Federal Practitioner

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

The number of COVID-19 deaths cannot be directly compared to the number of seasonal influenza deaths because they are calculated differently, researchers say in a report released today.

Whereas COVID-19 death rates are determined from actual counts of people who have died, seasonal influenza death rates are estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) using population modeling algorithms, explains Jeremy Samuel Faust, MD, with Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Division of Health Policy and Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts.

The CDC estimates that between 24,000 and 62,000 people died from influenza during the 2019-2020 season (through April 4). At the time of the analysis (as of April 28), COVID-19 deaths had reached 65,000 in the United States.

Some government officials and others have said the numbers seem similar and have used the comparison as an argument for reopening certain areas.

But making that comparison “is extremely dangerous,” Faust told Medscape Medical News.

“COVID-19 is far more dangerous and is wreaking far more havoc than seasonal influenza ever has,” he said.

Faust coauthored the perspective article, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, with Carlos del Rio, MD, Division of Infectious Diseases at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

The message and methodology of Faust’s and del Rio’s article are on target, according to Jonathan L. Temte, MD, PhD, who has been working in influenza surveillance for almost 25 years.

Current flu data draw on limited information from primary care practices and hospitals, said Dr. Temte, associate dean for public health and community engagement at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison. The estimates help bridge the gaps, he said, but the system is inherently vulnerable to error.

“Comparing them – as so many people in this country have done – to try to diminish the impact of SARS-CoV2 is not fair,” he said.
 

Estimated versus actual influenza deaths

The authors illustrate the difference in the way rates of death from influenza are calculated: “Between 2013-2014 and 2018-2019, the reported yearly estimated influenza deaths ranged from 23,000 to 61,000. Over that same time period, however, the number of counted influenza deaths was between 3,448 and 15,620 yearly.”

“It’s apparent [the CDC has] been overestimating,” Faust said. “If you publish a number on the higher end of the estimate, people might take your public health messages more seriously, such as, it’s important to get your yearly flu shot.”

He added that until influenza death rates started to be compared with COVID-19 rates, “there was never really a downside” to reporting estimates.

Dr. Temte said he doesn’t regard overestimating flu deaths as intentional but rather the result of a longstanding “bias against the elderly in this country” that the estimates are meant to account for.

For example, he says, reporting influenza deaths is mandatory when such deaths involve persons younger than 18 years but not when they involve adults.

Also, traditionally, influenza has been seen “as a cause of death in people with multiple comorbidities that was just part and parcel of wintertime,” Dr. Temte said.

“The likelihood of being tested for influenza goes down greatly when you’re older,” he said. “This is slowly changing.”

The CDC acknowledges on its website that it “does not know the exact number of people who have been sick and affected by influenza because influenza is not a reportable disease in most areas of the US.”

It adds that the burden is estimated through the US Influenza Surveillance System, which covers approximately 8.5% of the US population.
 

Comparing recorded deaths

It’s more accurate and meaningful to compare actual numbers of deaths for the diseases, Dr. Faust and Dr. del Rio say in their article.

When the authors made that comparison, they drew a stark contrast.

There were 15,455 recorded COVID-19 deaths in the week that ended April 21. The week before, the number of recorded deaths was 14,478, they found. (Those were the two most recent weeks before they submitted their article for publication.)

In comparison, counted deaths ranged from 351 to 1,626 during the peak week of the seven influenza seasons between 2013-2014 and 2019-2020. The average counted deaths for the peak week of the seven seasons was 752.4 (95% confidence interval, 558.8-946.1).

“These statistics on counted deaths suggest that the number of COVID-19 deaths for the week ending April 21 was 9.5-fold to 44.1-fold greater than the peak week of counted influenza deaths during the past seven influenza seasons in the US, with a 20.5-fold mean increase (95% CI, 16.3-27.7),” the authors write.

However, Natasha Chida, MD, MSPH, an infectious disease physician and assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, said in an interview that the actual number of deaths doesn’t tell the complete flu story either. That count would miss people who later died from secondary complications associated with influenza, she said.

“There’s just no way to reliably count influenza deaths,” she said. “I think if we required it as a reported illness, that would be the ideal situation, but there’s so much flu every year that that probably would not be practical.”

She said she agrees that rates of influenza deaths and rates of COVID-19 deaths cannot be fairly compared.

What the authors don’t touch on, she said, is that flu season lasts 4 to 6 months a year, and just 3 months into the coronavirus pandemic, US deaths due to COVID-19 are already higher than those for seasonal influenza.

“Even if we look at it in the way that people who think we can compare flu and coronavirus do, it’s still not going to work out in their favor from a numbers standpoint,” she said.

The article clarifies the differences for “people who don’t live in the flu world,” she said.

“It is not accurate to compare the two for the reasons the authors described and also because they are very different diseases,” she added.
 

Real-life validation

Dr. Faust said in an interview that real-life experiences add external validity to their analysis.

Differences in the way deaths are calculated does not reflect frontline clinical conditions during the COVID-19 crisis, with hospitals stretched past their limits, ventilator shortages, and bodies stacking up in some overwhelmed facilities, the authors say.

Dr. Temte said the external validation of the numbers also rings true in light of his own experience.

He said that, in the past 2 months, he has known two people who have had family members who died of COVID-19.

Conversely, “I would have to search long and hard to come up with people I have known or have been one degree of separation from” who have died from influenza, Dr. Temte said.

The authors, Dr. Temte, and Dr. Chida report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of COVID-19 deaths cannot be directly compared to the number of seasonal influenza deaths because they are calculated differently, researchers say in a report released today.

Whereas COVID-19 death rates are determined from actual counts of people who have died, seasonal influenza death rates are estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) using population modeling algorithms, explains Jeremy Samuel Faust, MD, with Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Division of Health Policy and Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts.

The CDC estimates that between 24,000 and 62,000 people died from influenza during the 2019-2020 season (through April 4). At the time of the analysis (as of April 28), COVID-19 deaths had reached 65,000 in the United States.

Some government officials and others have said the numbers seem similar and have used the comparison as an argument for reopening certain areas.

But making that comparison “is extremely dangerous,” Faust told Medscape Medical News.

“COVID-19 is far more dangerous and is wreaking far more havoc than seasonal influenza ever has,” he said.

Faust coauthored the perspective article, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, with Carlos del Rio, MD, Division of Infectious Diseases at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

The message and methodology of Faust’s and del Rio’s article are on target, according to Jonathan L. Temte, MD, PhD, who has been working in influenza surveillance for almost 25 years.

Current flu data draw on limited information from primary care practices and hospitals, said Dr. Temte, associate dean for public health and community engagement at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison. The estimates help bridge the gaps, he said, but the system is inherently vulnerable to error.

“Comparing them – as so many people in this country have done – to try to diminish the impact of SARS-CoV2 is not fair,” he said.
 

Estimated versus actual influenza deaths

The authors illustrate the difference in the way rates of death from influenza are calculated: “Between 2013-2014 and 2018-2019, the reported yearly estimated influenza deaths ranged from 23,000 to 61,000. Over that same time period, however, the number of counted influenza deaths was between 3,448 and 15,620 yearly.”

“It’s apparent [the CDC has] been overestimating,” Faust said. “If you publish a number on the higher end of the estimate, people might take your public health messages more seriously, such as, it’s important to get your yearly flu shot.”

He added that until influenza death rates started to be compared with COVID-19 rates, “there was never really a downside” to reporting estimates.

Dr. Temte said he doesn’t regard overestimating flu deaths as intentional but rather the result of a longstanding “bias against the elderly in this country” that the estimates are meant to account for.

For example, he says, reporting influenza deaths is mandatory when such deaths involve persons younger than 18 years but not when they involve adults.

Also, traditionally, influenza has been seen “as a cause of death in people with multiple comorbidities that was just part and parcel of wintertime,” Dr. Temte said.

“The likelihood of being tested for influenza goes down greatly when you’re older,” he said. “This is slowly changing.”

The CDC acknowledges on its website that it “does not know the exact number of people who have been sick and affected by influenza because influenza is not a reportable disease in most areas of the US.”

It adds that the burden is estimated through the US Influenza Surveillance System, which covers approximately 8.5% of the US population.
 

Comparing recorded deaths

It’s more accurate and meaningful to compare actual numbers of deaths for the diseases, Dr. Faust and Dr. del Rio say in their article.

When the authors made that comparison, they drew a stark contrast.

There were 15,455 recorded COVID-19 deaths in the week that ended April 21. The week before, the number of recorded deaths was 14,478, they found. (Those were the two most recent weeks before they submitted their article for publication.)

In comparison, counted deaths ranged from 351 to 1,626 during the peak week of the seven influenza seasons between 2013-2014 and 2019-2020. The average counted deaths for the peak week of the seven seasons was 752.4 (95% confidence interval, 558.8-946.1).

“These statistics on counted deaths suggest that the number of COVID-19 deaths for the week ending April 21 was 9.5-fold to 44.1-fold greater than the peak week of counted influenza deaths during the past seven influenza seasons in the US, with a 20.5-fold mean increase (95% CI, 16.3-27.7),” the authors write.

However, Natasha Chida, MD, MSPH, an infectious disease physician and assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, said in an interview that the actual number of deaths doesn’t tell the complete flu story either. That count would miss people who later died from secondary complications associated with influenza, she said.

“There’s just no way to reliably count influenza deaths,” she said. “I think if we required it as a reported illness, that would be the ideal situation, but there’s so much flu every year that that probably would not be practical.”

She said she agrees that rates of influenza deaths and rates of COVID-19 deaths cannot be fairly compared.

What the authors don’t touch on, she said, is that flu season lasts 4 to 6 months a year, and just 3 months into the coronavirus pandemic, US deaths due to COVID-19 are already higher than those for seasonal influenza.

“Even if we look at it in the way that people who think we can compare flu and coronavirus do, it’s still not going to work out in their favor from a numbers standpoint,” she said.

The article clarifies the differences for “people who don’t live in the flu world,” she said.

“It is not accurate to compare the two for the reasons the authors described and also because they are very different diseases,” she added.
 

Real-life validation

Dr. Faust said in an interview that real-life experiences add external validity to their analysis.

Differences in the way deaths are calculated does not reflect frontline clinical conditions during the COVID-19 crisis, with hospitals stretched past their limits, ventilator shortages, and bodies stacking up in some overwhelmed facilities, the authors say.

Dr. Temte said the external validation of the numbers also rings true in light of his own experience.

He said that, in the past 2 months, he has known two people who have had family members who died of COVID-19.

Conversely, “I would have to search long and hard to come up with people I have known or have been one degree of separation from” who have died from influenza, Dr. Temte said.

The authors, Dr. Temte, and Dr. Chida report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of COVID-19 deaths cannot be directly compared to the number of seasonal influenza deaths because they are calculated differently, researchers say in a report released today.

Whereas COVID-19 death rates are determined from actual counts of people who have died, seasonal influenza death rates are estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) using population modeling algorithms, explains Jeremy Samuel Faust, MD, with Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Division of Health Policy and Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts.

The CDC estimates that between 24,000 and 62,000 people died from influenza during the 2019-2020 season (through April 4). At the time of the analysis (as of April 28), COVID-19 deaths had reached 65,000 in the United States.

Some government officials and others have said the numbers seem similar and have used the comparison as an argument for reopening certain areas.

But making that comparison “is extremely dangerous,” Faust told Medscape Medical News.

“COVID-19 is far more dangerous and is wreaking far more havoc than seasonal influenza ever has,” he said.

Faust coauthored the perspective article, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, with Carlos del Rio, MD, Division of Infectious Diseases at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

The message and methodology of Faust’s and del Rio’s article are on target, according to Jonathan L. Temte, MD, PhD, who has been working in influenza surveillance for almost 25 years.

Current flu data draw on limited information from primary care practices and hospitals, said Dr. Temte, associate dean for public health and community engagement at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison. The estimates help bridge the gaps, he said, but the system is inherently vulnerable to error.

“Comparing them – as so many people in this country have done – to try to diminish the impact of SARS-CoV2 is not fair,” he said.
 

Estimated versus actual influenza deaths

The authors illustrate the difference in the way rates of death from influenza are calculated: “Between 2013-2014 and 2018-2019, the reported yearly estimated influenza deaths ranged from 23,000 to 61,000. Over that same time period, however, the number of counted influenza deaths was between 3,448 and 15,620 yearly.”

“It’s apparent [the CDC has] been overestimating,” Faust said. “If you publish a number on the higher end of the estimate, people might take your public health messages more seriously, such as, it’s important to get your yearly flu shot.”

He added that until influenza death rates started to be compared with COVID-19 rates, “there was never really a downside” to reporting estimates.

Dr. Temte said he doesn’t regard overestimating flu deaths as intentional but rather the result of a longstanding “bias against the elderly in this country” that the estimates are meant to account for.

For example, he says, reporting influenza deaths is mandatory when such deaths involve persons younger than 18 years but not when they involve adults.

Also, traditionally, influenza has been seen “as a cause of death in people with multiple comorbidities that was just part and parcel of wintertime,” Dr. Temte said.

“The likelihood of being tested for influenza goes down greatly when you’re older,” he said. “This is slowly changing.”

The CDC acknowledges on its website that it “does not know the exact number of people who have been sick and affected by influenza because influenza is not a reportable disease in most areas of the US.”

It adds that the burden is estimated through the US Influenza Surveillance System, which covers approximately 8.5% of the US population.
 

Comparing recorded deaths

It’s more accurate and meaningful to compare actual numbers of deaths for the diseases, Dr. Faust and Dr. del Rio say in their article.

When the authors made that comparison, they drew a stark contrast.

There were 15,455 recorded COVID-19 deaths in the week that ended April 21. The week before, the number of recorded deaths was 14,478, they found. (Those were the two most recent weeks before they submitted their article for publication.)

In comparison, counted deaths ranged from 351 to 1,626 during the peak week of the seven influenza seasons between 2013-2014 and 2019-2020. The average counted deaths for the peak week of the seven seasons was 752.4 (95% confidence interval, 558.8-946.1).

“These statistics on counted deaths suggest that the number of COVID-19 deaths for the week ending April 21 was 9.5-fold to 44.1-fold greater than the peak week of counted influenza deaths during the past seven influenza seasons in the US, with a 20.5-fold mean increase (95% CI, 16.3-27.7),” the authors write.

However, Natasha Chida, MD, MSPH, an infectious disease physician and assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, said in an interview that the actual number of deaths doesn’t tell the complete flu story either. That count would miss people who later died from secondary complications associated with influenza, she said.

“There’s just no way to reliably count influenza deaths,” she said. “I think if we required it as a reported illness, that would be the ideal situation, but there’s so much flu every year that that probably would not be practical.”

She said she agrees that rates of influenza deaths and rates of COVID-19 deaths cannot be fairly compared.

What the authors don’t touch on, she said, is that flu season lasts 4 to 6 months a year, and just 3 months into the coronavirus pandemic, US deaths due to COVID-19 are already higher than those for seasonal influenza.

“Even if we look at it in the way that people who think we can compare flu and coronavirus do, it’s still not going to work out in their favor from a numbers standpoint,” she said.

The article clarifies the differences for “people who don’t live in the flu world,” she said.

“It is not accurate to compare the two for the reasons the authors described and also because they are very different diseases,” she added.
 

Real-life validation

Dr. Faust said in an interview that real-life experiences add external validity to their analysis.

Differences in the way deaths are calculated does not reflect frontline clinical conditions during the COVID-19 crisis, with hospitals stretched past their limits, ventilator shortages, and bodies stacking up in some overwhelmed facilities, the authors say.

Dr. Temte said the external validation of the numbers also rings true in light of his own experience.

He said that, in the past 2 months, he has known two people who have had family members who died of COVID-19.

Conversely, “I would have to search long and hard to come up with people I have known or have been one degree of separation from” who have died from influenza, Dr. Temte said.

The authors, Dr. Temte, and Dr. Chida report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Yoga as adjunctive therapy for episodic migraine proved superior to conventional medications alone in the randomized, prospective CONTAIN trial, neurologist Rohit Bhatia, MD, and colleagues reported in Neurology.

The structured yoga program resulted in “remarkably improved” outcomes at 3 months of follow-up in CONTAIN, with both headache frequency and use of medications cut in half, compared with baseline, according to the investigators.

Compared with the control group on standard antimigraine medications alone, the yoga group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in pain intensity, headache frequency, pill counts, and validated measures of disability and headache impact on daily life (see graphic).

“The good news is that practicing something as simple and accessible as yoga may help much more than medications alone. And all you need is a mat,” observed Dr. Bhatia, professor of neurology at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi.

The single-center, open-label, blinded-assessment CONTAIN trial included 160 adult episodic migraine patients ages 18-50 years experiencing 4-14 headaches per month. They were randomized to prophylactic and acute rescue medications alone or in combination with yoga instruction by a qualified yoga therapist in a class that met at the medical center 3 days per week for 1 month. This was followed by practice of the hour-long yoga program at home 5 days per week for the next 2 months, with twice-monthly telephone calls from the yoga center to encourage adherence and encouragement to call if questions arose. Both groups received counseling about the importance of lifestyle changes that may help with migraine, including diet, physical activity, adequate sleep, and stress reduction. Outcomes were assessed in an intent-to-treat analysis.

The yoga program included specific relaxation exercises, breathing techniques, meditation, and yoga postures, or asanas. The migraine-tailored program was vetted by yoga experts at five renowned Indian yoga centers.
 

No safety issues arose with the yoga program.

The investigators noted that the 47% reduction in migraine medication pill count and 49% decrease in headache frequency over the course of 3 months in the adjunctive yoga group have important implications, not only in a limited-resource country such as India, but also in the United States, where Americans spend an estimated $3.2 billion annually on prescription and over the counter headache medications, and the indirect cost associated with lost productivity due to migraine has been put at $13 billion per year.

Dr. Bhatia and colleagues speculated that the observed benefits of add-on yoga in migraineurs may involve previously described improved vagal tone and parasympathetic drive coupled with decreased sympathetic tone, increased nitric oxide levels, and loosening of stiff muscles, which can trigger headaches.
 

Real-life goals

Commenting on the research, neurologist Holly Yancy, DO, a headache specialist at the Banner Health - University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix, said she was impressed by the high quality of this well-designed, adequately powered study of a complementary and alternative therapy.

“The primary and secondary endpoints were real-life goals of migraine treatment that we strive to achieve in clinical practice – and they were met in the study,” she observed. “To start with a month of in-house yoga classes to instill a baseline competence in yoga prior to transitioning to home practice and to provide resources for ongoing assistance for questions were nice touches.”

She noted that the control group also experienced reductions in migraine frequency, severity, and disability scores, albeit of significantly lesser magnitude than in the yoga group. This underscores how important it is in clinical practice to spend time counseling migraine patients on lifestyle choices.

“A trial such as this provides neurologists and other health care providers with an accessible, evidence-based treatment for migraines that can be used with other preventive treatments to decrease the frequency and the amount of medication their patients are taking. In addition, it is a behavioral therapy that can decrease triggers and potentially help patients cope with pain,” Dr. Yancy said.

“I suspect I’ll not hesitate to recommend yoga as an adjunctive treatment for patients in my clinic that are physically capable. I think it would be logical to try to extrapolate the concept to a chronic migraine population as well, though it would be ideal to base that recommendation on another study conducted with a chronic migraine population.”

Dr. Bhatia and his coinvestigators reported having no financial conflicts regarding their study, funded by the Government of India and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kumar A et al. Neurology. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009473.

Yoga as adjunctive therapy for episodic migraine proved superior to conventional medications alone in the randomized, prospective CONTAIN trial, neurologist Rohit Bhatia, MD, and colleagues reported in Neurology.

The structured yoga program resulted in “remarkably improved” outcomes at 3 months of follow-up in CONTAIN, with both headache frequency and use of medications cut in half, compared with baseline, according to the investigators.

Compared with the control group on standard antimigraine medications alone, the yoga group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in pain intensity, headache frequency, pill counts, and validated measures of disability and headache impact on daily life (see graphic).

“The good news is that practicing something as simple and accessible as yoga may help much more than medications alone. And all you need is a mat,” observed Dr. Bhatia, professor of neurology at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi.

The single-center, open-label, blinded-assessment CONTAIN trial included 160 adult episodic migraine patients ages 18-50 years experiencing 4-14 headaches per month. They were randomized to prophylactic and acute rescue medications alone or in combination with yoga instruction by a qualified yoga therapist in a class that met at the medical center 3 days per week for 1 month. This was followed by practice of the hour-long yoga program at home 5 days per week for the next 2 months, with twice-monthly telephone calls from the yoga center to encourage adherence and encouragement to call if questions arose. Both groups received counseling about the importance of lifestyle changes that may help with migraine, including diet, physical activity, adequate sleep, and stress reduction. Outcomes were assessed in an intent-to-treat analysis.

The yoga program included specific relaxation exercises, breathing techniques, meditation, and yoga postures, or asanas. The migraine-tailored program was vetted by yoga experts at five renowned Indian yoga centers.
 

No safety issues arose with the yoga program.

The investigators noted that the 47% reduction in migraine medication pill count and 49% decrease in headache frequency over the course of 3 months in the adjunctive yoga group have important implications, not only in a limited-resource country such as India, but also in the United States, where Americans spend an estimated $3.2 billion annually on prescription and over the counter headache medications, and the indirect cost associated with lost productivity due to migraine has been put at $13 billion per year.

Dr. Bhatia and colleagues speculated that the observed benefits of add-on yoga in migraineurs may involve previously described improved vagal tone and parasympathetic drive coupled with decreased sympathetic tone, increased nitric oxide levels, and loosening of stiff muscles, which can trigger headaches.
 

Real-life goals

Commenting on the research, neurologist Holly Yancy, DO, a headache specialist at the Banner Health - University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix, said she was impressed by the high quality of this well-designed, adequately powered study of a complementary and alternative therapy.

“The primary and secondary endpoints were real-life goals of migraine treatment that we strive to achieve in clinical practice – and they were met in the study,” she observed. “To start with a month of in-house yoga classes to instill a baseline competence in yoga prior to transitioning to home practice and to provide resources for ongoing assistance for questions were nice touches.”

She noted that the control group also experienced reductions in migraine frequency, severity, and disability scores, albeit of significantly lesser magnitude than in the yoga group. This underscores how important it is in clinical practice to spend time counseling migraine patients on lifestyle choices.

“A trial such as this provides neurologists and other health care providers with an accessible, evidence-based treatment for migraines that can be used with other preventive treatments to decrease the frequency and the amount of medication their patients are taking. In addition, it is a behavioral therapy that can decrease triggers and potentially help patients cope with pain,” Dr. Yancy said.

“I suspect I’ll not hesitate to recommend yoga as an adjunctive treatment for patients in my clinic that are physically capable. I think it would be logical to try to extrapolate the concept to a chronic migraine population as well, though it would be ideal to base that recommendation on another study conducted with a chronic migraine population.”

Dr. Bhatia and his coinvestigators reported having no financial conflicts regarding their study, funded by the Government of India and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kumar A et al. Neurology. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009473.

Yoga as adjunctive therapy for episodic migraine proved superior to conventional medications alone in the randomized, prospective CONTAIN trial, neurologist Rohit Bhatia, MD, and colleagues reported in Neurology.

The structured yoga program resulted in “remarkably improved” outcomes at 3 months of follow-up in CONTAIN, with both headache frequency and use of medications cut in half, compared with baseline, according to the investigators.

Compared with the control group on standard antimigraine medications alone, the yoga group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in pain intensity, headache frequency, pill counts, and validated measures of disability and headache impact on daily life (see graphic).

“The good news is that practicing something as simple and accessible as yoga may help much more than medications alone. And all you need is a mat,” observed Dr. Bhatia, professor of neurology at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi.

The single-center, open-label, blinded-assessment CONTAIN trial included 160 adult episodic migraine patients ages 18-50 years experiencing 4-14 headaches per month. They were randomized to prophylactic and acute rescue medications alone or in combination with yoga instruction by a qualified yoga therapist in a class that met at the medical center 3 days per week for 1 month. This was followed by practice of the hour-long yoga program at home 5 days per week for the next 2 months, with twice-monthly telephone calls from the yoga center to encourage adherence and encouragement to call if questions arose. Both groups received counseling about the importance of lifestyle changes that may help with migraine, including diet, physical activity, adequate sleep, and stress reduction. Outcomes were assessed in an intent-to-treat analysis.

The yoga program included specific relaxation exercises, breathing techniques, meditation, and yoga postures, or asanas. The migraine-tailored program was vetted by yoga experts at five renowned Indian yoga centers.
 

No safety issues arose with the yoga program.

The investigators noted that the 47% reduction in migraine medication pill count and 49% decrease in headache frequency over the course of 3 months in the adjunctive yoga group have important implications, not only in a limited-resource country such as India, but also in the United States, where Americans spend an estimated $3.2 billion annually on prescription and over the counter headache medications, and the indirect cost associated with lost productivity due to migraine has been put at $13 billion per year.

Dr. Bhatia and colleagues speculated that the observed benefits of add-on yoga in migraineurs may involve previously described improved vagal tone and parasympathetic drive coupled with decreased sympathetic tone, increased nitric oxide levels, and loosening of stiff muscles, which can trigger headaches.
 

Real-life goals

Commenting on the research, neurologist Holly Yancy, DO, a headache specialist at the Banner Health - University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix, said she was impressed by the high quality of this well-designed, adequately powered study of a complementary and alternative therapy.

“The primary and secondary endpoints were real-life goals of migraine treatment that we strive to achieve in clinical practice – and they were met in the study,” she observed. “To start with a month of in-house yoga classes to instill a baseline competence in yoga prior to transitioning to home practice and to provide resources for ongoing assistance for questions were nice touches.”

She noted that the control group also experienced reductions in migraine frequency, severity, and disability scores, albeit of significantly lesser magnitude than in the yoga group. This underscores how important it is in clinical practice to spend time counseling migraine patients on lifestyle choices.

“A trial such as this provides neurologists and other health care providers with an accessible, evidence-based treatment for migraines that can be used with other preventive treatments to decrease the frequency and the amount of medication their patients are taking. In addition, it is a behavioral therapy that can decrease triggers and potentially help patients cope with pain,” Dr. Yancy said.

“I suspect I’ll not hesitate to recommend yoga as an adjunctive treatment for patients in my clinic that are physically capable. I think it would be logical to try to extrapolate the concept to a chronic migraine population as well, though it would be ideal to base that recommendation on another study conducted with a chronic migraine population.”

Dr. Bhatia and his coinvestigators reported having no financial conflicts regarding their study, funded by the Government of India and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kumar A et al. Neurology. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009473.

To the Editor: I am very disappointed to continue receiving my copies of the Federal Practitioner in nonrecyclable plastic. As a health care professional, I am on the mailing list for numerous other medical publications, all of which seem to be able to utilize recyclable plastic wrappers. I hope you can rectify this problem, which is an embarrassment to me, a serviceconnected veteran.

C. William Kaiser, MD 

To the Editor: I am very disappointed to continue receiving my copies of the Federal Practitioner in nonrecyclable plastic. As a health care professional, I am on the mailing list for numerous other medical publications, all of which seem to be able to utilize recyclable plastic wrappers. I hope you can rectify this problem, which is an embarrassment to me, a serviceconnected veteran.

C. William Kaiser, MD 

To the Editor: I am very disappointed to continue receiving my copies of the Federal Practitioner in nonrecyclable plastic. As a health care professional, I am on the mailing list for numerous other medical publications, all of which seem to be able to utilize recyclable plastic wrappers. I hope you can rectify this problem, which is an embarrassment to me, a serviceconnected veteran.

C. William Kaiser, MD 

An allergist and a pediatric pulmonologist cautioned colleagues that COVID-19 could be spawning hazardous behavior as patients question whether they should continue using immune-suppressing drugs during the pandemic.

“In fact, there’s no data to support this at this time. Maintaining adequate asthma control is the current CDC recommendation,” said pediatric pulmonologist John Carl, MD, of Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital. Patients, he said, should be advised to “follow your asthma action plan as outlined by your primary care or specialty clinician and communicate about evolving symptoms, such as fever rather than just congestion, wheezing, and coughing, etc.”

Dr. Carl spoke in a May 7 webinar about asthma and COVID-19 with Lakiea Wright, M.D., a physician specializing in internal medicine and allergy and immunology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and medical director of clinical affairs for Thermo Fisher Scientific’s ImmunoDiagnostics division. The webinar, sponsored by Thermo Fisher Scientific, included discussion of COVID-19 risks, disease management, and distinguishing between the virus and asthma.

In a follow-up interview, Dr. Wright said she’s hearing from patients and parents who are concerned about whether people with asthma face a higher risk of COVID-19 infection. There’s no evidence that they do, she said, but “the CDC states that individuals with moderate to severe asthma may be higher risk for moderate to severe disease from COVID-19 if they were to become infected.”

Indeed, she said, “it is well established that viruses can trigger asthma.” But, as she also noted, early research about the risk in patients with asthma is conflicting.

“Some studies suggest asthma may be a risk factor for hospitalization while other data suggests asthma is not a common risk factor for those hospitalized,” Dr. Wright said.

She highlighted a recent study that suggests people with allergic asthma have “a reduced ACE2 gene expression in airway cells and thus decreased susceptibility to infection” by the novel coronavirus (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.04.009).

Dr. Wright cautioned, however, that “this is a hypothesis and will need to be studied more.”

For now, she said, patients “should follow their asthma action plan and take their inhalers, including inhaled corticosteroids, as prescribed by their health care providers.”

Most patients are reasonable and do comply when their physicians explain why they should take a medication,” she noted.

Dr. Carl agreed, and added that a short course of oral corticosteroids are also recommended to manage minor exacerbations and “prevent patients from having to arrive as inpatients in more acute settings and risk health system–related exposures to the current pandemic.”

He cautioned, however, that metered-dose inhalers are preferable to nebulizers, and side vent ports should be avoided since they can aerosolize infectious agents and put health care providers and family members at risk.

Unfortunately, he said, there’s been a shortage of short-acting beta agonist albuterol inhalers. This has been linked to hospitals trying to avoid the use of nebulizers.

Dr. Wright advised colleagues to focus on unique symptoms first, then address overlapping symptoms and other symptoms to differentiate between COVID-19 and asthma/allergy.

She noted that environmental allergy symptoms alone do not cause fever, a hallmark of COVID-19. Shortness of breath can be a distinguishing symptom for the virus, because this is not a common symptom of environmental allergies unless the patient has asthma, Dr. Wright said.

Cough can be an overlapping symptom because in environmental allergies, postnasal drip from allergic rhinitis can trigger cough, she explained. Nasal congestion and/or runny nose can develop with viral illnesses in general, but these are symptoms not included in the CDC’s list of the most common COVID-19 symptoms. Severe fatigue and body aches aren’t symptoms consistent with environmental allergies, Dr. Wright said.

Both Dr. Carl and Dr. Wright emphasized the importance of continuing routine asthma therapy during the pandemic.

“When discussing the importance of taking their inhaled steroids with patients, I also remind patients that asthma management is comprehensive,” Dr. Wright said. “I want them to take their medications, but I also want them avoid or minimize exposure to triggers. Allergic and nonallergic triggers such as environmental tobacco smoke can exacerbate asthma.”

In addition, she said, “it’s important to take a detailed medical history to identify triggers. And it’s important to conduct allergy testing to common environmental allergens to help identify allergic triggers and tailor environmental allergen control strategies based on the results. All of these strategies help patients keep their asthma well-controlled.”

Dr. Carl and Dr. Wright report having no relevant disclosures.

An allergist and a pediatric pulmonologist cautioned colleagues that COVID-19 could be spawning hazardous behavior as patients question whether they should continue using immune-suppressing drugs during the pandemic.

“In fact, there’s no data to support this at this time. Maintaining adequate asthma control is the current CDC recommendation,” said pediatric pulmonologist John Carl, MD, of Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital. Patients, he said, should be advised to “follow your asthma action plan as outlined by your primary care or specialty clinician and communicate about evolving symptoms, such as fever rather than just congestion, wheezing, and coughing, etc.”

Dr. Carl spoke in a May 7 webinar about asthma and COVID-19 with Lakiea Wright, M.D., a physician specializing in internal medicine and allergy and immunology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and medical director of clinical affairs for Thermo Fisher Scientific’s ImmunoDiagnostics division. The webinar, sponsored by Thermo Fisher Scientific, included discussion of COVID-19 risks, disease management, and distinguishing between the virus and asthma.

In a follow-up interview, Dr. Wright said she’s hearing from patients and parents who are concerned about whether people with asthma face a higher risk of COVID-19 infection. There’s no evidence that they do, she said, but “the CDC states that individuals with moderate to severe asthma may be higher risk for moderate to severe disease from COVID-19 if they were to become infected.”

Indeed, she said, “it is well established that viruses can trigger asthma.” But, as she also noted, early research about the risk in patients with asthma is conflicting.

“Some studies suggest asthma may be a risk factor for hospitalization while other data suggests asthma is not a common risk factor for those hospitalized,” Dr. Wright said.

She highlighted a recent study that suggests people with allergic asthma have “a reduced ACE2 gene expression in airway cells and thus decreased susceptibility to infection” by the novel coronavirus (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.04.009).

Dr. Wright cautioned, however, that “this is a hypothesis and will need to be studied more.”

For now, she said, patients “should follow their asthma action plan and take their inhalers, including inhaled corticosteroids, as prescribed by their health care providers.”

Most patients are reasonable and do comply when their physicians explain why they should take a medication,” she noted.

Dr. Carl agreed, and added that a short course of oral corticosteroids are also recommended to manage minor exacerbations and “prevent patients from having to arrive as inpatients in more acute settings and risk health system–related exposures to the current pandemic.”

He cautioned, however, that metered-dose inhalers are preferable to nebulizers, and side vent ports should be avoided since they can aerosolize infectious agents and put health care providers and family members at risk.

Unfortunately, he said, there’s been a shortage of short-acting beta agonist albuterol inhalers. This has been linked to hospitals trying to avoid the use of nebulizers.

Dr. Wright advised colleagues to focus on unique symptoms first, then address overlapping symptoms and other symptoms to differentiate between COVID-19 and asthma/allergy.

She noted that environmental allergy symptoms alone do not cause fever, a hallmark of COVID-19. Shortness of breath can be a distinguishing symptom for the virus, because this is not a common symptom of environmental allergies unless the patient has asthma, Dr. Wright said.

Cough can be an overlapping symptom because in environmental allergies, postnasal drip from allergic rhinitis can trigger cough, she explained. Nasal congestion and/or runny nose can develop with viral illnesses in general, but these are symptoms not included in the CDC’s list of the most common COVID-19 symptoms. Severe fatigue and body aches aren’t symptoms consistent with environmental allergies, Dr. Wright said.

Both Dr. Carl and Dr. Wright emphasized the importance of continuing routine asthma therapy during the pandemic.

“When discussing the importance of taking their inhaled steroids with patients, I also remind patients that asthma management is comprehensive,” Dr. Wright said. “I want them to take their medications, but I also want them avoid or minimize exposure to triggers. Allergic and nonallergic triggers such as environmental tobacco smoke can exacerbate asthma.”

In addition, she said, “it’s important to take a detailed medical history to identify triggers. And it’s important to conduct allergy testing to common environmental allergens to help identify allergic triggers and tailor environmental allergen control strategies based on the results. All of these strategies help patients keep their asthma well-controlled.”

Dr. Carl and Dr. Wright report having no relevant disclosures.

An allergist and a pediatric pulmonologist cautioned colleagues that COVID-19 could be spawning hazardous behavior as patients question whether they should continue using immune-suppressing drugs during the pandemic.

“In fact, there’s no data to support this at this time. Maintaining adequate asthma control is the current CDC recommendation,” said pediatric pulmonologist John Carl, MD, of Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital. Patients, he said, should be advised to “follow your asthma action plan as outlined by your primary care or specialty clinician and communicate about evolving symptoms, such as fever rather than just congestion, wheezing, and coughing, etc.”

Dr. Carl spoke in a May 7 webinar about asthma and COVID-19 with Lakiea Wright, M.D., a physician specializing in internal medicine and allergy and immunology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and medical director of clinical affairs for Thermo Fisher Scientific’s ImmunoDiagnostics division. The webinar, sponsored by Thermo Fisher Scientific, included discussion of COVID-19 risks, disease management, and distinguishing between the virus and asthma.

In a follow-up interview, Dr. Wright said she’s hearing from patients and parents who are concerned about whether people with asthma face a higher risk of COVID-19 infection. There’s no evidence that they do, she said, but “the CDC states that individuals with moderate to severe asthma may be higher risk for moderate to severe disease from COVID-19 if they were to become infected.”

Indeed, she said, “it is well established that viruses can trigger asthma.” But, as she also noted, early research about the risk in patients with asthma is conflicting.

“Some studies suggest asthma may be a risk factor for hospitalization while other data suggests asthma is not a common risk factor for those hospitalized,” Dr. Wright said.

She highlighted a recent study that suggests people with allergic asthma have “a reduced ACE2 gene expression in airway cells and thus decreased susceptibility to infection” by the novel coronavirus (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.04.009).

Dr. Wright cautioned, however, that “this is a hypothesis and will need to be studied more.”

For now, she said, patients “should follow their asthma action plan and take their inhalers, including inhaled corticosteroids, as prescribed by their health care providers.”

Most patients are reasonable and do comply when their physicians explain why they should take a medication,” she noted.

Dr. Carl agreed, and added that a short course of oral corticosteroids are also recommended to manage minor exacerbations and “prevent patients from having to arrive as inpatients in more acute settings and risk health system–related exposures to the current pandemic.”

He cautioned, however, that metered-dose inhalers are preferable to nebulizers, and side vent ports should be avoided since they can aerosolize infectious agents and put health care providers and family members at risk.

Unfortunately, he said, there’s been a shortage of short-acting beta agonist albuterol inhalers. This has been linked to hospitals trying to avoid the use of nebulizers.

Dr. Wright advised colleagues to focus on unique symptoms first, then address overlapping symptoms and other symptoms to differentiate between COVID-19 and asthma/allergy.

She noted that environmental allergy symptoms alone do not cause fever, a hallmark of COVID-19. Shortness of breath can be a distinguishing symptom for the virus, because this is not a common symptom of environmental allergies unless the patient has asthma, Dr. Wright said.

Cough can be an overlapping symptom because in environmental allergies, postnasal drip from allergic rhinitis can trigger cough, she explained. Nasal congestion and/or runny nose can develop with viral illnesses in general, but these are symptoms not included in the CDC’s list of the most common COVID-19 symptoms. Severe fatigue and body aches aren’t symptoms consistent with environmental allergies, Dr. Wright said.

Both Dr. Carl and Dr. Wright emphasized the importance of continuing routine asthma therapy during the pandemic.

“When discussing the importance of taking their inhaled steroids with patients, I also remind patients that asthma management is comprehensive,” Dr. Wright said. “I want them to take their medications, but I also want them avoid or minimize exposure to triggers. Allergic and nonallergic triggers such as environmental tobacco smoke can exacerbate asthma.”

In addition, she said, “it’s important to take a detailed medical history to identify triggers. And it’s important to conduct allergy testing to common environmental allergens to help identify allergic triggers and tailor environmental allergen control strategies based on the results. All of these strategies help patients keep their asthma well-controlled.”

Dr. Carl and Dr. Wright report having no relevant disclosures.

Productivity benchmarks for physicians are likely to be lowered in light of plunging patient numbers from COVID-19, and bonuses are expected to take a hit, according to experts interviewed by Medscape.

“Employed physicians are often getting a guaranteed salary for a month or two, but no bonuses or extra distributions,” Joel Greenwald, MD, a financial adviser for physicians in St. Louis Park, Minn., told Medscape Medical News.

“This amounts to salary reductions of 10% to 30%,” he said.

The COVID-19 crisis dramatically reversed the consistent upward trajectory of physician compensation, according to a Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) survey, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The survey, conducted April 7-8, found that practices have reported an average 55% drop in income. The report also found an average decrease in patient volume of 60%.

Before pandemic, salaries were rising

The pandemic interrupted a steady gain in compensation for this year compared to last, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020.

The report reflects data gathered from October 4, 2019, to February 10, 2020, and includes online survey responses from 17,000 physicians in more than 30 specialties.

Before the pandemic, primary care physician (PCP) pay was up 2.5%, to $243,000, from the previous year’s average of $237,000. Specialists saw a 1.5% increase, from $341,000 in 2019 to $346,000 this year.

Reported compensation for employed physicians included salary, bonus, and profit-sharing contributions. For those self-employed, compensation includes earnings after taxes and deductible business expenses before income tax.

This report reflects only full-time salaries. But most physicians work more than full time. The report notes that physicians overall spent 37.8 hours a week seeing patients. Add to that the 15.6 average hours spent on paperwork, and doctors are averaging 53.4 hours a week.

Administrative demands varied widely by specialty. Physicians in critical care, for example, spent the most hours on paperwork (19.1 per week), and ophthalmologists spent the least on those tasks, at 9.8.

Orthopedists top earners again

The top four specialties were the same this year as they were last year and were ranked in the same order: orthopedists made the most, at $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons, at $479,000, otolaryngologists, at $455,000, and cardiologists, at $438,000.

Pediatricians and public health/preventive medicine physicians made the least, at $232,000, followed by family physicians ($234,000) and diabetes/endocrinology specialists ($236,000).

Despite the low ranking, public health/preventive medicine providers had the biggest compensation increase of all physicians, up 11% from last year. Two specialties saw a decrease: otolaryngology salaries dropped 1%, and dermatology pay dropped 2%. Pay in gastroenterology and diabetes/endocrinology was virtually unchanged from last year.

Kentucky has highest pay

Ranked by state, physicians in Kentucky made the most on average ($346,000). Utah, Ohio, and North Carolina were new to the top 10 in physician pay this year, pushing out Connecticut, Arkansas, and Nevada.

More than half of all physicians receive incentive bonuses (58% of PCPs and 55% of specialists).

The average incentive bonus is 13% of salary, but that varies by specialty. Orthopedists got an average $96,000 bonus, whereas family physicians got $24,000.

According to the report, “Among physicians who have an incentive bonus, about a third of both PCPs and specialists say the prospect of an incentive bonus has encouraged them to work longer hours.”

Gender gap similar to previous year

Consistent with Medscape compensation reports over the past decade, this year’s report shows a large gender gap in pay. Among PCPs, men made 25% more than women ($264,000 vs. $212,000); among specialists, they made 31% more than their female colleagues ($375,000 vs. $286,000).

Some specialties report positive changes from growing awareness of the gap.

“Many organizations have been carefully analyzing their culture, transparency, and pay practices to make sure they aren’t unintentionally discriminating against any group of employees,” Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, pediatrician and CEO of MGMA, told Medscape Medical News.

She added that the growing physician shortage has given all physicians more leverage in salary demands and that increased recognition of the gender gap is giving women more confidence and more evidence to use in negotiations.

Three specialties have seen large increases in the past 5 years in the percentage of women physicians. Obstetrics/gynecology and pediatrics both saw increases from 50% in 2015 to 58% in 2020. Additionally, women now account for 54% of rheumatologists, up from 29% in 2015.

Would you choose your specialty again?

Of responding physicians who were asked if they would choose their specialty again, internists were least likely to say yes (66%), followed by nephrologists (69%) and family physicians (70%).

Orthopedists were most likely to say they would choose the same specialty (97%), followed by oncologists (96%) and ophthalmologists and dermatologists (both at 95%).

Most physicians overall (77%) said they would choose medicine again.

Despite aggravations and pressures, in this survey and in previous years, physicians have indicated that the top rewards are “gratitude/relationships with patients,” “being very good at what I do/finding answers, diagnoses,” and “knowing that I make the world a better place.” From 24% to 27% ranked those rewards most important.

“Making good money at a job I like” came in fourth, at 12%.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Productivity benchmarks for physicians are likely to be lowered in light of plunging patient numbers from COVID-19, and bonuses are expected to take a hit, according to experts interviewed by Medscape.

“Employed physicians are often getting a guaranteed salary for a month or two, but no bonuses or extra distributions,” Joel Greenwald, MD, a financial adviser for physicians in St. Louis Park, Minn., told Medscape Medical News.

“This amounts to salary reductions of 10% to 30%,” he said.

The COVID-19 crisis dramatically reversed the consistent upward trajectory of physician compensation, according to a Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) survey, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The survey, conducted April 7-8, found that practices have reported an average 55% drop in income. The report also found an average decrease in patient volume of 60%.

Before pandemic, salaries were rising

The pandemic interrupted a steady gain in compensation for this year compared to last, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020.

The report reflects data gathered from October 4, 2019, to February 10, 2020, and includes online survey responses from 17,000 physicians in more than 30 specialties.

Before the pandemic, primary care physician (PCP) pay was up 2.5%, to $243,000, from the previous year’s average of $237,000. Specialists saw a 1.5% increase, from $341,000 in 2019 to $346,000 this year.

Reported compensation for employed physicians included salary, bonus, and profit-sharing contributions. For those self-employed, compensation includes earnings after taxes and deductible business expenses before income tax.

This report reflects only full-time salaries. But most physicians work more than full time. The report notes that physicians overall spent 37.8 hours a week seeing patients. Add to that the 15.6 average hours spent on paperwork, and doctors are averaging 53.4 hours a week.

Administrative demands varied widely by specialty. Physicians in critical care, for example, spent the most hours on paperwork (19.1 per week), and ophthalmologists spent the least on those tasks, at 9.8.

Orthopedists top earners again

The top four specialties were the same this year as they were last year and were ranked in the same order: orthopedists made the most, at $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons, at $479,000, otolaryngologists, at $455,000, and cardiologists, at $438,000.

Pediatricians and public health/preventive medicine physicians made the least, at $232,000, followed by family physicians ($234,000) and diabetes/endocrinology specialists ($236,000).

Despite the low ranking, public health/preventive medicine providers had the biggest compensation increase of all physicians, up 11% from last year. Two specialties saw a decrease: otolaryngology salaries dropped 1%, and dermatology pay dropped 2%. Pay in gastroenterology and diabetes/endocrinology was virtually unchanged from last year.

Kentucky has highest pay

Ranked by state, physicians in Kentucky made the most on average ($346,000). Utah, Ohio, and North Carolina were new to the top 10 in physician pay this year, pushing out Connecticut, Arkansas, and Nevada.

More than half of all physicians receive incentive bonuses (58% of PCPs and 55% of specialists).

The average incentive bonus is 13% of salary, but that varies by specialty. Orthopedists got an average $96,000 bonus, whereas family physicians got $24,000.

According to the report, “Among physicians who have an incentive bonus, about a third of both PCPs and specialists say the prospect of an incentive bonus has encouraged them to work longer hours.”

Gender gap similar to previous year

Consistent with Medscape compensation reports over the past decade, this year’s report shows a large gender gap in pay. Among PCPs, men made 25% more than women ($264,000 vs. $212,000); among specialists, they made 31% more than their female colleagues ($375,000 vs. $286,000).

Some specialties report positive changes from growing awareness of the gap.

“Many organizations have been carefully analyzing their culture, transparency, and pay practices to make sure they aren’t unintentionally discriminating against any group of employees,” Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, pediatrician and CEO of MGMA, told Medscape Medical News.

She added that the growing physician shortage has given all physicians more leverage in salary demands and that increased recognition of the gender gap is giving women more confidence and more evidence to use in negotiations.

Three specialties have seen large increases in the past 5 years in the percentage of women physicians. Obstetrics/gynecology and pediatrics both saw increases from 50% in 2015 to 58% in 2020. Additionally, women now account for 54% of rheumatologists, up from 29% in 2015.

Would you choose your specialty again?

Of responding physicians who were asked if they would choose their specialty again, internists were least likely to say yes (66%), followed by nephrologists (69%) and family physicians (70%).

Orthopedists were most likely to say they would choose the same specialty (97%), followed by oncologists (96%) and ophthalmologists and dermatologists (both at 95%).

Most physicians overall (77%) said they would choose medicine again.

Despite aggravations and pressures, in this survey and in previous years, physicians have indicated that the top rewards are “gratitude/relationships with patients,” “being very good at what I do/finding answers, diagnoses,” and “knowing that I make the world a better place.” From 24% to 27% ranked those rewards most important.

“Making good money at a job I like” came in fourth, at 12%.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Productivity benchmarks for physicians are likely to be lowered in light of plunging patient numbers from COVID-19, and bonuses are expected to take a hit, according to experts interviewed by Medscape.

“Employed physicians are often getting a guaranteed salary for a month or two, but no bonuses or extra distributions,” Joel Greenwald, MD, a financial adviser for physicians in St. Louis Park, Minn., told Medscape Medical News.

“This amounts to salary reductions of 10% to 30%,” he said.

The COVID-19 crisis dramatically reversed the consistent upward trajectory of physician compensation, according to a Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) survey, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The survey, conducted April 7-8, found that practices have reported an average 55% drop in income. The report also found an average decrease in patient volume of 60%.

Before pandemic, salaries were rising

The pandemic interrupted a steady gain in compensation for this year compared to last, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020.

The report reflects data gathered from October 4, 2019, to February 10, 2020, and includes online survey responses from 17,000 physicians in more than 30 specialties.

Before the pandemic, primary care physician (PCP) pay was up 2.5%, to $243,000, from the previous year’s average of $237,000. Specialists saw a 1.5% increase, from $341,000 in 2019 to $346,000 this year.

Reported compensation for employed physicians included salary, bonus, and profit-sharing contributions. For those self-employed, compensation includes earnings after taxes and deductible business expenses before income tax.

This report reflects only full-time salaries. But most physicians work more than full time. The report notes that physicians overall spent 37.8 hours a week seeing patients. Add to that the 15.6 average hours spent on paperwork, and doctors are averaging 53.4 hours a week.

Administrative demands varied widely by specialty. Physicians in critical care, for example, spent the most hours on paperwork (19.1 per week), and ophthalmologists spent the least on those tasks, at 9.8.

Orthopedists top earners again

The top four specialties were the same this year as they were last year and were ranked in the same order: orthopedists made the most, at $511,000, followed by plastic surgeons, at $479,000, otolaryngologists, at $455,000, and cardiologists, at $438,000.

Pediatricians and public health/preventive medicine physicians made the least, at $232,000, followed by family physicians ($234,000) and diabetes/endocrinology specialists ($236,000).

Despite the low ranking, public health/preventive medicine providers had the biggest compensation increase of all physicians, up 11% from last year. Two specialties saw a decrease: otolaryngology salaries dropped 1%, and dermatology pay dropped 2%. Pay in gastroenterology and diabetes/endocrinology was virtually unchanged from last year.

Kentucky has highest pay

Ranked by state, physicians in Kentucky made the most on average ($346,000). Utah, Ohio, and North Carolina were new to the top 10 in physician pay this year, pushing out Connecticut, Arkansas, and Nevada.

More than half of all physicians receive incentive bonuses (58% of PCPs and 55% of specialists).

The average incentive bonus is 13% of salary, but that varies by specialty. Orthopedists got an average $96,000 bonus, whereas family physicians got $24,000.

According to the report, “Among physicians who have an incentive bonus, about a third of both PCPs and specialists say the prospect of an incentive bonus has encouraged them to work longer hours.”

Gender gap similar to previous year

Consistent with Medscape compensation reports over the past decade, this year’s report shows a large gender gap in pay. Among PCPs, men made 25% more than women ($264,000 vs. $212,000); among specialists, they made 31% more than their female colleagues ($375,000 vs. $286,000).

Some specialties report positive changes from growing awareness of the gap.

“Many organizations have been carefully analyzing their culture, transparency, and pay practices to make sure they aren’t unintentionally discriminating against any group of employees,” Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, pediatrician and CEO of MGMA, told Medscape Medical News.

She added that the growing physician shortage has given all physicians more leverage in salary demands and that increased recognition of the gender gap is giving women more confidence and more evidence to use in negotiations.

Three specialties have seen large increases in the past 5 years in the percentage of women physicians. Obstetrics/gynecology and pediatrics both saw increases from 50% in 2015 to 58% in 2020. Additionally, women now account for 54% of rheumatologists, up from 29% in 2015.

Would you choose your specialty again?

Of responding physicians who were asked if they would choose their specialty again, internists were least likely to say yes (66%), followed by nephrologists (69%) and family physicians (70%).

Orthopedists were most likely to say they would choose the same specialty (97%), followed by oncologists (96%) and ophthalmologists and dermatologists (both at 95%).

Most physicians overall (77%) said they would choose medicine again.

Despite aggravations and pressures, in this survey and in previous years, physicians have indicated that the top rewards are “gratitude/relationships with patients,” “being very good at what I do/finding answers, diagnoses,” and “knowing that I make the world a better place.” From 24% to 27% ranked those rewards most important.

“Making good money at a job I like” came in fourth, at 12%.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 21-year-old young adult presented to the ED with a 1-week history of high fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. His mother was SARS-CoV-2 positive by polymerase chain reaction approximately 3 weeks prior; his PCR was negative for SARS-CoV-2.

EyeMark/thinkstockphotos.com

Following admission, he became hypotensive and tachycardic with evidence of myocarditis. His chest x-ray was normal and his O₂ saturation was 100% on room air. His clinical presentation was initially suggestive of toxic shock syndrome without a rash, but despite aggressive fluid resuscitation and broad-spectrum antibiotics, he continued to clinically deteriorate with persistent high fever and increasing cardiac stress. Echocardiography revealed biventricular dysfunction. His laboratory abnormalities included rising inflammatory markers and troponin I and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). A repeat PCR for SARS-CoV-2 was negative on day 2 of illness. He was diagnosed as likely having macrophage-activation syndrome (MAS) despite the atypical features (myocarditis), and he received Anakinra with no apparent response. He also was given intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for his myocarditis and subsequently high-dose steroids. He became afebrile, his blood pressure stabilized, his inflammatory markers declined, and over several days he returned to normal. His COVID-19 antibody test IgG was positive on day 4 of illness.

This case challenged us for several reasons. First, the PCR from his nasopharynx was negative on two occasions, which raises the issue of how sensitive and accurate these PCR tests are for SARS-CoV-2 or are patients with COVID-19–associated hyperinflammatory syndrome still PCR positive? Second, although we have seen many adult cases with a cytokine storm picture similar to this patient, nearly all of the prior cases had chest x-ray abnormalities and hypoxia. Third, the severity of the myocardial dysfunction and rising troponin and BNP also was unusual in our experience with COVID-19 infection. Lastly, the use of antibody detection to SARS-CoV-2 enabled us to confirm recent COIVD-19 disease and see his illness as part of the likely spectrum of clinical syndromes seen with this virus.

The Lancet reported eight children, aged 4-14 years, with a hyperinflammatory shock-like syndrome in early May.¹ The cases had features similar to atypical Kawasaki disease, KD shock syndrome, and toxic shock syndrome. Each case had high fever for multiple days; diarrhea and abdominal pain was present in even children; elevated ferritin, C-reactive protein, d-dimer, increased troponins, and ventricular dysfunction also was present in seven. Most patients had no pulmonary involvement, and most tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 despite four of the eight having direct contact with a COVID-positive family member. All received IVIg and antibiotics; six received aspirin. Seven of the eight made a full recovery; one child died from a large cerebrovascular infarct.

Also in early May, the New York Times described a “mysterious” hyperinflammatory syndrome in children thought to be linked to COVID-19. A total of 76 suspected cases in children had been reported in New York state, three of whom died. The syndrome has been given the name pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome. The syndrome can resemble KD shock syndrome with rash; fever; conjunctivitis; hypotension; and redness in the lips, tongue and mucous membranes . It also can resemble toxic shock syndrome with abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. However, the degree of cardiac inflammation and dysfunction is substantial in many cases and usually beyond that seen in KD or toxic shock.

The syndrome is not limited to the United States. The Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health has created a case definition:²

• A child presenting with persistent fever, inflammation (elevated C-reactive protein, neutrophilia, and lymphopenia) and evidence of single or multiorgan dysfunction (shock, cardiac, respiratory, renal, gastrointestinal, or neurologic) with additional features.
• Exclusion of any other microbial causes such as bacterial sepsis or staphylococcal or streptococcal shock syndromes, infections known to be associated with myocarditis (such as enterovirus).
• SARS-CoV-2 testing may or may not be positive.

As with our young adult, treatment is supportive, nonspecific, and aimed at quieting the inflammatory response. The current thinking is the syndrome is seen as antibody to SARS-CoV-2 appears and frequently the nasopharyngeal PCR is negative. It is hypothesized that the syndrome occurs in genetically predisposed hosts and potentially is a late-onset inflammatory process or potentially an antibody-triggered inflammatory process. The negative PCR from nasopharyngeal specimens reflects that the onset is later in the course of disease; whether fecal samples would be COVID positive is unknown. As with our case, antibody testing for IgG against SARS-CoV-2 is appropriate to confirm COVID-19 disease and may be positive as early as day 7.

The approach needs to be team oriented and include cardiology, rheumatology, infectious diseases, and intensive care specialists working collaboratively. Such cases should be considered COVID positive despite negative PCR tests, and full personal protective equipment should be used as we do not as yet know if live virus could be found in stool. We initiated treatment with Anakinra (an interleukin-1 type-1 receptor inhibitor) as part of our treatment protocol for MAS; we did not appreciate a response. He then received IVIg and high-dose steroids, and he recovered over several days with improved cardiac function and stable blood pressure.

Clearly, we have a steep learning curve about the multisystem hyperinflammatory syndrome emerging in association with SARS-CoV-2 infection. What is the pathogenesis? Is SARS-CoV-2 causative or just an associated finding? Who are the at-risk children, adolescents, and adults? Is there a genetic predisposition? What therapies work best? The eight cases described in London all received IVIg, as did our case, and all but one improved and survived. In adults we have seen substantial inflammation with elevated C-reactive protein (often as high as 300), ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, triglycerides, fibrinogen, and d-dimers, but nearly all have extensive pulmonary disease, hypoxia, and are SARS-CoV-2 positive by PCR. Influenza is also associated with a cytokine storm syndrome in adolescents and young adults.³ The mechanisms influenza virus uses to initiate a cytokine storm and strategies for immunomodulatory treatment may provide insights into COVID-19–associated multisystem hyperinflammatory syndrome.

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and public health and senior attending physician in pediatric infectious diseases at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Camelo is a senior fellow in pediatric infectious diseases at Boston Medical Center. They have no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Riphagen S et al. Lancet. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31094-1.

2. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Guidance: Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19.

3. Liu Q et al.Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan;13(1):3-10.

A 21-year-old young adult presented to the ED with a 1-week history of high fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. His mother was SARS-CoV-2 positive by polymerase chain reaction approximately 3 weeks prior; his PCR was negative for SARS-CoV-2.

EyeMark/thinkstockphotos.com

Following admission, he became hypotensive and tachycardic with evidence of myocarditis. His chest x-ray was normal and his O₂ saturation was 100% on room air. His clinical presentation was initially suggestive of toxic shock syndrome without a rash, but despite aggressive fluid resuscitation and broad-spectrum antibiotics, he continued to clinically deteriorate with persistent high fever and increasing cardiac stress. Echocardiography revealed biventricular dysfunction. His laboratory abnormalities included rising inflammatory markers and troponin I and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). A repeat PCR for SARS-CoV-2 was negative on day 2 of illness. He was diagnosed as likely having macrophage-activation syndrome (MAS) despite the atypical features (myocarditis), and he received Anakinra with no apparent response. He also was given intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for his myocarditis and subsequently high-dose steroids. He became afebrile, his blood pressure stabilized, his inflammatory markers declined, and over several days he returned to normal. His COVID-19 antibody test IgG was positive on day 4 of illness.

This case challenged us for several reasons. First, the PCR from his nasopharynx was negative on two occasions, which raises the issue of how sensitive and accurate these PCR tests are for SARS-CoV-2 or are patients with COVID-19–associated hyperinflammatory syndrome still PCR positive? Second, although we have seen many adult cases with a cytokine storm picture similar to this patient, nearly all of the prior cases had chest x-ray abnormalities and hypoxia. Third, the severity of the myocardial dysfunction and rising troponin and BNP also was unusual in our experience with COVID-19 infection. Lastly, the use of antibody detection to SARS-CoV-2 enabled us to confirm recent COIVD-19 disease and see his illness as part of the likely spectrum of clinical syndromes seen with this virus.

The Lancet reported eight children, aged 4-14 years, with a hyperinflammatory shock-like syndrome in early May.¹ The cases had features similar to atypical Kawasaki disease, KD shock syndrome, and toxic shock syndrome. Each case had high fever for multiple days; diarrhea and abdominal pain was present in even children; elevated ferritin, C-reactive protein, d-dimer, increased troponins, and ventricular dysfunction also was present in seven. Most patients had no pulmonary involvement, and most tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 despite four of the eight having direct contact with a COVID-positive family member. All received IVIg and antibiotics; six received aspirin. Seven of the eight made a full recovery; one child died from a large cerebrovascular infarct.

Also in early May, the New York Times described a “mysterious” hyperinflammatory syndrome in children thought to be linked to COVID-19. A total of 76 suspected cases in children had been reported in New York state, three of whom died. The syndrome has been given the name pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome. The syndrome can resemble KD shock syndrome with rash; fever; conjunctivitis; hypotension; and redness in the lips, tongue and mucous membranes . It also can resemble toxic shock syndrome with abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. However, the degree of cardiac inflammation and dysfunction is substantial in many cases and usually beyond that seen in KD or toxic shock.

The syndrome is not limited to the United States. The Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health has created a case definition:²

• A child presenting with persistent fever, inflammation (elevated C-reactive protein, neutrophilia, and lymphopenia) and evidence of single or multiorgan dysfunction (shock, cardiac, respiratory, renal, gastrointestinal, or neurologic) with additional features.
• Exclusion of any other microbial causes such as bacterial sepsis or staphylococcal or streptococcal shock syndromes, infections known to be associated with myocarditis (such as enterovirus).
• SARS-CoV-2 testing may or may not be positive.

As with our young adult, treatment is supportive, nonspecific, and aimed at quieting the inflammatory response. The current thinking is the syndrome is seen as antibody to SARS-CoV-2 appears and frequently the nasopharyngeal PCR is negative. It is hypothesized that the syndrome occurs in genetically predisposed hosts and potentially is a late-onset inflammatory process or potentially an antibody-triggered inflammatory process. The negative PCR from nasopharyngeal specimens reflects that the onset is later in the course of disease; whether fecal samples would be COVID positive is unknown. As with our case, antibody testing for IgG against SARS-CoV-2 is appropriate to confirm COVID-19 disease and may be positive as early as day 7.

The approach needs to be team oriented and include cardiology, rheumatology, infectious diseases, and intensive care specialists working collaboratively. Such cases should be considered COVID positive despite negative PCR tests, and full personal protective equipment should be used as we do not as yet know if live virus could be found in stool. We initiated treatment with Anakinra (an interleukin-1 type-1 receptor inhibitor) as part of our treatment protocol for MAS; we did not appreciate a response. He then received IVIg and high-dose steroids, and he recovered over several days with improved cardiac function and stable blood pressure.

Clearly, we have a steep learning curve about the multisystem hyperinflammatory syndrome emerging in association with SARS-CoV-2 infection. What is the pathogenesis? Is SARS-CoV-2 causative or just an associated finding? Who are the at-risk children, adolescents, and adults? Is there a genetic predisposition? What therapies work best? The eight cases described in London all received IVIg, as did our case, and all but one improved and survived. In adults we have seen substantial inflammation with elevated C-reactive protein (often as high as 300), ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, triglycerides, fibrinogen, and d-dimers, but nearly all have extensive pulmonary disease, hypoxia, and are SARS-CoV-2 positive by PCR. Influenza is also associated with a cytokine storm syndrome in adolescents and young adults.³ The mechanisms influenza virus uses to initiate a cytokine storm and strategies for immunomodulatory treatment may provide insights into COVID-19–associated multisystem hyperinflammatory syndrome.

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and public health and senior attending physician in pediatric infectious diseases at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Camelo is a senior fellow in pediatric infectious diseases at Boston Medical Center. They have no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Riphagen S et al. Lancet. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31094-1.

2. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Guidance: Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19.

3. Liu Q et al.Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan;13(1):3-10.

A 21-year-old young adult presented to the ED with a 1-week history of high fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. His mother was SARS-CoV-2 positive by polymerase chain reaction approximately 3 weeks prior; his PCR was negative for SARS-CoV-2.

EyeMark/thinkstockphotos.com

Following admission, he became hypotensive and tachycardic with evidence of myocarditis. His chest x-ray was normal and his O₂ saturation was 100% on room air. His clinical presentation was initially suggestive of toxic shock syndrome without a rash, but despite aggressive fluid resuscitation and broad-spectrum antibiotics, he continued to clinically deteriorate with persistent high fever and increasing cardiac stress. Echocardiography revealed biventricular dysfunction. His laboratory abnormalities included rising inflammatory markers and troponin I and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). A repeat PCR for SARS-CoV-2 was negative on day 2 of illness. He was diagnosed as likely having macrophage-activation syndrome (MAS) despite the atypical features (myocarditis), and he received Anakinra with no apparent response. He also was given intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for his myocarditis and subsequently high-dose steroids. He became afebrile, his blood pressure stabilized, his inflammatory markers declined, and over several days he returned to normal. His COVID-19 antibody test IgG was positive on day 4 of illness.

This case challenged us for several reasons. First, the PCR from his nasopharynx was negative on two occasions, which raises the issue of how sensitive and accurate these PCR tests are for SARS-CoV-2 or are patients with COVID-19–associated hyperinflammatory syndrome still PCR positive? Second, although we have seen many adult cases with a cytokine storm picture similar to this patient, nearly all of the prior cases had chest x-ray abnormalities and hypoxia. Third, the severity of the myocardial dysfunction and rising troponin and BNP also was unusual in our experience with COVID-19 infection. Lastly, the use of antibody detection to SARS-CoV-2 enabled us to confirm recent COIVD-19 disease and see his illness as part of the likely spectrum of clinical syndromes seen with this virus.

The Lancet reported eight children, aged 4-14 years, with a hyperinflammatory shock-like syndrome in early May.¹ The cases had features similar to atypical Kawasaki disease, KD shock syndrome, and toxic shock syndrome. Each case had high fever for multiple days; diarrhea and abdominal pain was present in even children; elevated ferritin, C-reactive protein, d-dimer, increased troponins, and ventricular dysfunction also was present in seven. Most patients had no pulmonary involvement, and most tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 despite four of the eight having direct contact with a COVID-positive family member. All received IVIg and antibiotics; six received aspirin. Seven of the eight made a full recovery; one child died from a large cerebrovascular infarct.

Also in early May, the New York Times described a “mysterious” hyperinflammatory syndrome in children thought to be linked to COVID-19. A total of 76 suspected cases in children had been reported in New York state, three of whom died. The syndrome has been given the name pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome. The syndrome can resemble KD shock syndrome with rash; fever; conjunctivitis; hypotension; and redness in the lips, tongue and mucous membranes . It also can resemble toxic shock syndrome with abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. However, the degree of cardiac inflammation and dysfunction is substantial in many cases and usually beyond that seen in KD or toxic shock.

The syndrome is not limited to the United States. The Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health has created a case definition:²

• A child presenting with persistent fever, inflammation (elevated C-reactive protein, neutrophilia, and lymphopenia) and evidence of single or multiorgan dysfunction (shock, cardiac, respiratory, renal, gastrointestinal, or neurologic) with additional features.
• Exclusion of any other microbial causes such as bacterial sepsis or staphylococcal or streptococcal shock syndromes, infections known to be associated with myocarditis (such as enterovirus).
• SARS-CoV-2 testing may or may not be positive.

As with our young adult, treatment is supportive, nonspecific, and aimed at quieting the inflammatory response. The current thinking is the syndrome is seen as antibody to SARS-CoV-2 appears and frequently the nasopharyngeal PCR is negative. It is hypothesized that the syndrome occurs in genetically predisposed hosts and potentially is a late-onset inflammatory process or potentially an antibody-triggered inflammatory process. The negative PCR from nasopharyngeal specimens reflects that the onset is later in the course of disease; whether fecal samples would be COVID positive is unknown. As with our case, antibody testing for IgG against SARS-CoV-2 is appropriate to confirm COVID-19 disease and may be positive as early as day 7.

The approach needs to be team oriented and include cardiology, rheumatology, infectious diseases, and intensive care specialists working collaboratively. Such cases should be considered COVID positive despite negative PCR tests, and full personal protective equipment should be used as we do not as yet know if live virus could be found in stool. We initiated treatment with Anakinra (an interleukin-1 type-1 receptor inhibitor) as part of our treatment protocol for MAS; we did not appreciate a response. He then received IVIg and high-dose steroids, and he recovered over several days with improved cardiac function and stable blood pressure.

Clearly, we have a steep learning curve about the multisystem hyperinflammatory syndrome emerging in association with SARS-CoV-2 infection. What is the pathogenesis? Is SARS-CoV-2 causative or just an associated finding? Who are the at-risk children, adolescents, and adults? Is there a genetic predisposition? What therapies work best? The eight cases described in London all received IVIg, as did our case, and all but one improved and survived. In adults we have seen substantial inflammation with elevated C-reactive protein (often as high as 300), ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, triglycerides, fibrinogen, and d-dimers, but nearly all have extensive pulmonary disease, hypoxia, and are SARS-CoV-2 positive by PCR. Influenza is also associated with a cytokine storm syndrome in adolescents and young adults.³ The mechanisms influenza virus uses to initiate a cytokine storm and strategies for immunomodulatory treatment may provide insights into COVID-19–associated multisystem hyperinflammatory syndrome.

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and public health and senior attending physician in pediatric infectious diseases at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Camelo is a senior fellow in pediatric infectious diseases at Boston Medical Center. They have no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Riphagen S et al. Lancet. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31094-1.

2. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Guidance: Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19.

3. Liu Q et al.Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan;13(1):3-10.

The application of improved chemotherapy regimens and novel chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has increased the complete remission rate to 85%-90%, however, secondary ALL is common, and the prolonged long-term survival rate is only 30%-50% among ALL patients.

Favorable outcomes decrease with increasing age, and overall survival is greater for adult patients with de novo ALL, compared with patients with secondary ALL, according to the Jiansheng Zhong of the department of hematology, Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, and colleagues in a new study published online in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed the results of 8,305 ALL patients undergoing chemotherapy from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database during 1975 to 2015, of which 7,454 (80.1%) cases were in the de novo ALL group, and 851 (19.9%) cases were in the secondary acute lymphoblastic leukemia (sALL) group. They used propensity matching before assessing overall survival between the two groups.

Demographically, the results showed that women ALL patients had a lower risk of death than men [hazard ratio (HR) = .93, P < .01], and that the mortality in blacks was higher than that of whites (HR = 1.29, P < .001).

For both ALL groups, patients aged 45-75 years and patients 75 years and older had a higher risk of death than younger patients (HR = 1.82, P < .001 and HR = 3.85, P < .001, respectively).

Although the mean age of de novo ALL group was significantly less than that of the sALL group (51.1 vs. 60.3 years, P < .001), after the propensity matching, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year overall survival of the de novo ALL group was higher than that of the sALL group at all ages (18-75 years, P < .001).

The authors speculated that one reason for the across-the-board increased mortality in sALL, compared with de novo ALL, might be the fact that sALL patients have been reported to have more MLL gene rearrangements and chromosomal aberrations than are found in de novo ALL. This has previously been suggested as the reason for poor prognosis in secondary ALL patients.

One limitation of the study mentioned by the authors was the lack of individualized chemotherapy data available for analysis. “Considering that the features of sALL and chemotherapeutic modalities or therapy protocols may affect the mortality of sALL, more work is needed to be done in the future to demonstrate the association between chemotherapy and the prognosis of ALL patients, and the influence of cytogenetic lesions and molecular characteristics on sALL,” they concluded.

The authors declared they had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhong J et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Apr 30; doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2020.04.013.

The application of improved chemotherapy regimens and novel chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has increased the complete remission rate to 85%-90%, however, secondary ALL is common, and the prolonged long-term survival rate is only 30%-50% among ALL patients.

Favorable outcomes decrease with increasing age, and overall survival is greater for adult patients with de novo ALL, compared with patients with secondary ALL, according to the Jiansheng Zhong of the department of hematology, Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, and colleagues in a new study published online in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed the results of 8,305 ALL patients undergoing chemotherapy from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database during 1975 to 2015, of which 7,454 (80.1%) cases were in the de novo ALL group, and 851 (19.9%) cases were in the secondary acute lymphoblastic leukemia (sALL) group. They used propensity matching before assessing overall survival between the two groups.

Demographically, the results showed that women ALL patients had a lower risk of death than men [hazard ratio (HR) = .93, P < .01], and that the mortality in blacks was higher than that of whites (HR = 1.29, P < .001).

For both ALL groups, patients aged 45-75 years and patients 75 years and older had a higher risk of death than younger patients (HR = 1.82, P < .001 and HR = 3.85, P < .001, respectively).

Although the mean age of de novo ALL group was significantly less than that of the sALL group (51.1 vs. 60.3 years, P < .001), after the propensity matching, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year overall survival of the de novo ALL group was higher than that of the sALL group at all ages (18-75 years, P < .001).

The authors speculated that one reason for the across-the-board increased mortality in sALL, compared with de novo ALL, might be the fact that sALL patients have been reported to have more MLL gene rearrangements and chromosomal aberrations than are found in de novo ALL. This has previously been suggested as the reason for poor prognosis in secondary ALL patients.

One limitation of the study mentioned by the authors was the lack of individualized chemotherapy data available for analysis. “Considering that the features of sALL and chemotherapeutic modalities or therapy protocols may affect the mortality of sALL, more work is needed to be done in the future to demonstrate the association between chemotherapy and the prognosis of ALL patients, and the influence of cytogenetic lesions and molecular characteristics on sALL,” they concluded.

The authors declared they had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhong J et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Apr 30; doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2020.04.013.

The application of improved chemotherapy regimens and novel chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has increased the complete remission rate to 85%-90%, however, secondary ALL is common, and the prolonged long-term survival rate is only 30%-50% among ALL patients.

Favorable outcomes decrease with increasing age, and overall survival is greater for adult patients with de novo ALL, compared with patients with secondary ALL, according to the Jiansheng Zhong of the department of hematology, Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, and colleagues in a new study published online in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed the results of 8,305 ALL patients undergoing chemotherapy from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database during 1975 to 2015, of which 7,454 (80.1%) cases were in the de novo ALL group, and 851 (19.9%) cases were in the secondary acute lymphoblastic leukemia (sALL) group. They used propensity matching before assessing overall survival between the two groups.

Demographically, the results showed that women ALL patients had a lower risk of death than men [hazard ratio (HR) = .93, P < .01], and that the mortality in blacks was higher than that of whites (HR = 1.29, P < .001).

For both ALL groups, patients aged 45-75 years and patients 75 years and older had a higher risk of death than younger patients (HR = 1.82, P < .001 and HR = 3.85, P < .001, respectively).

Although the mean age of de novo ALL group was significantly less than that of the sALL group (51.1 vs. 60.3 years, P < .001), after the propensity matching, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year overall survival of the de novo ALL group was higher than that of the sALL group at all ages (18-75 years, P < .001).

The authors speculated that one reason for the across-the-board increased mortality in sALL, compared with de novo ALL, might be the fact that sALL patients have been reported to have more MLL gene rearrangements and chromosomal aberrations than are found in de novo ALL. This has previously been suggested as the reason for poor prognosis in secondary ALL patients.

One limitation of the study mentioned by the authors was the lack of individualized chemotherapy data available for analysis. “Considering that the features of sALL and chemotherapeutic modalities or therapy protocols may affect the mortality of sALL, more work is needed to be done in the future to demonstrate the association between chemotherapy and the prognosis of ALL patients, and the influence of cytogenetic lesions and molecular characteristics on sALL,” they concluded.

The authors declared they had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhong J et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 Apr 30; doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2020.04.013.