunize [theoretical net gain of 15%]. That said, we would still be way short of the number needed to get to herd immunity.”

Dr. Harrison said he found the findings somewhat surprising, but perhaps he should not have. “I had hoped for more acceptance rather than most people staying in their prior vaccine ‘opinion lanes,’ ending up with likely little overall net change in plans to immunize despite increased health awareness caused by a pandemic.”

However, “the U.S. population has been polarized on vaccines and particularly influenza vaccines for more than 50 years, so why would a pandemic make us less polarized, particularly when the pandemic itself has been a polarizing event?” he questioned.

The greatest barriers to flu vaccination for children this year include a lack of motivation among families to visit immunization sites, given the ongoing need for social distancing and masks, Dr. Harrison said.

“Another barrier is the waning public confidence in our medical/scientific national leaders and organizations,” he emphasized. “This makes it crucial that primary care providers step up and be extra strong vaccine advocates, despite the fact that pandemic economics and necessary safety processes have stressed providers and devastated practices. Indeed, in times of medical stress, no one gets more trust from families than their own personal provider.”

Ultimately, avenues for future research include asking diverse groups of families what they feel they need to hear to be more engaged in immunizing children against influenza. But for now, the current study findings identify that “the public is not uniformly responding to the pandemic’s influence on their likelihood of immunizing their children against influenza,” Dr. Harrison said.

“We now know the size of the problem and hopefully governments, public health organizations, pediatric advocates and clinical care givers can find ways to magnify the message that a pandemic year is not a year to avoid seasonal influenza vaccine unless one has a true contraindication,” Dr. Harrison said.

In addition, “one wonders if the poll were taken today – post the president’s COVID-19 illness – would the answers be different?” he noted.

Dr. Sokol’s work was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development but otherwise had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Harrison disclosed that his institution receives grant funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline for pediatric noninfluenza vaccine studies on which he is a subinvestigator, and support from the CDC for pediatric respiratory and gastrointestinal virus surveillance studies on which he is an investigator.

SOURCE: Sokol RL, Grummon AH. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-022871.

President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis is raising fresh questions about the White House’s strategy for testing and containing the virus for a president whose cavalier attitude about the coronavirus has persisted since it landed on American shores.

The president has said others are tested before getting close to him, appearing to hold it as an iron shield of safety. He has largely eschewed mask-wearing and social distancing in meetings, travel and public events, while holding rallies for thousands of often maskless supporters.

The Trump administration has increasingly pinned its coronavirus testing strategy for the nation on antigen tests, which do not need a traditional lab for processing and quickly return results to patients. But the results are less accurate than those of the slower PCR tests. 

An early antigen test used by the White House was woefully inaccurate. But the new antigen test the White House is using has not been independently evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Moreover, this is the kit the Trump administration is pushing out to thousands of nursing homes to test residents and staff.

Testing “isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card,’” said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director of clinical labs at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and creator of its test for the novel coronavirus. In general, antigen tests can miss up to half the cases that are detected by polymerase chain reaction tests, depending on the population of patients tested, he said.

The White House said the president’s diagnosis was confirmed with a PCR test but declined to say which test delivered his initial result. The White House has been using a new antigen test from Abbott Laboratories to screen its staff for COVID-19, according to two administration officials. 

The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within 7 days of COVID symptoms appearing.

The president and first lady have both had symptoms, according to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the first lady’s Twitter account. The president was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday evening “out of an abundance of caution,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.

Vice President Mike Pence is also tested daily for the virus and tested negative, spokesperson Devin O’Malley said Friday, but he did not respond to a follow-up question about which test was used.

Trump heavily promoted another Abbott rapid testing device, the ID NOW, earlier this year. But that test relies on different technology than the newer Abbott antigen test.

“I have not seen any independent evaluation of the Binax assay in the literature or in the blogs,” Wells said. “It is an unknown.”

The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that it had signed a $760 million contract with Abbott for 150 million BinaxNOW antigen tests, which are now being distributed to nursing homes and historically black colleges and universities, as well as to governors to help inform decisions about opening and closing schools. The Big Ten football conference has also pinned playing hopes on the deployment of antigen tests following Trump’s political pressure.

However, even senior federal officials concede that a test alone isn’t likely to stop the spread of a virus that has sickened more than 7 million Americans.

“Testing does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces, washing hands, or wearing a mask when you can’t physically distance; further, a negative test today does not mean that you won’t be positive tomorrow,” Adm. Brett Giroir, the senior HHS official helming the administration’s testing effort, said in a statement at the time.

Trump could be part of a “super-spreading event,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Given the timing of Trump’s positive test — which he announced on Twitter early Friday – his infection “likely happened 5 or more days ago,” Osterholm said. “If so, then he was widely infectious as early as Tuesday,” the day of the first presidential debate in Cleveland.

At least seven people who attended a Rose Garden announcement last Saturday, when Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, have since tested positive for the coronavirus. They include Trump’s former adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, and the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins.

“Having that many infected people there all at one time, we’re still going to see transmission coming off that event for a couple days,” Osterholm said.

Osterholm notes that about 20% of infected people lead to 80% of COVID-19 cases, because “super spreaders” can infect so many people at once.

He notes that participants and audience members at Tuesday’s debate were separated by at least 6 feet. But 6 feet isn’t always enough to prevent infection, he said.

While many COVID-19 infections appear to be spread by respiratory droplets, which usually fall to the ground within 6 feet, people who are singing or speaking loudly can project virus much further. Evidence also suggests that the novel coronavirus can spread through aerosols, floating in the air like a speck of dust.

“I wonder how much virus was floating in that room that night,” Osterholm said.

Other experts say it’s too soon to say whether Trump was infected in a super-spreader event. “The president and his wife have had many exposures to many people in enclosed venues without protection,” so they could have been infected at any number of places, said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. 

Although Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for the virus with a PCR test Friday, experts note that false-negative results are common in the first few days after infection. Test results over the next several days will yield more useful information.

It can take more than a week for the virus to reproduce enough to be detected, Wells said: “You are probably not detectable for 3, 5, 7, even 10 days after you’re exposed.”

In Minnesota, where Trump held an outdoor campaign rally in Duluth with hundreds of attendees Wednesday, health officials warned that a 14-day quarantine is necessary, regardless of test results.

“Anyone who was a direct contact of President Trump or known COVID-19 cases needs to quarantine and should get tested,” the Minnesota Department of Health said.

Ongoing lapses in test result reporting could hamper efforts to track and isolate sick people. As of Sept. 10, 21 states and the District of Columbia were not reporting all antigen test results, according to a KHN investigation, a lapse in reporting that officials say leaves them blind to disease spread. Since then, public health departments in Arizona, North Carolina and South Dakota all have announced plans to add antigen testing to their case reporting.

Requests for comment to the D.C. Department of Health were referred to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office, which did not respond. District health officials told KHN in early September that the White House does not report antigen test results to them – a potential violation of federal law under the CARES Act, which says any institution performing tests to diagnose COVID-19 must report all results to local or state public health departments.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said it’s not surprising that Trump tested positive, given that so many of his close associates – including his national security adviser and Secret Service officers – have also been infected by the virus.

“When you look at the number of social contacts and travel schedules, it’s not surprising,” Adalja said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis is raising fresh questions about the White House’s strategy for testing and containing the virus for a president whose cavalier attitude about the coronavirus has persisted since it landed on American shores.

The president has said others are tested before getting close to him, appearing to hold it as an iron shield of safety. He has largely eschewed mask-wearing and social distancing in meetings, travel and public events, while holding rallies for thousands of often maskless supporters.

The Trump administration has increasingly pinned its coronavirus testing strategy for the nation on antigen tests, which do not need a traditional lab for processing and quickly return results to patients. But the results are less accurate than those of the slower PCR tests. 

An early antigen test used by the White House was woefully inaccurate. But the new antigen test the White House is using has not been independently evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Moreover, this is the kit the Trump administration is pushing out to thousands of nursing homes to test residents and staff.

Testing “isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card,’” said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director of clinical labs at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and creator of its test for the novel coronavirus. In general, antigen tests can miss up to half the cases that are detected by polymerase chain reaction tests, depending on the population of patients tested, he said.

The White House said the president’s diagnosis was confirmed with a PCR test but declined to say which test delivered his initial result. The White House has been using a new antigen test from Abbott Laboratories to screen its staff for COVID-19, according to two administration officials. 

The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within 7 days of COVID symptoms appearing.

The president and first lady have both had symptoms, according to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the first lady’s Twitter account. The president was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday evening “out of an abundance of caution,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.

Vice President Mike Pence is also tested daily for the virus and tested negative, spokesperson Devin O’Malley said Friday, but he did not respond to a follow-up question about which test was used.

Trump heavily promoted another Abbott rapid testing device, the ID NOW, earlier this year. But that test relies on different technology than the newer Abbott antigen test.

“I have not seen any independent evaluation of the Binax assay in the literature or in the blogs,” Wells said. “It is an unknown.”

The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that it had signed a $760 million contract with Abbott for 150 million BinaxNOW antigen tests, which are now being distributed to nursing homes and historically black colleges and universities, as well as to governors to help inform decisions about opening and closing schools. The Big Ten football conference has also pinned playing hopes on the deployment of antigen tests following Trump’s political pressure.

However, even senior federal officials concede that a test alone isn’t likely to stop the spread of a virus that has sickened more than 7 million Americans.

“Testing does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces, washing hands, or wearing a mask when you can’t physically distance; further, a negative test today does not mean that you won’t be positive tomorrow,” Adm. Brett Giroir, the senior HHS official helming the administration’s testing effort, said in a statement at the time.

Trump could be part of a “super-spreading event,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Given the timing of Trump’s positive test — which he announced on Twitter early Friday – his infection “likely happened 5 or more days ago,” Osterholm said. “If so, then he was widely infectious as early as Tuesday,” the day of the first presidential debate in Cleveland.

At least seven people who attended a Rose Garden announcement last Saturday, when Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, have since tested positive for the coronavirus. They include Trump’s former adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, and the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins.

“Having that many infected people there all at one time, we’re still going to see transmission coming off that event for a couple days,” Osterholm said.

Osterholm notes that about 20% of infected people lead to 80% of COVID-19 cases, because “super spreaders” can infect so many people at once.

He notes that participants and audience members at Tuesday’s debate were separated by at least 6 feet. But 6 feet isn’t always enough to prevent infection, he said.

While many COVID-19 infections appear to be spread by respiratory droplets, which usually fall to the ground within 6 feet, people who are singing or speaking loudly can project virus much further. Evidence also suggests that the novel coronavirus can spread through aerosols, floating in the air like a speck of dust.

“I wonder how much virus was floating in that room that night,” Osterholm said.

Other experts say it’s too soon to say whether Trump was infected in a super-spreader event. “The president and his wife have had many exposures to many people in enclosed venues without protection,” so they could have been infected at any number of places, said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. 

Although Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for the virus with a PCR test Friday, experts note that false-negative results are common in the first few days after infection. Test results over the next several days will yield more useful information.

It can take more than a week for the virus to reproduce enough to be detected, Wells said: “You are probably not detectable for 3, 5, 7, even 10 days after you’re exposed.”

In Minnesota, where Trump held an outdoor campaign rally in Duluth with hundreds of attendees Wednesday, health officials warned that a 14-day quarantine is necessary, regardless of test results.

“Anyone who was a direct contact of President Trump or known COVID-19 cases needs to quarantine and should get tested,” the Minnesota Department of Health said.

Ongoing lapses in test result reporting could hamper efforts to track and isolate sick people. As of Sept. 10, 21 states and the District of Columbia were not reporting all antigen test results, according to a KHN investigation, a lapse in reporting that officials say leaves them blind to disease spread. Since then, public health departments in Arizona, North Carolina and South Dakota all have announced plans to add antigen testing to their case reporting.

Requests for comment to the D.C. Department of Health were referred to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office, which did not respond. District health officials told KHN in early September that the White House does not report antigen test results to them – a potential violation of federal law under the CARES Act, which says any institution performing tests to diagnose COVID-19 must report all results to local or state public health departments.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said it’s not surprising that Trump tested positive, given that so many of his close associates – including his national security adviser and Secret Service officers – have also been infected by the virus.

“When you look at the number of social contacts and travel schedules, it’s not surprising,” Adalja said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis is raising fresh questions about the White House’s strategy for testing and containing the virus for a president whose cavalier attitude about the coronavirus has persisted since it landed on American shores.

The president has said others are tested before getting close to him, appearing to hold it as an iron shield of safety. He has largely eschewed mask-wearing and social distancing in meetings, travel and public events, while holding rallies for thousands of often maskless supporters.

The Trump administration has increasingly pinned its coronavirus testing strategy for the nation on antigen tests, which do not need a traditional lab for processing and quickly return results to patients. But the results are less accurate than those of the slower PCR tests. 

An early antigen test used by the White House was woefully inaccurate. But the new antigen test the White House is using has not been independently evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Moreover, this is the kit the Trump administration is pushing out to thousands of nursing homes to test residents and staff.

Testing “isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card,’” said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director of clinical labs at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and creator of its test for the novel coronavirus. In general, antigen tests can miss up to half the cases that are detected by polymerase chain reaction tests, depending on the population of patients tested, he said.

The White House said the president’s diagnosis was confirmed with a PCR test but declined to say which test delivered his initial result. The White House has been using a new antigen test from Abbott Laboratories to screen its staff for COVID-19, according to two administration officials. 

The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within 7 days of COVID symptoms appearing.

The president and first lady have both had symptoms, according to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the first lady’s Twitter account. The president was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday evening “out of an abundance of caution,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.

Vice President Mike Pence is also tested daily for the virus and tested negative, spokesperson Devin O’Malley said Friday, but he did not respond to a follow-up question about which test was used.

Trump heavily promoted another Abbott rapid testing device, the ID NOW, earlier this year. But that test relies on different technology than the newer Abbott antigen test.

“I have not seen any independent evaluation of the Binax assay in the literature or in the blogs,” Wells said. “It is an unknown.”

The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that it had signed a $760 million contract with Abbott for 150 million BinaxNOW antigen tests, which are now being distributed to nursing homes and historically black colleges and universities, as well as to governors to help inform decisions about opening and closing schools. The Big Ten football conference has also pinned playing hopes on the deployment of antigen tests following Trump’s political pressure.

However, even senior federal officials concede that a test alone isn’t likely to stop the spread of a virus that has sickened more than 7 million Americans.

“Testing does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces, washing hands, or wearing a mask when you can’t physically distance; further, a negative test today does not mean that you won’t be positive tomorrow,” Adm. Brett Giroir, the senior HHS official helming the administration’s testing effort, said in a statement at the time.

Trump could be part of a “super-spreading event,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Given the timing of Trump’s positive test — which he announced on Twitter early Friday – his infection “likely happened 5 or more days ago,” Osterholm said. “If so, then he was widely infectious as early as Tuesday,” the day of the first presidential debate in Cleveland.

At least seven people who attended a Rose Garden announcement last Saturday, when Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, have since tested positive for the coronavirus. They include Trump’s former adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, and the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins.

“Having that many infected people there all at one time, we’re still going to see transmission coming off that event for a couple days,” Osterholm said.

Osterholm notes that about 20% of infected people lead to 80% of COVID-19 cases, because “super spreaders” can infect so many people at once.

He notes that participants and audience members at Tuesday’s debate were separated by at least 6 feet. But 6 feet isn’t always enough to prevent infection, he said.

While many COVID-19 infections appear to be spread by respiratory droplets, which usually fall to the ground within 6 feet, people who are singing or speaking loudly can project virus much further. Evidence also suggests that the novel coronavirus can spread through aerosols, floating in the air like a speck of dust.

“I wonder how much virus was floating in that room that night,” Osterholm said.

Other experts say it’s too soon to say whether Trump was infected in a super-spreader event. “The president and his wife have had many exposures to many people in enclosed venues without protection,” so they could have been infected at any number of places, said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. 

Although Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for the virus with a PCR test Friday, experts note that false-negative results are common in the first few days after infection. Test results over the next several days will yield more useful information.

It can take more than a week for the virus to reproduce enough to be detected, Wells said: “You are probably not detectable for 3, 5, 7, even 10 days after you’re exposed.”

In Minnesota, where Trump held an outdoor campaign rally in Duluth with hundreds of attendees Wednesday, health officials warned that a 14-day quarantine is necessary, regardless of test results.

“Anyone who was a direct contact of President Trump or known COVID-19 cases needs to quarantine and should get tested,” the Minnesota Department of Health said.

Ongoing lapses in test result reporting could hamper efforts to track and isolate sick people. As of Sept. 10, 21 states and the District of Columbia were not reporting all antigen test results, according to a KHN investigation, a lapse in reporting that officials say leaves them blind to disease spread. Since then, public health departments in Arizona, North Carolina and South Dakota all have announced plans to add antigen testing to their case reporting.

Requests for comment to the D.C. Department of Health were referred to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office, which did not respond. District health officials told KHN in early September that the White House does not report antigen test results to them – a potential violation of federal law under the CARES Act, which says any institution performing tests to diagnose COVID-19 must report all results to local or state public health departments.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said it’s not surprising that Trump tested positive, given that so many of his close associates – including his national security adviser and Secret Service officers – have also been infected by the virus.

“When you look at the number of social contacts and travel schedules, it’s not surprising,” Adalja said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.