Federal Practitioner

Hydroxychloroquine, which has been touted without definitive scientific support as a treatment for COVID-19 infection, has special significance for the millions of US military service members and veterans who served in Southwest Asia and other countries with endemic malaria: It’s a critical antimalarial drugs. It’s also needed for US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

On March 24, the VA Inspector General (IG) surveyed VA medical facilities to determine shortages in equipment as well as “antibiotics, sedatives, pain, and antiviral medications,” although there no known effective treatments for COVID-19. The OIG reported that 12 facilities indicated that they anticipated a shortage of medications, including hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, IV immunoglobulin, and nebulizer products in the next 14 to 28 days. Facilities in West Haven, CT; Martinsburg, WV; Baltimore, MD; Washington, DC; Durham, NC; Columbia, SC; Tampa, FL; Detroit, MI; Temple, TX; Oklahoma City, OK; Aurora, CO; Seattle, WA; and Phoenix, AZ, all indicated anticipated shortages. At least one facility explicitly worried about access to medications and supplies produced in China and concern about disrupted supply chains may have concerned other facilities as well.

Nevertheless, hydroxychloroquine was at the top of mind both OIG inspectors as well as Veterans Health Administration (VHA) officials. In a formal response to the OIG survey, the VHA asserted: “We object to OIG’s assertions that a 14-day supply of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine would have any merit. This is both inaccurate and irresponsible. There are active investigations into these drugs and many others, as discussed by Dr. Anthony Fauci. Yet no conclusions have been made on their effectiveness. To insist that a 14 days’ supply of these drugs is appropriate or not appropriate displays this dangerous lack of expertise on COVID-19 and Pandemic response.”

Hydroxychloroquine has been associated with serious adverse effects, such as cardiac arrhythmias and hypoglycemia, and its use against COVID-19 is based, so far, on thin evidence. It has shown promise in a laboratory setting against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and in small studies with patients. Nonetheless, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted limited emergency authorization for certain uses of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19. The rapid approval came apparently at the behest of the White House.

Former FDA leaders say the authorization has jeopardized research to learn the drugs’ real value in pandemic patients. They also charge that the decision undermines FDA’s scientific authority because it appears to be reacting to political advocacy. 

Despite the concerns, a run on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine has been underway. According to a March 20 blog post by Premier, a hospital purchasing organization, orders for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine jumped “dramatically” between March 1 and March 17, by 3,000% and 260%, respectively. Fortunately, these are older, relatively inexpensive oral drugs, Premier says, which means their manufacturing is “far less complicated” than for other drugs. To offer immediate help, Premier notes, drug makers such as Teva and Bayer have announced they will donate millions of tablets of the drugs to hospitals or the federal government for further testing.

Owing to “extraordinary public interest” in the off-label use of these drugs, numerous state boards of pharmacy have enacted emergency restrictions on the inappropriate dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, says the Quinism Foundation, a nonprofit organization that supports education and research on medical conditions caused by chloroquine and related drugs. And because of the very real potential for substitution of more dangerous quinolines (such as mefloquine) in place of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, the foundation recently called on state boards of pharmacy to enact uniform restrictions on the dispensing of all quinoline antimalarial drugs, with the understanding that any emergency use of any of these medications for public health purposes as attempted pandemic countermeasures would be best coordinated nationally through distribution from the Strategic National Stockpile.

In the meantime, research into hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness is ongoing. “Coming at it from every angle”—that’s how Terry Welch, spokesman for the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research told Task & Purpose the Army is “leveraging specific competencies” to attack the COVID-19 problem. Among other things, WRAIR’s Emerging Infectious Diseases Branch (EIDB) is working to develop a vaccine against COVID-19 infection, including several versions of a novel vaccine candidate that has been tested in humans. WRAIR has also been conducting research into novel treatments, such as drug candidates similar to those successfully developed to treat malaria, and monoclonal antibodies.

WRAI was able to start its anti-COVID-19 research in early January—directly on the heels of the first reported cases of infection—because of the Institute’s history of researching related viruses. “If we hadn’t done that, we’d be weeks behind,” said Dr. Kayvon Modjarrad, director of EIDB.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has also begun a clinical trial, the Outcomes Related to COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine among in-patients with symptomatic Diseases (ORCHID) study. The study will enroll more than 500 adults who are hospitalized with COVID-19 or in an emergency department awaiting hospitalization. All patients will continue to receive clinical care; some will be randomly assigned to also receive hydroxychloroquine. The first participants have been enrolled at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, one of the centers in the Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network.

In the “urgent race to find effective therapies,” NIH also launched the first clinical trial in the US to evaluate remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral, as a potential treatment for COVID-19.  The trial, which started March 6 at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, is expected to conclude in May. Clinical trials of remdesivir have been ongoing in China, where the virus originated. The NIH study “takes into account” those trial designs. 

Many US hospitals are already using hydroxychloroquine as first-line therapy for COVID-19 patients, despite the lack of supportive clinical evidence. Wesley Self, MD, MPH, lead investigator in the ORCHID trial, says “[D]ata on hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 are urgently needed to inform clinical practice.”

Not only research is needed, but clear expression of the facts about the drugs. In March, shortly after the president began lauding hydroxychloroquine, a Phoenix man died of cardiac arrest and his wife ended up in critical care after they misguidedly ingested chloroquine phosphate, a chemical used to clean fish tanks.  “[W]e understand that people are trying to find new ways to prevent or treat this virus,” said Dr. Daniel Brooks, medical director of the Banner Poison and Drug Information Center in Phoenix, “but self-medicating is not the way to do so.”

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and one of the main spokespersons for science in the hydroxychloroquine debate, has continued to try to make his concerns clear: “I think we’ve got to be careful that we don’t make that majestic leap to assume this is a knockout drug,” he said in late March. “We still need to do the kinds of studies that definitively prove whether any intervention—not just this one, any intervention—is truly safe and effective.”

Hydroxychloroquine, which has been touted without definitive scientific support as a treatment for COVID-19 infection, has special significance for the millions of US military service members and veterans who served in Southwest Asia and other countries with endemic malaria: It’s a critical antimalarial drugs. It’s also needed for US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

On March 24, the VA Inspector General (IG) surveyed VA medical facilities to determine shortages in equipment as well as “antibiotics, sedatives, pain, and antiviral medications,” although there no known effective treatments for COVID-19. The OIG reported that 12 facilities indicated that they anticipated a shortage of medications, including hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, IV immunoglobulin, and nebulizer products in the next 14 to 28 days. Facilities in West Haven, CT; Martinsburg, WV; Baltimore, MD; Washington, DC; Durham, NC; Columbia, SC; Tampa, FL; Detroit, MI; Temple, TX; Oklahoma City, OK; Aurora, CO; Seattle, WA; and Phoenix, AZ, all indicated anticipated shortages. At least one facility explicitly worried about access to medications and supplies produced in China and concern about disrupted supply chains may have concerned other facilities as well.

Nevertheless, hydroxychloroquine was at the top of mind both OIG inspectors as well as Veterans Health Administration (VHA) officials. In a formal response to the OIG survey, the VHA asserted: “We object to OIG’s assertions that a 14-day supply of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine would have any merit. This is both inaccurate and irresponsible. There are active investigations into these drugs and many others, as discussed by Dr. Anthony Fauci. Yet no conclusions have been made on their effectiveness. To insist that a 14 days’ supply of these drugs is appropriate or not appropriate displays this dangerous lack of expertise on COVID-19 and Pandemic response.”

Hydroxychloroquine has been associated with serious adverse effects, such as cardiac arrhythmias and hypoglycemia, and its use against COVID-19 is based, so far, on thin evidence. It has shown promise in a laboratory setting against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and in small studies with patients. Nonetheless, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted limited emergency authorization for certain uses of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19. The rapid approval came apparently at the behest of the White House.

Former FDA leaders say the authorization has jeopardized research to learn the drugs’ real value in pandemic patients. They also charge that the decision undermines FDA’s scientific authority because it appears to be reacting to political advocacy. 

Despite the concerns, a run on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine has been underway. According to a March 20 blog post by Premier, a hospital purchasing organization, orders for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine jumped “dramatically” between March 1 and March 17, by 3,000% and 260%, respectively. Fortunately, these are older, relatively inexpensive oral drugs, Premier says, which means their manufacturing is “far less complicated” than for other drugs. To offer immediate help, Premier notes, drug makers such as Teva and Bayer have announced they will donate millions of tablets of the drugs to hospitals or the federal government for further testing.

Owing to “extraordinary public interest” in the off-label use of these drugs, numerous state boards of pharmacy have enacted emergency restrictions on the inappropriate dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, says the Quinism Foundation, a nonprofit organization that supports education and research on medical conditions caused by chloroquine and related drugs. And because of the very real potential for substitution of more dangerous quinolines (such as mefloquine) in place of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, the foundation recently called on state boards of pharmacy to enact uniform restrictions on the dispensing of all quinoline antimalarial drugs, with the understanding that any emergency use of any of these medications for public health purposes as attempted pandemic countermeasures would be best coordinated nationally through distribution from the Strategic National Stockpile.

In the meantime, research into hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness is ongoing. “Coming at it from every angle”—that’s how Terry Welch, spokesman for the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research told Task & Purpose the Army is “leveraging specific competencies” to attack the COVID-19 problem. Among other things, WRAIR’s Emerging Infectious Diseases Branch (EIDB) is working to develop a vaccine against COVID-19 infection, including several versions of a novel vaccine candidate that has been tested in humans. WRAIR has also been conducting research into novel treatments, such as drug candidates similar to those successfully developed to treat malaria, and monoclonal antibodies.

WRAI was able to start its anti-COVID-19 research in early January—directly on the heels of the first reported cases of infection—because of the Institute’s history of researching related viruses. “If we hadn’t done that, we’d be weeks behind,” said Dr. Kayvon Modjarrad, director of EIDB.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has also begun a clinical trial, the Outcomes Related to COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine among in-patients with symptomatic Diseases (ORCHID) study. The study will enroll more than 500 adults who are hospitalized with COVID-19 or in an emergency department awaiting hospitalization. All patients will continue to receive clinical care; some will be randomly assigned to also receive hydroxychloroquine. The first participants have been enrolled at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, one of the centers in the Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network.

In the “urgent race to find effective therapies,” NIH also launched the first clinical trial in the US to evaluate remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral, as a potential treatment for COVID-19.  The trial, which started March 6 at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, is expected to conclude in May. Clinical trials of remdesivir have been ongoing in China, where the virus originated. The NIH study “takes into account” those trial designs. 

Many US hospitals are already using hydroxychloroquine as first-line therapy for COVID-19 patients, despite the lack of supportive clinical evidence. Wesley Self, MD, MPH, lead investigator in the ORCHID trial, says “[D]ata on hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 are urgently needed to inform clinical practice.”

Not only research is needed, but clear expression of the facts about the drugs. In March, shortly after the president began lauding hydroxychloroquine, a Phoenix man died of cardiac arrest and his wife ended up in critical care after they misguidedly ingested chloroquine phosphate, a chemical used to clean fish tanks.  “[W]e understand that people are trying to find new ways to prevent or treat this virus,” said Dr. Daniel Brooks, medical director of the Banner Poison and Drug Information Center in Phoenix, “but self-medicating is not the way to do so.”

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and one of the main spokespersons for science in the hydroxychloroquine debate, has continued to try to make his concerns clear: “I think we’ve got to be careful that we don’t make that majestic leap to assume this is a knockout drug,” he said in late March. “We still need to do the kinds of studies that definitively prove whether any intervention—not just this one, any intervention—is truly safe and effective.”

Hydroxychloroquine, which has been touted without definitive scientific support as a treatment for COVID-19 infection, has special significance for the millions of US military service members and veterans who served in Southwest Asia and other countries with endemic malaria: It’s a critical antimalarial drugs. It’s also needed for US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

On March 24, the VA Inspector General (IG) surveyed VA medical facilities to determine shortages in equipment as well as “antibiotics, sedatives, pain, and antiviral medications,” although there no known effective treatments for COVID-19. The OIG reported that 12 facilities indicated that they anticipated a shortage of medications, including hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, IV immunoglobulin, and nebulizer products in the next 14 to 28 days. Facilities in West Haven, CT; Martinsburg, WV; Baltimore, MD; Washington, DC; Durham, NC; Columbia, SC; Tampa, FL; Detroit, MI; Temple, TX; Oklahoma City, OK; Aurora, CO; Seattle, WA; and Phoenix, AZ, all indicated anticipated shortages. At least one facility explicitly worried about access to medications and supplies produced in China and concern about disrupted supply chains may have concerned other facilities as well.

Nevertheless, hydroxychloroquine was at the top of mind both OIG inspectors as well as Veterans Health Administration (VHA) officials. In a formal response to the OIG survey, the VHA asserted: “We object to OIG’s assertions that a 14-day supply of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine would have any merit. This is both inaccurate and irresponsible. There are active investigations into these drugs and many others, as discussed by Dr. Anthony Fauci. Yet no conclusions have been made on their effectiveness. To insist that a 14 days’ supply of these drugs is appropriate or not appropriate displays this dangerous lack of expertise on COVID-19 and Pandemic response.”

Hydroxychloroquine has been associated with serious adverse effects, such as cardiac arrhythmias and hypoglycemia, and its use against COVID-19 is based, so far, on thin evidence. It has shown promise in a laboratory setting against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and in small studies with patients. Nonetheless, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted limited emergency authorization for certain uses of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19. The rapid approval came apparently at the behest of the White House.

Former FDA leaders say the authorization has jeopardized research to learn the drugs’ real value in pandemic patients. They also charge that the decision undermines FDA’s scientific authority because it appears to be reacting to political advocacy. 

Despite the concerns, a run on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine has been underway. According to a March 20 blog post by Premier, a hospital purchasing organization, orders for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine jumped “dramatically” between March 1 and March 17, by 3,000% and 260%, respectively. Fortunately, these are older, relatively inexpensive oral drugs, Premier says, which means their manufacturing is “far less complicated” than for other drugs. To offer immediate help, Premier notes, drug makers such as Teva and Bayer have announced they will donate millions of tablets of the drugs to hospitals or the federal government for further testing.

Owing to “extraordinary public interest” in the off-label use of these drugs, numerous state boards of pharmacy have enacted emergency restrictions on the inappropriate dispensing of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, says the Quinism Foundation, a nonprofit organization that supports education and research on medical conditions caused by chloroquine and related drugs. And because of the very real potential for substitution of more dangerous quinolines (such as mefloquine) in place of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, the foundation recently called on state boards of pharmacy to enact uniform restrictions on the dispensing of all quinoline antimalarial drugs, with the understanding that any emergency use of any of these medications for public health purposes as attempted pandemic countermeasures would be best coordinated nationally through distribution from the Strategic National Stockpile.

In the meantime, research into hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness is ongoing. “Coming at it from every angle”—that’s how Terry Welch, spokesman for the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research told Task & Purpose the Army is “leveraging specific competencies” to attack the COVID-19 problem. Among other things, WRAIR’s Emerging Infectious Diseases Branch (EIDB) is working to develop a vaccine against COVID-19 infection, including several versions of a novel vaccine candidate that has been tested in humans. WRAIR has also been conducting research into novel treatments, such as drug candidates similar to those successfully developed to treat malaria, and monoclonal antibodies.

WRAI was able to start its anti-COVID-19 research in early January—directly on the heels of the first reported cases of infection—because of the Institute’s history of researching related viruses. “If we hadn’t done that, we’d be weeks behind,” said Dr. Kayvon Modjarrad, director of EIDB.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has also begun a clinical trial, the Outcomes Related to COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine among in-patients with symptomatic Diseases (ORCHID) study. The study will enroll more than 500 adults who are hospitalized with COVID-19 or in an emergency department awaiting hospitalization. All patients will continue to receive clinical care; some will be randomly assigned to also receive hydroxychloroquine. The first participants have been enrolled at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, in Nashville, one of the centers in the Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network.

In the “urgent race to find effective therapies,” NIH also launched the first clinical trial in the US to evaluate remdesivir, a broad-spectrum antiviral, as a potential treatment for COVID-19.  The trial, which started March 6 at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, is expected to conclude in May. Clinical trials of remdesivir have been ongoing in China, where the virus originated. The NIH study “takes into account” those trial designs. 

Many US hospitals are already using hydroxychloroquine as first-line therapy for COVID-19 patients, despite the lack of supportive clinical evidence. Wesley Self, MD, MPH, lead investigator in the ORCHID trial, says “[D]ata on hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 are urgently needed to inform clinical practice.”

Not only research is needed, but clear expression of the facts about the drugs. In March, shortly after the president began lauding hydroxychloroquine, a Phoenix man died of cardiac arrest and his wife ended up in critical care after they misguidedly ingested chloroquine phosphate, a chemical used to clean fish tanks.  “[W]e understand that people are trying to find new ways to prevent or treat this virus,” said Dr. Daniel Brooks, medical director of the Banner Poison and Drug Information Center in Phoenix, “but self-medicating is not the way to do so.”

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and one of the main spokespersons for science in the hydroxychloroquine debate, has continued to try to make his concerns clear: “I think we’ve got to be careful that we don’t make that majestic leap to assume this is a knockout drug,” he said in late March. “We still need to do the kinds of studies that definitively prove whether any intervention—not just this one, any intervention—is truly safe and effective.”

The American Medical Association (AMA) along with scores of specialty and state medical societies are asking the Trump administration to help the nation’s clinicians out with an immediate cash infusion that they say they need to sustain their practices, many of which have been crippled by the COVID-19 crisis.

In an April 7 letter to Secretary of US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Alex Azar, the AMA, backed by 137 medical groups, made the case for “immediate financial assistance” from the government for all US physicians and nurse practitioners and physician assistants enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid. These payments would be equal to roughly 1 month’s worth of prepandemic revenue from all payers.

Under the methodology laid out in the letter, HHS would use an individual clinician’s average monthly Medicare payment from October to December 2019 to determine their precrisis monthly revenue.

Because Medicare business generates an average of 35% of practice revenue in most specialties, the letter suggests that HHS triple the monthly Medicare payment to calculate the amount of emergency funding it should provide to each clinician.

The letter acknowledges that this approach wouldn’t work for certain specialties, such as psychiatry, allergy/immunology, obstetrics/gynecology, and pediatrics, which derive far less revenue from Medicare than other specialties do. These physicians’ payouts “should be adjusted upward accordingly,” the letter states.

“Physicians are continuing to put their patients’ needs first to combat this unprecedented public health emergency,” the AMA writes. “We urge you to support them against financial peril while they put their lives and businesses at risk.”

Other Emergency Funding Programs

These disbursements would be separate from the $30 billion in direct provider payments announced on April 7 by Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Because these payments are based on Medicare volume, the vast majority of this money is expected to go to hospitals.

The government is also providing financial support to hospitals, physicians, and other clinicians affected by the pandemic through CMS’s accelerated/advance payment program, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Physician practices can apply to receive upfront payments equal to 3 months’ worth of their historical Medicare payments, but they must pay back these loans, starting at 120 days after receiving them.

In addition, providers with less than 500 employees can apply for Small Business Administration (SBA) loans that were authorized by the CURES Act. If they use at least 75% of this money to cover payroll costs, the loans will be forgiven.

Medical leaders defended their request for direct physician relief in excess of what these three government programs are offering.

“From the very beginning, the AMA has been advocating for [financial] support for physician practices,” AMA President Patrice Harris, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not an either/or, it’s not a choice between hospitals or physician practices, it’s both.”

She made it clear that this applied not only to the direct payments that the CURES Act allocated to healthcare providers, but also to the SBA loans.

“We’ve been pleased to see support through the Small Business Administration, and we know that many practices have applied for loans,” Harris said. “We’ll review this, because physician practices have to be included.”

Thus far, she added, “I haven’t heard of anyone [in a medical practice] who has actually received a loan. We’ll be monitoring that, because that will be key.”

Likewise, Robert Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians (ACP), said he hadn’t heard of any practices receiving SBA loans, although many have applied.

What he has heard is that “people couldn’t even get through the SBA process and the website was freezing up. They also have to find a lender, submit documentation and get approved by the lender. And they’re competing with all the other small businesses” for a finite amount of money.

Doherty said it was unclear how many practices have received advance payments from CMS so far. CMS said it disbursed $34 billion in these payments in the first week of the program. These went to over 17,000 of the more than 25,000 applicants, CMS noted.

The ACP – which joined the AMA in its request to HHS – supports the advanced-payment program, Doherty added, but “a loan is a loan. You have to repay it. It brings in cash now, but it means you don’t have cash a few months from now. That’s different from what we’re recommending, which is an infusion of cash to practices that wouldn’t have to be repaid.”

Another advantage of the AMA-led proposal, he said, is its simplicity. It’s based on data that CMS already has, and it doesn’t require physicians to fill out forms or provide documents.

In contrast, he said, “We don’t think HHS would have the ability to process applications from thousands and thousands of physicians [for direct payments]. To create a situation where they’d have to review applications from physicians for funding out of that [CARES Act] emergency fund is probably almost impossible for HHS to administer effectively.”

Most Practices Need Help

While the medical societies’ letter makes a strong pitch for supporting physicians who are combating COVID-19, Harris and Doherty noted that physicians in all kinds of practice situations desperately need this help.

“We’ve heard from many physician practices that they have trouble making payroll,” Doherty said. “Many of them are not seeking any money out of the practices for themselves right now. They’re just trying to keep their staff employed. And some will shut their doors, unless there’s a significant and immediate infusion of money to them. From a healthcare capacity viewpoint, it’s not going to be to anyone’s benefit to see a substantial number of practices laying off staff or closing up entirely because they don’t have the money coming in to keep the doors open,” he said.

Harris agreed. “We’re hearing from practices large and small all over the country, including solo practices. Even the larger practices are losing revenue,” she pointed out. “They appropriately shut down their offices or reduced their hours. They didn’t want to contribute to the further spread of COVID-19.”

Rural practices and those launched by young physicians are facing especially difficult challenges, Harris added, and some may not make it.

It’s also important for policy makers to look ahead to what lies after the pandemic, she said. “We will come out of this, but when we come out of it there will be a lot of pent-up or unmet need where folks delayed necessary visits. Physicians and practices will have to be ready to go. If practices have to furlough some staff, it’s going to take time to ramp that up. So we’re glad to see support of physician practices so the infrastructure is strong when we start again.”

What happens if HHS turns down the medical societies’ request? “We’re hopeful that the [HHS] secretary will agree to what we’re asking,” Doherty said. While it’s always possible to ask Congress to intervene in the next stimulus bill, he said, that wouldn’t happen fast enough to get the money to physicians when they really need it.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Medical Association (AMA) along with scores of specialty and state medical societies are asking the Trump administration to help the nation’s clinicians out with an immediate cash infusion that they say they need to sustain their practices, many of which have been crippled by the COVID-19 crisis.

In an April 7 letter to Secretary of US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Alex Azar, the AMA, backed by 137 medical groups, made the case for “immediate financial assistance” from the government for all US physicians and nurse practitioners and physician assistants enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid. These payments would be equal to roughly 1 month’s worth of prepandemic revenue from all payers.

Under the methodology laid out in the letter, HHS would use an individual clinician’s average monthly Medicare payment from October to December 2019 to determine their precrisis monthly revenue.

Because Medicare business generates an average of 35% of practice revenue in most specialties, the letter suggests that HHS triple the monthly Medicare payment to calculate the amount of emergency funding it should provide to each clinician.

The letter acknowledges that this approach wouldn’t work for certain specialties, such as psychiatry, allergy/immunology, obstetrics/gynecology, and pediatrics, which derive far less revenue from Medicare than other specialties do. These physicians’ payouts “should be adjusted upward accordingly,” the letter states.

“Physicians are continuing to put their patients’ needs first to combat this unprecedented public health emergency,” the AMA writes. “We urge you to support them against financial peril while they put their lives and businesses at risk.”

Other Emergency Funding Programs

These disbursements would be separate from the $30 billion in direct provider payments announced on April 7 by Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Because these payments are based on Medicare volume, the vast majority of this money is expected to go to hospitals.

The government is also providing financial support to hospitals, physicians, and other clinicians affected by the pandemic through CMS’s accelerated/advance payment program, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Physician practices can apply to receive upfront payments equal to 3 months’ worth of their historical Medicare payments, but they must pay back these loans, starting at 120 days after receiving them.

In addition, providers with less than 500 employees can apply for Small Business Administration (SBA) loans that were authorized by the CURES Act. If they use at least 75% of this money to cover payroll costs, the loans will be forgiven.

Medical leaders defended their request for direct physician relief in excess of what these three government programs are offering.

“From the very beginning, the AMA has been advocating for [financial] support for physician practices,” AMA President Patrice Harris, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not an either/or, it’s not a choice between hospitals or physician practices, it’s both.”

She made it clear that this applied not only to the direct payments that the CURES Act allocated to healthcare providers, but also to the SBA loans.

“We’ve been pleased to see support through the Small Business Administration, and we know that many practices have applied for loans,” Harris said. “We’ll review this, because physician practices have to be included.”

Thus far, she added, “I haven’t heard of anyone [in a medical practice] who has actually received a loan. We’ll be monitoring that, because that will be key.”

Likewise, Robert Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians (ACP), said he hadn’t heard of any practices receiving SBA loans, although many have applied.

What he has heard is that “people couldn’t even get through the SBA process and the website was freezing up. They also have to find a lender, submit documentation and get approved by the lender. And they’re competing with all the other small businesses” for a finite amount of money.

Doherty said it was unclear how many practices have received advance payments from CMS so far. CMS said it disbursed $34 billion in these payments in the first week of the program. These went to over 17,000 of the more than 25,000 applicants, CMS noted.

The ACP – which joined the AMA in its request to HHS – supports the advanced-payment program, Doherty added, but “a loan is a loan. You have to repay it. It brings in cash now, but it means you don’t have cash a few months from now. That’s different from what we’re recommending, which is an infusion of cash to practices that wouldn’t have to be repaid.”

Another advantage of the AMA-led proposal, he said, is its simplicity. It’s based on data that CMS already has, and it doesn’t require physicians to fill out forms or provide documents.

In contrast, he said, “We don’t think HHS would have the ability to process applications from thousands and thousands of physicians [for direct payments]. To create a situation where they’d have to review applications from physicians for funding out of that [CARES Act] emergency fund is probably almost impossible for HHS to administer effectively.”

Most Practices Need Help

While the medical societies’ letter makes a strong pitch for supporting physicians who are combating COVID-19, Harris and Doherty noted that physicians in all kinds of practice situations desperately need this help.

“We’ve heard from many physician practices that they have trouble making payroll,” Doherty said. “Many of them are not seeking any money out of the practices for themselves right now. They’re just trying to keep their staff employed. And some will shut their doors, unless there’s a significant and immediate infusion of money to them. From a healthcare capacity viewpoint, it’s not going to be to anyone’s benefit to see a substantial number of practices laying off staff or closing up entirely because they don’t have the money coming in to keep the doors open,” he said.

Harris agreed. “We’re hearing from practices large and small all over the country, including solo practices. Even the larger practices are losing revenue,” she pointed out. “They appropriately shut down their offices or reduced their hours. They didn’t want to contribute to the further spread of COVID-19.”

Rural practices and those launched by young physicians are facing especially difficult challenges, Harris added, and some may not make it.

It’s also important for policy makers to look ahead to what lies after the pandemic, she said. “We will come out of this, but when we come out of it there will be a lot of pent-up or unmet need where folks delayed necessary visits. Physicians and practices will have to be ready to go. If practices have to furlough some staff, it’s going to take time to ramp that up. So we’re glad to see support of physician practices so the infrastructure is strong when we start again.”

What happens if HHS turns down the medical societies’ request? “We’re hopeful that the [HHS] secretary will agree to what we’re asking,” Doherty said. While it’s always possible to ask Congress to intervene in the next stimulus bill, he said, that wouldn’t happen fast enough to get the money to physicians when they really need it.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Medical Association (AMA) along with scores of specialty and state medical societies are asking the Trump administration to help the nation’s clinicians out with an immediate cash infusion that they say they need to sustain their practices, many of which have been crippled by the COVID-19 crisis.

In an April 7 letter to Secretary of US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Alex Azar, the AMA, backed by 137 medical groups, made the case for “immediate financial assistance” from the government for all US physicians and nurse practitioners and physician assistants enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid. These payments would be equal to roughly 1 month’s worth of prepandemic revenue from all payers.

Under the methodology laid out in the letter, HHS would use an individual clinician’s average monthly Medicare payment from October to December 2019 to determine their precrisis monthly revenue.

Because Medicare business generates an average of 35% of practice revenue in most specialties, the letter suggests that HHS triple the monthly Medicare payment to calculate the amount of emergency funding it should provide to each clinician.

The letter acknowledges that this approach wouldn’t work for certain specialties, such as psychiatry, allergy/immunology, obstetrics/gynecology, and pediatrics, which derive far less revenue from Medicare than other specialties do. These physicians’ payouts “should be adjusted upward accordingly,” the letter states.

“Physicians are continuing to put their patients’ needs first to combat this unprecedented public health emergency,” the AMA writes. “We urge you to support them against financial peril while they put their lives and businesses at risk.”

Other Emergency Funding Programs

These disbursements would be separate from the $30 billion in direct provider payments announced on April 7 by Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Because these payments are based on Medicare volume, the vast majority of this money is expected to go to hospitals.

The government is also providing financial support to hospitals, physicians, and other clinicians affected by the pandemic through CMS’s accelerated/advance payment program, as reported by Medscape Medical News. Physician practices can apply to receive upfront payments equal to 3 months’ worth of their historical Medicare payments, but they must pay back these loans, starting at 120 days after receiving them.

In addition, providers with less than 500 employees can apply for Small Business Administration (SBA) loans that were authorized by the CURES Act. If they use at least 75% of this money to cover payroll costs, the loans will be forgiven.

Medical leaders defended their request for direct physician relief in excess of what these three government programs are offering.

“From the very beginning, the AMA has been advocating for [financial] support for physician practices,” AMA President Patrice Harris, MD, told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not an either/or, it’s not a choice between hospitals or physician practices, it’s both.”

She made it clear that this applied not only to the direct payments that the CURES Act allocated to healthcare providers, but also to the SBA loans.

“We’ve been pleased to see support through the Small Business Administration, and we know that many practices have applied for loans,” Harris said. “We’ll review this, because physician practices have to be included.”

Thus far, she added, “I haven’t heard of anyone [in a medical practice] who has actually received a loan. We’ll be monitoring that, because that will be key.”

Likewise, Robert Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians (ACP), said he hadn’t heard of any practices receiving SBA loans, although many have applied.

What he has heard is that “people couldn’t even get through the SBA process and the website was freezing up. They also have to find a lender, submit documentation and get approved by the lender. And they’re competing with all the other small businesses” for a finite amount of money.

Doherty said it was unclear how many practices have received advance payments from CMS so far. CMS said it disbursed $34 billion in these payments in the first week of the program. These went to over 17,000 of the more than 25,000 applicants, CMS noted.

The ACP – which joined the AMA in its request to HHS – supports the advanced-payment program, Doherty added, but “a loan is a loan. You have to repay it. It brings in cash now, but it means you don’t have cash a few months from now. That’s different from what we’re recommending, which is an infusion of cash to practices that wouldn’t have to be repaid.”

Another advantage of the AMA-led proposal, he said, is its simplicity. It’s based on data that CMS already has, and it doesn’t require physicians to fill out forms or provide documents.

In contrast, he said, “We don’t think HHS would have the ability to process applications from thousands and thousands of physicians [for direct payments]. To create a situation where they’d have to review applications from physicians for funding out of that [CARES Act] emergency fund is probably almost impossible for HHS to administer effectively.”

Most Practices Need Help

While the medical societies’ letter makes a strong pitch for supporting physicians who are combating COVID-19, Harris and Doherty noted that physicians in all kinds of practice situations desperately need this help.

“We’ve heard from many physician practices that they have trouble making payroll,” Doherty said. “Many of them are not seeking any money out of the practices for themselves right now. They’re just trying to keep their staff employed. And some will shut their doors, unless there’s a significant and immediate infusion of money to them. From a healthcare capacity viewpoint, it’s not going to be to anyone’s benefit to see a substantial number of practices laying off staff or closing up entirely because they don’t have the money coming in to keep the doors open,” he said.

Harris agreed. “We’re hearing from practices large and small all over the country, including solo practices. Even the larger practices are losing revenue,” she pointed out. “They appropriately shut down their offices or reduced their hours. They didn’t want to contribute to the further spread of COVID-19.”

Rural practices and those launched by young physicians are facing especially difficult challenges, Harris added, and some may not make it.

It’s also important for policy makers to look ahead to what lies after the pandemic, she said. “We will come out of this, but when we come out of it there will be a lot of pent-up or unmet need where folks delayed necessary visits. Physicians and practices will have to be ready to go. If practices have to furlough some staff, it’s going to take time to ramp that up. So we’re glad to see support of physician practices so the infrastructure is strong when we start again.”

What happens if HHS turns down the medical societies’ request? “We’re hopeful that the [HHS] secretary will agree to what we’re asking,” Doherty said. While it’s always possible to ask Congress to intervene in the next stimulus bill, he said, that wouldn’t happen fast enough to get the money to physicians when they really need it.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although conflicting, the available data indicate that SARS-CoV-2 could continue to spread in warmer spring and summer months in the US, according to a new report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS).

Current data suggest that the novel coronavirus may be transmitted less efficiently in higher temperatures and humidity, but the studies are not conclusive because of poor data quality, confounding factors, and the relatively short existence of the pandemic, which makes it difficult to determine its true course, writes David A. Relman, MD, a member of the NAS’ Standing Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases and 21st Century Health Threats, in a rapid expert consultation letter to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on April 7.

A number of factors could influence whether SARS-CoV-2 follows the same seasonal pattern as the influenza virus and other seasonal coronaviruses, which wane during warmer months, writes Relman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University in California.

But he pointed out that previous coronavirus strains that have caused serious illness – SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV – “have not demonstrated any evidence of seasonality following their emergence.”

Relman cites an example from the current outbreak: “Given that countries currently in ‘summer’ climates, such as Australia and Iran, are experiencing rapid virus spread, a decrease in cases with increases in humidity and temperature elsewhere should not be assumed…Additional studies as the pandemic unfolds could shed more light on the effects of climate on transmission,” he writes.

And even if SARS-CoV-2 turns out to be less infectious in warmer months, “given the lack of host immunity globally, this reduction in transmission efficiency may not lead to a significant reduction in disease spread without the concomitant adoption of major public health interventions,” writes Relman.

Conflicting Data

Relman cites a handful of studies indicating that, on the one hand, SARS-CoV-2 has declined with increasing humidity and temperatures, but that conversely, infectivity has increased in warmer, more humid climates.

A recent study in China, published on the repository and international journal site SSRN, found that while increased temperatures and humidity decreased the infectivity, “the average R0 (R naught) was still close to 2 at maximum temperatures and humidity in their data set, suggesting that the virus will still spread exponentially at higher temperatures and humidity,” said Relman.

Several other studies found higher growth rates in temperate regions. One study, still in preprint on MedRxiv, looked at 310 geographic regions across 116 countries, and shows an inverse relationship between temperature and humidity and the incidence of COVID-19.

All the available studies so far have significant limitations, including limitation in time and location, confounding factors having to do with geography, access to and the quality of public health and health care systems, human behavior, and the availability of testing, said Relman.

However, he said, “it is useful to note that pandemic influenza strains have not exhibited the typical seasonal pattern of endemic/epidemic strains,” and, regardless of whether they started in a warmer or a cooler month, “all had a peak second wave approximately six months after the emergence in the human population.”

Worrisome Persistence on Masks

Seasonality can also be potentially gauged in the laboratory. Most of the studies on environmental persistence of SARS-CoV-2 have been conducted using virus grown in tissue culture. But that, too, is an imperfect method.

Virus disseminated into the environment from naturally infected humans likely has different survival properties than virus grown in culture, said Relman.

In addition, many labs cannot, or fail to, control and vary relative humidity, the committee letter noted. The aerosol studies so far have used humidity levels of 50% to 65%, which is more favorable to decay, while respiratory fluid is more likely to protect against infectivity, and the 20%-to-40% wintertime indoor humidity in temperate regions is more favorable for virus survival.

Even with these caveats, the committee cited worrisome studies on SARS-CoV-2 survival.

In a study published April 2 online in The Lancet, Hong Kong researchers reported significant reductions in virus in culture starting with temperatures at 37°C (98.6°F) or above.

On surfaces at a room temperature of 22°C (71.6°F) with a relative humidity of 65%, there was no infectious virus on printing paper or tissue papers after just 3 hours. It took 4 days for an infectious level to break down on glass and money, and 7 days for stainless steel and plastic. But after 7 days, investigators found 0.1% of the original inoculum on the outside of a surgical mask.

“The persistence of infectious virus on PPE is concerning,” writes Relman, noting that more studies are needed to guide healthcare workers, especially on what might be used to disinfect personal protective equipment “when they cannot be discarded after single use.”

Chad Roy, PhD, a researcher from Tulane University National Primate Research Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, told Relman by phone that in experiments where the virus was suspended as an aerosol at a temperature of 23°C (73.4° F) and about 50% humidity, SARS-CoV-2 had a longer half-life than the influenza virus, SARS-CoV-1, monkeypox virus, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

“This result is also concerning, but quite preliminary,” writes Relman.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although conflicting, the available data indicate that SARS-CoV-2 could continue to spread in warmer spring and summer months in the US, according to a new report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS).

Current data suggest that the novel coronavirus may be transmitted less efficiently in higher temperatures and humidity, but the studies are not conclusive because of poor data quality, confounding factors, and the relatively short existence of the pandemic, which makes it difficult to determine its true course, writes David A. Relman, MD, a member of the NAS’ Standing Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases and 21st Century Health Threats, in a rapid expert consultation letter to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on April 7.

A number of factors could influence whether SARS-CoV-2 follows the same seasonal pattern as the influenza virus and other seasonal coronaviruses, which wane during warmer months, writes Relman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University in California.

But he pointed out that previous coronavirus strains that have caused serious illness – SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV – “have not demonstrated any evidence of seasonality following their emergence.”

Relman cites an example from the current outbreak: “Given that countries currently in ‘summer’ climates, such as Australia and Iran, are experiencing rapid virus spread, a decrease in cases with increases in humidity and temperature elsewhere should not be assumed…Additional studies as the pandemic unfolds could shed more light on the effects of climate on transmission,” he writes.

And even if SARS-CoV-2 turns out to be less infectious in warmer months, “given the lack of host immunity globally, this reduction in transmission efficiency may not lead to a significant reduction in disease spread without the concomitant adoption of major public health interventions,” writes Relman.

Conflicting Data

Relman cites a handful of studies indicating that, on the one hand, SARS-CoV-2 has declined with increasing humidity and temperatures, but that conversely, infectivity has increased in warmer, more humid climates.

A recent study in China, published on the repository and international journal site SSRN, found that while increased temperatures and humidity decreased the infectivity, “the average R0 (R naught) was still close to 2 at maximum temperatures and humidity in their data set, suggesting that the virus will still spread exponentially at higher temperatures and humidity,” said Relman.

Several other studies found higher growth rates in temperate regions. One study, still in preprint on MedRxiv, looked at 310 geographic regions across 116 countries, and shows an inverse relationship between temperature and humidity and the incidence of COVID-19.

All the available studies so far have significant limitations, including limitation in time and location, confounding factors having to do with geography, access to and the quality of public health and health care systems, human behavior, and the availability of testing, said Relman.

However, he said, “it is useful to note that pandemic influenza strains have not exhibited the typical seasonal pattern of endemic/epidemic strains,” and, regardless of whether they started in a warmer or a cooler month, “all had a peak second wave approximately six months after the emergence in the human population.”

Worrisome Persistence on Masks

Seasonality can also be potentially gauged in the laboratory. Most of the studies on environmental persistence of SARS-CoV-2 have been conducted using virus grown in tissue culture. But that, too, is an imperfect method.

Virus disseminated into the environment from naturally infected humans likely has different survival properties than virus grown in culture, said Relman.

In addition, many labs cannot, or fail to, control and vary relative humidity, the committee letter noted. The aerosol studies so far have used humidity levels of 50% to 65%, which is more favorable to decay, while respiratory fluid is more likely to protect against infectivity, and the 20%-to-40% wintertime indoor humidity in temperate regions is more favorable for virus survival.

Even with these caveats, the committee cited worrisome studies on SARS-CoV-2 survival.

In a study published April 2 online in The Lancet, Hong Kong researchers reported significant reductions in virus in culture starting with temperatures at 37°C (98.6°F) or above.

On surfaces at a room temperature of 22°C (71.6°F) with a relative humidity of 65%, there was no infectious virus on printing paper or tissue papers after just 3 hours. It took 4 days for an infectious level to break down on glass and money, and 7 days for stainless steel and plastic. But after 7 days, investigators found 0.1% of the original inoculum on the outside of a surgical mask.

“The persistence of infectious virus on PPE is concerning,” writes Relman, noting that more studies are needed to guide healthcare workers, especially on what might be used to disinfect personal protective equipment “when they cannot be discarded after single use.”

Chad Roy, PhD, a researcher from Tulane University National Primate Research Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, told Relman by phone that in experiments where the virus was suspended as an aerosol at a temperature of 23°C (73.4° F) and about 50% humidity, SARS-CoV-2 had a longer half-life than the influenza virus, SARS-CoV-1, monkeypox virus, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

“This result is also concerning, but quite preliminary,” writes Relman.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although conflicting, the available data indicate that SARS-CoV-2 could continue to spread in warmer spring and summer months in the US, according to a new report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS).

Current data suggest that the novel coronavirus may be transmitted less efficiently in higher temperatures and humidity, but the studies are not conclusive because of poor data quality, confounding factors, and the relatively short existence of the pandemic, which makes it difficult to determine its true course, writes David A. Relman, MD, a member of the NAS’ Standing Committee on Emerging Infectious Diseases and 21st Century Health Threats, in a rapid expert consultation letter to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on April 7.

A number of factors could influence whether SARS-CoV-2 follows the same seasonal pattern as the influenza virus and other seasonal coronaviruses, which wane during warmer months, writes Relman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University in California.

But he pointed out that previous coronavirus strains that have caused serious illness – SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV – “have not demonstrated any evidence of seasonality following their emergence.”

Relman cites an example from the current outbreak: “Given that countries currently in ‘summer’ climates, such as Australia and Iran, are experiencing rapid virus spread, a decrease in cases with increases in humidity and temperature elsewhere should not be assumed…Additional studies as the pandemic unfolds could shed more light on the effects of climate on transmission,” he writes.

And even if SARS-CoV-2 turns out to be less infectious in warmer months, “given the lack of host immunity globally, this reduction in transmission efficiency may not lead to a significant reduction in disease spread without the concomitant adoption of major public health interventions,” writes Relman.

Conflicting Data

Relman cites a handful of studies indicating that, on the one hand, SARS-CoV-2 has declined with increasing humidity and temperatures, but that conversely, infectivity has increased in warmer, more humid climates.

A recent study in China, published on the repository and international journal site SSRN, found that while increased temperatures and humidity decreased the infectivity, “the average R0 (R naught) was still close to 2 at maximum temperatures and humidity in their data set, suggesting that the virus will still spread exponentially at higher temperatures and humidity,” said Relman.

Several other studies found higher growth rates in temperate regions. One study, still in preprint on MedRxiv, looked at 310 geographic regions across 116 countries, and shows an inverse relationship between temperature and humidity and the incidence of COVID-19.

All the available studies so far have significant limitations, including limitation in time and location, confounding factors having to do with geography, access to and the quality of public health and health care systems, human behavior, and the availability of testing, said Relman.

However, he said, “it is useful to note that pandemic influenza strains have not exhibited the typical seasonal pattern of endemic/epidemic strains,” and, regardless of whether they started in a warmer or a cooler month, “all had a peak second wave approximately six months after the emergence in the human population.”

Worrisome Persistence on Masks

Seasonality can also be potentially gauged in the laboratory. Most of the studies on environmental persistence of SARS-CoV-2 have been conducted using virus grown in tissue culture. But that, too, is an imperfect method.

Virus disseminated into the environment from naturally infected humans likely has different survival properties than virus grown in culture, said Relman.

In addition, many labs cannot, or fail to, control and vary relative humidity, the committee letter noted. The aerosol studies so far have used humidity levels of 50% to 65%, which is more favorable to decay, while respiratory fluid is more likely to protect against infectivity, and the 20%-to-40% wintertime indoor humidity in temperate regions is more favorable for virus survival.

Even with these caveats, the committee cited worrisome studies on SARS-CoV-2 survival.

In a study published April 2 online in The Lancet, Hong Kong researchers reported significant reductions in virus in culture starting with temperatures at 37°C (98.6°F) or above.

On surfaces at a room temperature of 22°C (71.6°F) with a relative humidity of 65%, there was no infectious virus on printing paper or tissue papers after just 3 hours. It took 4 days for an infectious level to break down on glass and money, and 7 days for stainless steel and plastic. But after 7 days, investigators found 0.1% of the original inoculum on the outside of a surgical mask.

“The persistence of infectious virus on PPE is concerning,” writes Relman, noting that more studies are needed to guide healthcare workers, especially on what might be used to disinfect personal protective equipment “when they cannot be discarded after single use.”

Chad Roy, PhD, a researcher from Tulane University National Primate Research Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, told Relman by phone that in experiments where the virus was suspended as an aerosol at a temperature of 23°C (73.4° F) and about 50% humidity, SARS-CoV-2 had a longer half-life than the influenza virus, SARS-CoV-1, monkeypox virus, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

“This result is also concerning, but quite preliminary,” writes Relman.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data on the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir (Gilead) suggest clinical improvement in 36 of 53 patients (68%) hospitalized for severe COVID-19, according to a new study published online April 10 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

But experts are warning that these data come from compassionate use in a wide variety of patients, with no randomization and no control group.

“It is impossible to know the outcome for this relatively small group of patients had they not received remdesivir,” commented Stephen Griffin, PhD, associate professor at the University of Leeds School of Medicine, United Kingdom, who was not involved with the study.

“As the authors point out, a randomized clinical trial is necessary to determine the true effectiveness of this drug,” Griffin added in comments he provided to the Science Media Centre in London. Such trials are underway.

“The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable,” said Stephen Evans, MSc, FRCP, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who provided comments to the Science Media Centre.

Evans notes that the authors describe multiple caveats that limit interpretation of the results, including the small sample size, the relatively short follow-up, missing data, no follow-up on eight patients, and lack of a randomized control group.

Meanwhile, Josh Farkas, MD, who writes the PulmCrit blog, details his criticisms in a piece entitled, “Eleven reasons the NEJM paper on remdesivir reveals nothing.” Beyond the issues the authors list, he points out several more, including cherry picking of patients. “Remdesivir was aggressively sought-after by thousands of patients with COVID-19,” he writes. “Of these patients, 61 ended up receiving the drug. Why did these patients receive medication, out of scores of patients applying to receive it?”

Also, there are no follow-up data for 8 of the 61 patients who received an initial dose of the drug, leaving 53 for the published analysis, continues Farkas, who is an assistant professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Vermont in Burlington.

“What happened to these patients? Did they die from anaphylaxis? Did they get well, sign out against medical advice, and go party? This is unknown — but I’m worried that these patients actually didn’t fare so well,” Farkas writes.

Farkas, like Evans and Griffin, concludes that the data are largely unusable. “Until [a randomized controlled trial] is performed, further compassionate use of remdesivir probably isn’t justified,” he writes.
 

Data from Compassionate Use Program

The data in the NEJM article come from a compassionate use program set up by Gilead. The company says it has provided emergency access to remdesivir for several hundred patients in the United States, Europe, and Japan.

The authors, led by Jonathan Grein, MD, from Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, report on 61 patients who received remdesivir as part of this program.

The authors, several of whom are employees of Gilead, note that data on 8 patients could not be analyzed (including 7 patients with no posttreatment data and 1 with a dosing error).

Of the 53 patients whose data were included, 22 were in the United States, 22 in Europe or Canada, and 9 in Japan.

These were patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air, or who were receiving oxygen support.

Patients received a 10-day course of remdesivir, consisting of 200 mg administered intravenously on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for the remaining 9 days of treatment.

At baseline, 30 patients (57%) were receiving mechanical ventilation and 4 (8%) were receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

During a median follow-up of 18 days, 36 patients (68%) had an improvement in oxygen-support class, including 17 (57%) of 30 patients receiving mechanical ventilation who were extubated.

A total of 25 patients (47%) were discharged, and 7 patients (13%) died; mortality was 18% (6 of 34) among patients receiving invasive ventilation and 5% (1 of 19) among those not receiving invasive ventilation.

While the authors acknowledge limitations of the data they collected, they nevertheless comment that “comparisons with contemporaneous cohorts from the literature, in whom general care is expected to be consistent with that of our cohort, suggest that remdesivir may have clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19.”

“Currently there is no proven treatment for COVID-19. We cannot draw definitive conclusions from these data, but the observations from this group of hospitalized patients who received remdesivir are hopeful,” said Grein in a Cedars–Sinai press release. “We look forward to the results of controlled clinical trials to potentially validate these findings.”

Experts are not convinced, however.

“The drug was being used in patients who were severely ill, but reporting on 61 out of several hundred makes it clear that generalizations about the efficacy and safety must be treated with great caution,” said Evans. “There is some evidence suggesting efficacy, but we simply do not know what would have happened to these patients had they not been given the drug.”

“I would say it’s impossible to discern whether there is a treatment effect or not,” said Duncan Richards, MA, DM, FRCP, clinical pharmacologist and professor of clinical therapeutics, University of Oxford, UK. “This is in part due to the mixed patient population, ranging from those needing low dose oxygen, who are more likely to survive anyway, to much more severe cases ... [who] show a much more mixed picture.”

“There are ongoing large international randomized controlled trials with remdesivir — we really need to see those data, “ he said in comments to Science Media Centre. “Safe and effective treatments for COVID-19 are critically needed and should be expedited wherever possible, but it’s important not to compromise on the quality of the research.”

Multiple coauthors are employees of Gilead, the company developing remdesivir. Griffin, Evans, and Farkas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Richards consults for GlaxoSmithKline in the field of drug safety. GSK does not manufacture any of the products mentioned.

N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 10. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data on the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir (Gilead) suggest clinical improvement in 36 of 53 patients (68%) hospitalized for severe COVID-19, according to a new study published online April 10 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

But experts are warning that these data come from compassionate use in a wide variety of patients, with no randomization and no control group.

“It is impossible to know the outcome for this relatively small group of patients had they not received remdesivir,” commented Stephen Griffin, PhD, associate professor at the University of Leeds School of Medicine, United Kingdom, who was not involved with the study.

“As the authors point out, a randomized clinical trial is necessary to determine the true effectiveness of this drug,” Griffin added in comments he provided to the Science Media Centre in London. Such trials are underway.

“The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable,” said Stephen Evans, MSc, FRCP, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who provided comments to the Science Media Centre.

Evans notes that the authors describe multiple caveats that limit interpretation of the results, including the small sample size, the relatively short follow-up, missing data, no follow-up on eight patients, and lack of a randomized control group.

Meanwhile, Josh Farkas, MD, who writes the PulmCrit blog, details his criticisms in a piece entitled, “Eleven reasons the NEJM paper on remdesivir reveals nothing.” Beyond the issues the authors list, he points out several more, including cherry picking of patients. “Remdesivir was aggressively sought-after by thousands of patients with COVID-19,” he writes. “Of these patients, 61 ended up receiving the drug. Why did these patients receive medication, out of scores of patients applying to receive it?”

Also, there are no follow-up data for 8 of the 61 patients who received an initial dose of the drug, leaving 53 for the published analysis, continues Farkas, who is an assistant professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Vermont in Burlington.

“What happened to these patients? Did they die from anaphylaxis? Did they get well, sign out against medical advice, and go party? This is unknown — but I’m worried that these patients actually didn’t fare so well,” Farkas writes.

Farkas, like Evans and Griffin, concludes that the data are largely unusable. “Until [a randomized controlled trial] is performed, further compassionate use of remdesivir probably isn’t justified,” he writes.
 

Data from Compassionate Use Program

The data in the NEJM article come from a compassionate use program set up by Gilead. The company says it has provided emergency access to remdesivir for several hundred patients in the United States, Europe, and Japan.

The authors, led by Jonathan Grein, MD, from Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, report on 61 patients who received remdesivir as part of this program.

The authors, several of whom are employees of Gilead, note that data on 8 patients could not be analyzed (including 7 patients with no posttreatment data and 1 with a dosing error).

Of the 53 patients whose data were included, 22 were in the United States, 22 in Europe or Canada, and 9 in Japan.

These were patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air, or who were receiving oxygen support.

Patients received a 10-day course of remdesivir, consisting of 200 mg administered intravenously on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for the remaining 9 days of treatment.

At baseline, 30 patients (57%) were receiving mechanical ventilation and 4 (8%) were receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

During a median follow-up of 18 days, 36 patients (68%) had an improvement in oxygen-support class, including 17 (57%) of 30 patients receiving mechanical ventilation who were extubated.

A total of 25 patients (47%) were discharged, and 7 patients (13%) died; mortality was 18% (6 of 34) among patients receiving invasive ventilation and 5% (1 of 19) among those not receiving invasive ventilation.

While the authors acknowledge limitations of the data they collected, they nevertheless comment that “comparisons with contemporaneous cohorts from the literature, in whom general care is expected to be consistent with that of our cohort, suggest that remdesivir may have clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19.”

“Currently there is no proven treatment for COVID-19. We cannot draw definitive conclusions from these data, but the observations from this group of hospitalized patients who received remdesivir are hopeful,” said Grein in a Cedars–Sinai press release. “We look forward to the results of controlled clinical trials to potentially validate these findings.”

Experts are not convinced, however.

“The drug was being used in patients who were severely ill, but reporting on 61 out of several hundred makes it clear that generalizations about the efficacy and safety must be treated with great caution,” said Evans. “There is some evidence suggesting efficacy, but we simply do not know what would have happened to these patients had they not been given the drug.”

“I would say it’s impossible to discern whether there is a treatment effect or not,” said Duncan Richards, MA, DM, FRCP, clinical pharmacologist and professor of clinical therapeutics, University of Oxford, UK. “This is in part due to the mixed patient population, ranging from those needing low dose oxygen, who are more likely to survive anyway, to much more severe cases ... [who] show a much more mixed picture.”

“There are ongoing large international randomized controlled trials with remdesivir — we really need to see those data, “ he said in comments to Science Media Centre. “Safe and effective treatments for COVID-19 are critically needed and should be expedited wherever possible, but it’s important not to compromise on the quality of the research.”

Multiple coauthors are employees of Gilead, the company developing remdesivir. Griffin, Evans, and Farkas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Richards consults for GlaxoSmithKline in the field of drug safety. GSK does not manufacture any of the products mentioned.

N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 10. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data on the investigational antiviral drug remdesivir (Gilead) suggest clinical improvement in 36 of 53 patients (68%) hospitalized for severe COVID-19, according to a new study published online April 10 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

But experts are warning that these data come from compassionate use in a wide variety of patients, with no randomization and no control group.

“It is impossible to know the outcome for this relatively small group of patients had they not received remdesivir,” commented Stephen Griffin, PhD, associate professor at the University of Leeds School of Medicine, United Kingdom, who was not involved with the study.

“As the authors point out, a randomized clinical trial is necessary to determine the true effectiveness of this drug,” Griffin added in comments he provided to the Science Media Centre in London. Such trials are underway.

“The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable,” said Stephen Evans, MSc, FRCP, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, who provided comments to the Science Media Centre.

Evans notes that the authors describe multiple caveats that limit interpretation of the results, including the small sample size, the relatively short follow-up, missing data, no follow-up on eight patients, and lack of a randomized control group.

Meanwhile, Josh Farkas, MD, who writes the PulmCrit blog, details his criticisms in a piece entitled, “Eleven reasons the NEJM paper on remdesivir reveals nothing.” Beyond the issues the authors list, he points out several more, including cherry picking of patients. “Remdesivir was aggressively sought-after by thousands of patients with COVID-19,” he writes. “Of these patients, 61 ended up receiving the drug. Why did these patients receive medication, out of scores of patients applying to receive it?”

Also, there are no follow-up data for 8 of the 61 patients who received an initial dose of the drug, leaving 53 for the published analysis, continues Farkas, who is an assistant professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Vermont in Burlington.

“What happened to these patients? Did they die from anaphylaxis? Did they get well, sign out against medical advice, and go party? This is unknown — but I’m worried that these patients actually didn’t fare so well,” Farkas writes.

Farkas, like Evans and Griffin, concludes that the data are largely unusable. “Until [a randomized controlled trial] is performed, further compassionate use of remdesivir probably isn’t justified,” he writes.
 

Data from Compassionate Use Program

The data in the NEJM article come from a compassionate use program set up by Gilead. The company says it has provided emergency access to remdesivir for several hundred patients in the United States, Europe, and Japan.

The authors, led by Jonathan Grein, MD, from Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, report on 61 patients who received remdesivir as part of this program.

The authors, several of whom are employees of Gilead, note that data on 8 patients could not be analyzed (including 7 patients with no posttreatment data and 1 with a dosing error).

Of the 53 patients whose data were included, 22 were in the United States, 22 in Europe or Canada, and 9 in Japan.

These were patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air, or who were receiving oxygen support.

Patients received a 10-day course of remdesivir, consisting of 200 mg administered intravenously on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for the remaining 9 days of treatment.

At baseline, 30 patients (57%) were receiving mechanical ventilation and 4 (8%) were receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

During a median follow-up of 18 days, 36 patients (68%) had an improvement in oxygen-support class, including 17 (57%) of 30 patients receiving mechanical ventilation who were extubated.

A total of 25 patients (47%) were discharged, and 7 patients (13%) died; mortality was 18% (6 of 34) among patients receiving invasive ventilation and 5% (1 of 19) among those not receiving invasive ventilation.

While the authors acknowledge limitations of the data they collected, they nevertheless comment that “comparisons with contemporaneous cohorts from the literature, in whom general care is expected to be consistent with that of our cohort, suggest that remdesivir may have clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID-19.”

“Currently there is no proven treatment for COVID-19. We cannot draw definitive conclusions from these data, but the observations from this group of hospitalized patients who received remdesivir are hopeful,” said Grein in a Cedars–Sinai press release. “We look forward to the results of controlled clinical trials to potentially validate these findings.”

Experts are not convinced, however.

“The drug was being used in patients who were severely ill, but reporting on 61 out of several hundred makes it clear that generalizations about the efficacy and safety must be treated with great caution,” said Evans. “There is some evidence suggesting efficacy, but we simply do not know what would have happened to these patients had they not been given the drug.”

“I would say it’s impossible to discern whether there is a treatment effect or not,” said Duncan Richards, MA, DM, FRCP, clinical pharmacologist and professor of clinical therapeutics, University of Oxford, UK. “This is in part due to the mixed patient population, ranging from those needing low dose oxygen, who are more likely to survive anyway, to much more severe cases ... [who] show a much more mixed picture.”

“There are ongoing large international randomized controlled trials with remdesivir — we really need to see those data, “ he said in comments to Science Media Centre. “Safe and effective treatments for COVID-19 are critically needed and should be expedited wherever possible, but it’s important not to compromise on the quality of the research.”

Multiple coauthors are employees of Gilead, the company developing remdesivir. Griffin, Evans, and Farkas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Richards consults for GlaxoSmithKline in the field of drug safety. GSK does not manufacture any of the products mentioned.

N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 10. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While there are still no proven treatments for COVID-19, the antiviral medication remdesivir is currently the most promising therapy under investigation, according to authors of a recent review covering nearly 300 active clinical treatment trials underway for the disease.

Remdesivir, which has potent in vitro activity against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is currently being tested in randomized trials, according to the review authors, led by James M. Sanders, PhD, of the department of pharmacy at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

By contrast, oseltamivir has not demonstrated efficacy against the virus, corticosteroids are not recommended, and promising data from a small French hydroxychloroquine study are balanced by “several major limitations” including small sample size and exclusion of early dropouts from the analysis, among others, Dr. Sanders and coauthors said in their report.

“These limitations coupled with concerns of additive cardiotoxicity with combination therapy [i.e., hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin] do not support adoption of this regimen without additional studies,” the researchers wrote. Their report is in JAMA.

Dr. Sanders and colleagues identified 291 COVID-19–specific studies listed in ClinicalTrials.gov through April 2, including 29 placebo-controlled trials.

This might represent just a sliver of the treatments that could combat COVID-19, according to the researchers, who said more than 3,000 small-molecule drug candidates with potential activity against human coronaviruses have been identified.

“This large amount of potential agents will hopefully yield more candidate therapeutics in the race to find effective treatments or preventive strategies against COVID-19,” said Dr. Sanders and coauthors.
 

Remdesivir for COVID-19

Remdesivir, an investigational nucleotide analog, is one promising agent because of its broad-spectrum and potent activity against SARS-CoV-2 and other novel coronaviruses, they said, adding that phase 1 trials demonstrated the drug was well tolerated without observed liver or kidney toxicity.

There have been “successful” case reports of remdesivir use in COVID-19, and at least five ongoing clinical trials are evaluating the drug’s safety and antiviral activity in this disease. Among those studies is a National Institutes of Health–sponsored adaptive, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that will provide data on the use of remdesivir versus supportive care.

“As the results from randomized controlled trials are anticipated, inclusion of this agent for treatment of COVID-19 may be considered,” Dr. Sanders and colleagues wrote in their report. To date, remdesivir remains investigational and needs to be obtained via compassionate use, through expanded access, or by participating in a clinical trial, they added.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine

Among the published hydroxychloroquine studies is a “promising” 36-patient open-label nonrandomized French study, in which the antimalarial agent given every 8 hours improved virologic clearance by day 6 versus controls (70% vs. 12.5%, respectively), the review authors said. Moreover, viral clearance was 100% for 6 patients who received hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, compared to 57% (8 of 14) for patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone. However, that study had several important limitations, including the small sample size, variable viral loads at baseline between groups, and a lack of safety and clinical outcomes reporting, according to the investigators. Moreover, six patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were taken out of the analysis because of early treatment stoppage due to medical intolerance or critical illness, the authors noted.

One prospective study including 30 patients in China demonstrated no difference in virologic outcomes for patients randomized to hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care versus standard of care alone, they added. There is also a case series of more than 100 patients with COVID-19 that reportedly improved viral clearance and reduced disease progression, though they said results haven’t been published or presented beyond a news briefing in China.

Randomized, controlled trials of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 treatment are underway, and studies are planned or enrolling to look at chloroquine prophylaxis in health care personnel and hydroxychloroquine for postexposure prophylaxis, authors said.

In results from one of those randomized trials, just reported, a higher dose of chloroquine was associated with a cardiac adverse event and an increased mortality risk, leading to the closure of that study arm. In the parallel, double-blinded, phase IIb clinical trial, patients in Brazil with SARS-CoV-2 infection received low or high doses of chloroquine plus ceftriaxone and azithromycin. According to the preprint publication, a higher rate of heart rate–corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation and a “trend toward higher lethality” was observed in the high-dose group, leading investigators to “strongly recommend” the higher dose be abandoned.

“No apparent benefit of chloroquine was seen regarding lethality in our patients so far, but we will still enroll patients in the low chloroquine dose group to complete the originally planned sample size,” said investigators of the study, which at the time of the report had enrolled 81 out of an anticipated 440 patients.
 

Other COVID-19 pharmacologic therapies under study

Treatments of note in the review included the following:

• Tocilizumab. This monoclonal antibody IL-6 receptor antagonist, approved by the FDA for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and for cytokine release syndrome related to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has yielded success in small series of patients with severe cases of COVID-19, according to authors. In one 21-patient report, 91% had clinical improvement, usually after a single dose. In China, tocilizumab is included in COVID-19 treatment guidelines, and several randomized clinical trials are underway in China including patients with COVID-19 with severe pneumonia.
• Immunoglobulin therapy. Antibodies from recovered COVID-19 patients could help with free virus and infected cell immune clearance, the authors said, adding that further studies are warranted beyond a few small published case series that suggest promise. Furthermore, on March 24 the FDA released guidance for screening donors for COVID-19 convalescent plasma and on emergency investigational new drug applications based on this modality.

• Lopinavir/ritonavir. Despite demonstrated in vitro activity against other novel coronaviruses, there is no published in vitro data for lopinavir/ritonavir in SARS-CoV-2, and likely a “limited role” for this combination anticipated in treating COVID-19, according to the review authors. In an open-label randomized clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282), there were no differences in clinical improvement, viral clearance, or mortality for antiviral treatment versus standard care. Delayed treatment initiation may explain the ineffectiveness, though a subgroup analysis didn’t show a shorter time to clinical improvement for those who got the treatment earlier.

• Ribavirin. Likewise, this antiviral medication has efficacy and safety data suggesting “limited value” for treatment of COVID-19. Treatment of SARS yielded “inconclusive results” for ribavirin, which was also associated with substantial toxicity that included hemolytic anemia in 60% of SARS patients.
• Oseltamivir. While it may treat influenza, it has no documented activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro: “This agent has no role in the management of COVID-19 once influenza has been excluded,” said Dr. Sanders and coauthors.
• Corticosteroids. They could decrease inflammatory responses in the lung, but they could also lead to delays in viral clearance and increases in secondary infection risk. Guidelines for COVID-19 say to avoid corticosteroids, and the authors of the review concur, saying that potential harms and lack of proven benefit mean they usually should not be used outside of a randomized clinical trial setting.
• Vaccines. Clearly, vaccines represent the “most effective long-term strategy” to prevent future COVID-19 outbreaks, though at least 12-18 months would be required until vaccines can be widely deployed, authors said.

Dr. Sanders reported no potential conflicts. Senior author James B. Cutrell, MD, also of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, reported nonfinancial support from Gilead and Regeneron outside of the study. No other authors reported disclosures.

While there are still no proven treatments for COVID-19, the antiviral medication remdesivir is currently the most promising therapy under investigation, according to authors of a recent review covering nearly 300 active clinical treatment trials underway for the disease.

Remdesivir, which has potent in vitro activity against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is currently being tested in randomized trials, according to the review authors, led by James M. Sanders, PhD, of the department of pharmacy at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

By contrast, oseltamivir has not demonstrated efficacy against the virus, corticosteroids are not recommended, and promising data from a small French hydroxychloroquine study are balanced by “several major limitations” including small sample size and exclusion of early dropouts from the analysis, among others, Dr. Sanders and coauthors said in their report.

“These limitations coupled with concerns of additive cardiotoxicity with combination therapy [i.e., hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin] do not support adoption of this regimen without additional studies,” the researchers wrote. Their report is in JAMA.

Dr. Sanders and colleagues identified 291 COVID-19–specific studies listed in ClinicalTrials.gov through April 2, including 29 placebo-controlled trials.

This might represent just a sliver of the treatments that could combat COVID-19, according to the researchers, who said more than 3,000 small-molecule drug candidates with potential activity against human coronaviruses have been identified.

“This large amount of potential agents will hopefully yield more candidate therapeutics in the race to find effective treatments or preventive strategies against COVID-19,” said Dr. Sanders and coauthors.
 

Remdesivir for COVID-19

Remdesivir, an investigational nucleotide analog, is one promising agent because of its broad-spectrum and potent activity against SARS-CoV-2 and other novel coronaviruses, they said, adding that phase 1 trials demonstrated the drug was well tolerated without observed liver or kidney toxicity.

There have been “successful” case reports of remdesivir use in COVID-19, and at least five ongoing clinical trials are evaluating the drug’s safety and antiviral activity in this disease. Among those studies is a National Institutes of Health–sponsored adaptive, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that will provide data on the use of remdesivir versus supportive care.

“As the results from randomized controlled trials are anticipated, inclusion of this agent for treatment of COVID-19 may be considered,” Dr. Sanders and colleagues wrote in their report. To date, remdesivir remains investigational and needs to be obtained via compassionate use, through expanded access, or by participating in a clinical trial, they added.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine

Among the published hydroxychloroquine studies is a “promising” 36-patient open-label nonrandomized French study, in which the antimalarial agent given every 8 hours improved virologic clearance by day 6 versus controls (70% vs. 12.5%, respectively), the review authors said. Moreover, viral clearance was 100% for 6 patients who received hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, compared to 57% (8 of 14) for patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone. However, that study had several important limitations, including the small sample size, variable viral loads at baseline between groups, and a lack of safety and clinical outcomes reporting, according to the investigators. Moreover, six patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were taken out of the analysis because of early treatment stoppage due to medical intolerance or critical illness, the authors noted.

One prospective study including 30 patients in China demonstrated no difference in virologic outcomes for patients randomized to hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care versus standard of care alone, they added. There is also a case series of more than 100 patients with COVID-19 that reportedly improved viral clearance and reduced disease progression, though they said results haven’t been published or presented beyond a news briefing in China.

Randomized, controlled trials of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 treatment are underway, and studies are planned or enrolling to look at chloroquine prophylaxis in health care personnel and hydroxychloroquine for postexposure prophylaxis, authors said.

In results from one of those randomized trials, just reported, a higher dose of chloroquine was associated with a cardiac adverse event and an increased mortality risk, leading to the closure of that study arm. In the parallel, double-blinded, phase IIb clinical trial, patients in Brazil with SARS-CoV-2 infection received low or high doses of chloroquine plus ceftriaxone and azithromycin. According to the preprint publication, a higher rate of heart rate–corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation and a “trend toward higher lethality” was observed in the high-dose group, leading investigators to “strongly recommend” the higher dose be abandoned.

“No apparent benefit of chloroquine was seen regarding lethality in our patients so far, but we will still enroll patients in the low chloroquine dose group to complete the originally planned sample size,” said investigators of the study, which at the time of the report had enrolled 81 out of an anticipated 440 patients.
 

Other COVID-19 pharmacologic therapies under study

Treatments of note in the review included the following:

• Tocilizumab. This monoclonal antibody IL-6 receptor antagonist, approved by the FDA for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and for cytokine release syndrome related to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has yielded success in small series of patients with severe cases of COVID-19, according to authors. In one 21-patient report, 91% had clinical improvement, usually after a single dose. In China, tocilizumab is included in COVID-19 treatment guidelines, and several randomized clinical trials are underway in China including patients with COVID-19 with severe pneumonia.
• Immunoglobulin therapy. Antibodies from recovered COVID-19 patients could help with free virus and infected cell immune clearance, the authors said, adding that further studies are warranted beyond a few small published case series that suggest promise. Furthermore, on March 24 the FDA released guidance for screening donors for COVID-19 convalescent plasma and on emergency investigational new drug applications based on this modality.

• Lopinavir/ritonavir. Despite demonstrated in vitro activity against other novel coronaviruses, there is no published in vitro data for lopinavir/ritonavir in SARS-CoV-2, and likely a “limited role” for this combination anticipated in treating COVID-19, according to the review authors. In an open-label randomized clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282), there were no differences in clinical improvement, viral clearance, or mortality for antiviral treatment versus standard care. Delayed treatment initiation may explain the ineffectiveness, though a subgroup analysis didn’t show a shorter time to clinical improvement for those who got the treatment earlier.

• Ribavirin. Likewise, this antiviral medication has efficacy and safety data suggesting “limited value” for treatment of COVID-19. Treatment of SARS yielded “inconclusive results” for ribavirin, which was also associated with substantial toxicity that included hemolytic anemia in 60% of SARS patients.
• Oseltamivir. While it may treat influenza, it has no documented activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro: “This agent has no role in the management of COVID-19 once influenza has been excluded,” said Dr. Sanders and coauthors.
• Corticosteroids. They could decrease inflammatory responses in the lung, but they could also lead to delays in viral clearance and increases in secondary infection risk. Guidelines for COVID-19 say to avoid corticosteroids, and the authors of the review concur, saying that potential harms and lack of proven benefit mean they usually should not be used outside of a randomized clinical trial setting.
• Vaccines. Clearly, vaccines represent the “most effective long-term strategy” to prevent future COVID-19 outbreaks, though at least 12-18 months would be required until vaccines can be widely deployed, authors said.

Dr. Sanders reported no potential conflicts. Senior author James B. Cutrell, MD, also of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, reported nonfinancial support from Gilead and Regeneron outside of the study. No other authors reported disclosures.

While there are still no proven treatments for COVID-19, the antiviral medication remdesivir is currently the most promising therapy under investigation, according to authors of a recent review covering nearly 300 active clinical treatment trials underway for the disease.

Remdesivir, which has potent in vitro activity against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is currently being tested in randomized trials, according to the review authors, led by James M. Sanders, PhD, of the department of pharmacy at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

By contrast, oseltamivir has not demonstrated efficacy against the virus, corticosteroids are not recommended, and promising data from a small French hydroxychloroquine study are balanced by “several major limitations” including small sample size and exclusion of early dropouts from the analysis, among others, Dr. Sanders and coauthors said in their report.

“These limitations coupled with concerns of additive cardiotoxicity with combination therapy [i.e., hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin] do not support adoption of this regimen without additional studies,” the researchers wrote. Their report is in JAMA.

Dr. Sanders and colleagues identified 291 COVID-19–specific studies listed in ClinicalTrials.gov through April 2, including 29 placebo-controlled trials.

This might represent just a sliver of the treatments that could combat COVID-19, according to the researchers, who said more than 3,000 small-molecule drug candidates with potential activity against human coronaviruses have been identified.

“This large amount of potential agents will hopefully yield more candidate therapeutics in the race to find effective treatments or preventive strategies against COVID-19,” said Dr. Sanders and coauthors.
 

Remdesivir for COVID-19

Remdesivir, an investigational nucleotide analog, is one promising agent because of its broad-spectrum and potent activity against SARS-CoV-2 and other novel coronaviruses, they said, adding that phase 1 trials demonstrated the drug was well tolerated without observed liver or kidney toxicity.

There have been “successful” case reports of remdesivir use in COVID-19, and at least five ongoing clinical trials are evaluating the drug’s safety and antiviral activity in this disease. Among those studies is a National Institutes of Health–sponsored adaptive, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that will provide data on the use of remdesivir versus supportive care.

“As the results from randomized controlled trials are anticipated, inclusion of this agent for treatment of COVID-19 may be considered,” Dr. Sanders and colleagues wrote in their report. To date, remdesivir remains investigational and needs to be obtained via compassionate use, through expanded access, or by participating in a clinical trial, they added.

Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine

Among the published hydroxychloroquine studies is a “promising” 36-patient open-label nonrandomized French study, in which the antimalarial agent given every 8 hours improved virologic clearance by day 6 versus controls (70% vs. 12.5%, respectively), the review authors said. Moreover, viral clearance was 100% for 6 patients who received hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, compared to 57% (8 of 14) for patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone. However, that study had several important limitations, including the small sample size, variable viral loads at baseline between groups, and a lack of safety and clinical outcomes reporting, according to the investigators. Moreover, six patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were taken out of the analysis because of early treatment stoppage due to medical intolerance or critical illness, the authors noted.

One prospective study including 30 patients in China demonstrated no difference in virologic outcomes for patients randomized to hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care versus standard of care alone, they added. There is also a case series of more than 100 patients with COVID-19 that reportedly improved viral clearance and reduced disease progression, though they said results haven’t been published or presented beyond a news briefing in China.

Randomized, controlled trials of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 treatment are underway, and studies are planned or enrolling to look at chloroquine prophylaxis in health care personnel and hydroxychloroquine for postexposure prophylaxis, authors said.

In results from one of those randomized trials, just reported, a higher dose of chloroquine was associated with a cardiac adverse event and an increased mortality risk, leading to the closure of that study arm. In the parallel, double-blinded, phase IIb clinical trial, patients in Brazil with SARS-CoV-2 infection received low or high doses of chloroquine plus ceftriaxone and azithromycin. According to the preprint publication, a higher rate of heart rate–corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation and a “trend toward higher lethality” was observed in the high-dose group, leading investigators to “strongly recommend” the higher dose be abandoned.

“No apparent benefit of chloroquine was seen regarding lethality in our patients so far, but we will still enroll patients in the low chloroquine dose group to complete the originally planned sample size,” said investigators of the study, which at the time of the report had enrolled 81 out of an anticipated 440 patients.
 

Other COVID-19 pharmacologic therapies under study

Treatments of note in the review included the following:

• Tocilizumab. This monoclonal antibody IL-6 receptor antagonist, approved by the FDA for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and for cytokine release syndrome related to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has yielded success in small series of patients with severe cases of COVID-19, according to authors. In one 21-patient report, 91% had clinical improvement, usually after a single dose. In China, tocilizumab is included in COVID-19 treatment guidelines, and several randomized clinical trials are underway in China including patients with COVID-19 with severe pneumonia.
• Immunoglobulin therapy. Antibodies from recovered COVID-19 patients could help with free virus and infected cell immune clearance, the authors said, adding that further studies are warranted beyond a few small published case series that suggest promise. Furthermore, on March 24 the FDA released guidance for screening donors for COVID-19 convalescent plasma and on emergency investigational new drug applications based on this modality.

• Lopinavir/ritonavir. Despite demonstrated in vitro activity against other novel coronaviruses, there is no published in vitro data for lopinavir/ritonavir in SARS-CoV-2, and likely a “limited role” for this combination anticipated in treating COVID-19, according to the review authors. In an open-label randomized clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282), there were no differences in clinical improvement, viral clearance, or mortality for antiviral treatment versus standard care. Delayed treatment initiation may explain the ineffectiveness, though a subgroup analysis didn’t show a shorter time to clinical improvement for those who got the treatment earlier.

• Ribavirin. Likewise, this antiviral medication has efficacy and safety data suggesting “limited value” for treatment of COVID-19. Treatment of SARS yielded “inconclusive results” for ribavirin, which was also associated with substantial toxicity that included hemolytic anemia in 60% of SARS patients.
• Oseltamivir. While it may treat influenza, it has no documented activity against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro: “This agent has no role in the management of COVID-19 once influenza has been excluded,” said Dr. Sanders and coauthors.
• Corticosteroids. They could decrease inflammatory responses in the lung, but they could also lead to delays in viral clearance and increases in secondary infection risk. Guidelines for COVID-19 say to avoid corticosteroids, and the authors of the review concur, saying that potential harms and lack of proven benefit mean they usually should not be used outside of a randomized clinical trial setting.
• Vaccines. Clearly, vaccines represent the “most effective long-term strategy” to prevent future COVID-19 outbreaks, though at least 12-18 months would be required until vaccines can be widely deployed, authors said.

Dr. Sanders reported no potential conflicts. Senior author James B. Cutrell, MD, also of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, reported nonfinancial support from Gilead and Regeneron outside of the study. No other authors reported disclosures.

Cardiac troponins by high-sensitivity assays (hs-cTn) should be considered “an ally and a crucial diagnostic and prognostic aid” during the COVID-19 pandemic, cardiologists in the United Kingdom advise in a recently published viewpoint.

The tests can be used to “inform the triage of patients to critical care, guide the use of supportive treatments, and facilitate targeted cardiac investigations in those most likely to benefit,” Nicholas Mills, MD, PhD, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. He is senior author on the viewpoint published online April 6 in the journal Circulation.

Older adults and those with a history of underlying cardiovascular disease appear to be at greatest risk of dying from COVID-19. “From early reports it is clear that elevated cardiac troponin concentrations predict in-hospital mortality,” said Mills.

In a recent report on hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, for example, cardiac injury (hs-cTn above the 99th-percentile upper reference limit) was seen in 1 in 5 patients and was an independent predictor of dying in the hospital. Mortality was 10-fold higher in those with cardiac injury on presentation.

Elevated cardiac troponin in the setting of COVID-19, Mills said, “may reflect illness severity with myocardial injury arising due to myocardial oxygen supply–demand imbalance. Or it may be due to direct cardiac involvement through viral myocarditis or stress cardiomyopathy, or where the prothrombotic and proinflammatory state is precipitating acute coronary syndromes.”

In their viewpoint, the authors note that circulating cTn is a marker of myocardial injury, “including but not limited to myocardial infarction or myocarditis, and the clinical relevance of this distinction has never been so clear.”

Therefore, the consequence of not measuring cardiac troponin may be to “ignore the plethora of ischemic and nonischemic causes” of myocardial injury related to COVID-19. “Clinicians who have used troponin measurement as a binary test for myocardial infarction independent of clinical context and those who consider an elevated cardiac troponin concentration to be a mandate for invasive coronary angiography must recalibrate,” they write.

“Rather than encouraging avoidance of troponin testing, we must harness the unheralded engagement from the cardiovascular community due to COVID-19 to better understand the utility of this essential biomarker and to educate clinicians on its interpretation and implications for prognosis and clinical decision making.”
 

Based on “same logic” as recent ACC guidance

The viewpoint was to some extent a response to a recent informal guidance from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) that advised caution in use of troponin and natriuretic peptide tests in patients with COVID-19.

Even so, that ACC guidance and the new viewpoint in Circulation are based on the “same logic,” James Januzzi Jr, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. Both documents:

• Point out that troponins are frequently abnormal in patients with severe cases of COVID-19
• Caution that clinicians should not equate an abnormal hs-cTn with acute myocardial infarction
• Note that, in most cases, hs-cTn elevations are a result of noncoronary mechanisms
• Recognize the potential risk to caregivers and the continued unchecked spread of SARS-CoV-2 related to downstream testing that might not be needed

“The Circulation opinion piece states that clinicians often use troponin as a binary test for myocardial infarction and a mandate for downstream testing, suggesting clinicians will need to recalibrate that approach, something I agree with and which is the central message of the ACC position,” Januzzi said.

Probably the biggest difference between the two documents, he said, is in the Circulation authors’ apparent enthusiasm to use hs-cTn as a tool to judge disease severity in patients with COVID-19.

It’s been known for more than a decade that myocardial injury is “an important risk predictor” in critical illness, Januzzi explained. “So the link between cardiac injury and outcomes in critical illness is nothing new. The difference is the fact we are seeing so many patients with COVID-19 all at once, and the authors suggest that using troponin might help in triage decision making.”

“There may be [such] a role here, but the data have not been systematically collected, and whether troponin truly adds something beyond information already available at the bedside — for example, does it add anything not already obvious at the bedside? — has not yet been conclusively proven,” Januzzi cautioned.

“As well, there are no prospective data supporting troponin as a trigger for ICU triage or for deciding on specific treatments.”
 

Positive cTn status “common” in COVID-19 patients

In his experience, Barry Cohen, MD, Morristown Medical Center, New Jersey, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, that positive cTn status is “common in COVID-19 patients and appears to have prognostic value, not only in type 1 MI due to atherothrombotic disease (related to a proinflammatory and prothrombotic state), but more frequently type 2 MI (supply–demand mismatch), viral myocarditis, coronary microvascular ischemia, stress cardiomyopathy or tachyarrhythmias.”

Moreover, Cohen said, hs-cTn “has identified patients at increased risk for ventilation support (invasive and noninvasive), acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, and mortality.”

Echoing both the ACC document and the Circulation report, Cohen also said hs-cTn measurements “appear to help risk stratify COVID-19 patients, but clearly do not mean that a troponin-positive patient needs to go to the cath lab and be treated as having acute coronary syndrome. Only a minority of these patients require this intervention.”

Mills discloses receiving honoraria from Abbott Diagnostics, Roche Diagnostics, Siemens Healthineers, and LumiraDx. Januzzi has previously disclosed receiving personal fees from the American College of Cardiology, Pfizer, Merck, AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; grants and personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Abbott, and Janssen; and grants from Singulex and Prevencio. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cardiac troponins by high-sensitivity assays (hs-cTn) should be considered “an ally and a crucial diagnostic and prognostic aid” during the COVID-19 pandemic, cardiologists in the United Kingdom advise in a recently published viewpoint.

The tests can be used to “inform the triage of patients to critical care, guide the use of supportive treatments, and facilitate targeted cardiac investigations in those most likely to benefit,” Nicholas Mills, MD, PhD, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. He is senior author on the viewpoint published online April 6 in the journal Circulation.

Older adults and those with a history of underlying cardiovascular disease appear to be at greatest risk of dying from COVID-19. “From early reports it is clear that elevated cardiac troponin concentrations predict in-hospital mortality,” said Mills.

In a recent report on hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, for example, cardiac injury (hs-cTn above the 99th-percentile upper reference limit) was seen in 1 in 5 patients and was an independent predictor of dying in the hospital. Mortality was 10-fold higher in those with cardiac injury on presentation.

Elevated cardiac troponin in the setting of COVID-19, Mills said, “may reflect illness severity with myocardial injury arising due to myocardial oxygen supply–demand imbalance. Or it may be due to direct cardiac involvement through viral myocarditis or stress cardiomyopathy, or where the prothrombotic and proinflammatory state is precipitating acute coronary syndromes.”

In their viewpoint, the authors note that circulating cTn is a marker of myocardial injury, “including but not limited to myocardial infarction or myocarditis, and the clinical relevance of this distinction has never been so clear.”

Therefore, the consequence of not measuring cardiac troponin may be to “ignore the plethora of ischemic and nonischemic causes” of myocardial injury related to COVID-19. “Clinicians who have used troponin measurement as a binary test for myocardial infarction independent of clinical context and those who consider an elevated cardiac troponin concentration to be a mandate for invasive coronary angiography must recalibrate,” they write.

“Rather than encouraging avoidance of troponin testing, we must harness the unheralded engagement from the cardiovascular community due to COVID-19 to better understand the utility of this essential biomarker and to educate clinicians on its interpretation and implications for prognosis and clinical decision making.”
 

Based on “same logic” as recent ACC guidance

The viewpoint was to some extent a response to a recent informal guidance from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) that advised caution in use of troponin and natriuretic peptide tests in patients with COVID-19.

Even so, that ACC guidance and the new viewpoint in Circulation are based on the “same logic,” James Januzzi Jr, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. Both documents:

• Point out that troponins are frequently abnormal in patients with severe cases of COVID-19
• Caution that clinicians should not equate an abnormal hs-cTn with acute myocardial infarction
• Note that, in most cases, hs-cTn elevations are a result of noncoronary mechanisms
• Recognize the potential risk to caregivers and the continued unchecked spread of SARS-CoV-2 related to downstream testing that might not be needed

“The Circulation opinion piece states that clinicians often use troponin as a binary test for myocardial infarction and a mandate for downstream testing, suggesting clinicians will need to recalibrate that approach, something I agree with and which is the central message of the ACC position,” Januzzi said.

Probably the biggest difference between the two documents, he said, is in the Circulation authors’ apparent enthusiasm to use hs-cTn as a tool to judge disease severity in patients with COVID-19.

It’s been known for more than a decade that myocardial injury is “an important risk predictor” in critical illness, Januzzi explained. “So the link between cardiac injury and outcomes in critical illness is nothing new. The difference is the fact we are seeing so many patients with COVID-19 all at once, and the authors suggest that using troponin might help in triage decision making.”

“There may be [such] a role here, but the data have not been systematically collected, and whether troponin truly adds something beyond information already available at the bedside — for example, does it add anything not already obvious at the bedside? — has not yet been conclusively proven,” Januzzi cautioned.

“As well, there are no prospective data supporting troponin as a trigger for ICU triage or for deciding on specific treatments.”
 

Positive cTn status “common” in COVID-19 patients

In his experience, Barry Cohen, MD, Morristown Medical Center, New Jersey, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, that positive cTn status is “common in COVID-19 patients and appears to have prognostic value, not only in type 1 MI due to atherothrombotic disease (related to a proinflammatory and prothrombotic state), but more frequently type 2 MI (supply–demand mismatch), viral myocarditis, coronary microvascular ischemia, stress cardiomyopathy or tachyarrhythmias.”

Moreover, Cohen said, hs-cTn “has identified patients at increased risk for ventilation support (invasive and noninvasive), acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, and mortality.”

Echoing both the ACC document and the Circulation report, Cohen also said hs-cTn measurements “appear to help risk stratify COVID-19 patients, but clearly do not mean that a troponin-positive patient needs to go to the cath lab and be treated as having acute coronary syndrome. Only a minority of these patients require this intervention.”

Mills discloses receiving honoraria from Abbott Diagnostics, Roche Diagnostics, Siemens Healthineers, and LumiraDx. Januzzi has previously disclosed receiving personal fees from the American College of Cardiology, Pfizer, Merck, AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; grants and personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Abbott, and Janssen; and grants from Singulex and Prevencio. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cardiac troponins by high-sensitivity assays (hs-cTn) should be considered “an ally and a crucial diagnostic and prognostic aid” during the COVID-19 pandemic, cardiologists in the United Kingdom advise in a recently published viewpoint.

The tests can be used to “inform the triage of patients to critical care, guide the use of supportive treatments, and facilitate targeted cardiac investigations in those most likely to benefit,” Nicholas Mills, MD, PhD, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. He is senior author on the viewpoint published online April 6 in the journal Circulation.

Older adults and those with a history of underlying cardiovascular disease appear to be at greatest risk of dying from COVID-19. “From early reports it is clear that elevated cardiac troponin concentrations predict in-hospital mortality,” said Mills.

In a recent report on hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, for example, cardiac injury (hs-cTn above the 99th-percentile upper reference limit) was seen in 1 in 5 patients and was an independent predictor of dying in the hospital. Mortality was 10-fold higher in those with cardiac injury on presentation.

Elevated cardiac troponin in the setting of COVID-19, Mills said, “may reflect illness severity with myocardial injury arising due to myocardial oxygen supply–demand imbalance. Or it may be due to direct cardiac involvement through viral myocarditis or stress cardiomyopathy, or where the prothrombotic and proinflammatory state is precipitating acute coronary syndromes.”

In their viewpoint, the authors note that circulating cTn is a marker of myocardial injury, “including but not limited to myocardial infarction or myocarditis, and the clinical relevance of this distinction has never been so clear.”

Therefore, the consequence of not measuring cardiac troponin may be to “ignore the plethora of ischemic and nonischemic causes” of myocardial injury related to COVID-19. “Clinicians who have used troponin measurement as a binary test for myocardial infarction independent of clinical context and those who consider an elevated cardiac troponin concentration to be a mandate for invasive coronary angiography must recalibrate,” they write.

“Rather than encouraging avoidance of troponin testing, we must harness the unheralded engagement from the cardiovascular community due to COVID-19 to better understand the utility of this essential biomarker and to educate clinicians on its interpretation and implications for prognosis and clinical decision making.”
 

Based on “same logic” as recent ACC guidance

The viewpoint was to some extent a response to a recent informal guidance from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) that advised caution in use of troponin and natriuretic peptide tests in patients with COVID-19.

Even so, that ACC guidance and the new viewpoint in Circulation are based on the “same logic,” James Januzzi Jr, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. Both documents:

• Point out that troponins are frequently abnormal in patients with severe cases of COVID-19
• Caution that clinicians should not equate an abnormal hs-cTn with acute myocardial infarction
• Note that, in most cases, hs-cTn elevations are a result of noncoronary mechanisms
• Recognize the potential risk to caregivers and the continued unchecked spread of SARS-CoV-2 related to downstream testing that might not be needed

“The Circulation opinion piece states that clinicians often use troponin as a binary test for myocardial infarction and a mandate for downstream testing, suggesting clinicians will need to recalibrate that approach, something I agree with and which is the central message of the ACC position,” Januzzi said.

Probably the biggest difference between the two documents, he said, is in the Circulation authors’ apparent enthusiasm to use hs-cTn as a tool to judge disease severity in patients with COVID-19.

It’s been known for more than a decade that myocardial injury is “an important risk predictor” in critical illness, Januzzi explained. “So the link between cardiac injury and outcomes in critical illness is nothing new. The difference is the fact we are seeing so many patients with COVID-19 all at once, and the authors suggest that using troponin might help in triage decision making.”

“There may be [such] a role here, but the data have not been systematically collected, and whether troponin truly adds something beyond information already available at the bedside — for example, does it add anything not already obvious at the bedside? — has not yet been conclusively proven,” Januzzi cautioned.

“As well, there are no prospective data supporting troponin as a trigger for ICU triage or for deciding on specific treatments.”
 

Positive cTn status “common” in COVID-19 patients

In his experience, Barry Cohen, MD, Morristown Medical Center, New Jersey, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, that positive cTn status is “common in COVID-19 patients and appears to have prognostic value, not only in type 1 MI due to atherothrombotic disease (related to a proinflammatory and prothrombotic state), but more frequently type 2 MI (supply–demand mismatch), viral myocarditis, coronary microvascular ischemia, stress cardiomyopathy or tachyarrhythmias.”

Moreover, Cohen said, hs-cTn “has identified patients at increased risk for ventilation support (invasive and noninvasive), acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, and mortality.”

Echoing both the ACC document and the Circulation report, Cohen also said hs-cTn measurements “appear to help risk stratify COVID-19 patients, but clearly do not mean that a troponin-positive patient needs to go to the cath lab and be treated as having acute coronary syndrome. Only a minority of these patients require this intervention.”

Mills discloses receiving honoraria from Abbott Diagnostics, Roche Diagnostics, Siemens Healthineers, and LumiraDx. Januzzi has previously disclosed receiving personal fees from the American College of Cardiology, Pfizer, Merck, AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; grants and personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Abbott, and Janssen; and grants from Singulex and Prevencio. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Hematology has committed a portion of its website to providing continually updated information addressing specific hematologic disorders in relation to COVID-19.

“As the world grapples with the novel coronavirus, ASH believes that we can help each other be as knowledgeable and prepared as possible,” wrote the society’s president, Stephanie J. Lee, MD, MPH.

On its website, ASH provides relevant COVID-19 information in a series of FAQ divided into malignant and nonmalignant hematologic diseases and disorders. In the malignant category, the various lymphomas and leukemias are individually addressed, as well as other conditions such as myelodysplastic syndromes, myeloproliferative neoplasms, and multiple myeloma. In the nonmalignant category, ASH has provided FAQ on aplastic anemia, thalassemia, sickle cell disease, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism/anticoagulation, coagulopathy, and immune as well as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

In addition to the continually updated series of relevant FAQ, as part of its response to the pandemic ASH is promoting two unique COVID-19 registries for physicians: the ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub COVID-19 Registry and the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Under Research Exclusion Sickle Cell Disease (SECURE-SCD) Registry.

“The ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub launched the COVID-19 Registry and is currently capturing data on people who test positive for COVID-19 and have been or are currently being treated for hematologic malignancy,” according to the website. The intention is to provide “near real-time observational data summaries,” which will hopefully provide useful information to clinicians treating hematologic malignancies in patients in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The registry allows clinicians to enter their own cases in a specified format to allow data analysis on clinical practice and patient outcomes that will be aggregated to provide rapid insights for clinicians to help them care for their patients, according to ASH.

The second registry specifically deals with COVID-19 cases in patients with sickle cell disease. It also allows clinicians to add cases with a similar intention of aggregating data to provide near real-time insights into patient care. “We are asking providers caring for these patients to report all of their cases of COVID-19 to this registry,” according to the registry website. The registry is for reporting COVID-19 cases in sickle cell disease patients “after sufficient time has passed to observe the disease course through resolution of acute illness and/or death.”

ASH also provides more generalized information for hematology practitioners dealing with COVID-19 on the topics of conducting their practice and using telemedicine, among others.

Correction, April 15, 2020: This story originally said incorrectly that ASH developed the 2 new registries. The registries are merely being promoted on the ASH website.

[email protected]

The American Society of Hematology has committed a portion of its website to providing continually updated information addressing specific hematologic disorders in relation to COVID-19.

“As the world grapples with the novel coronavirus, ASH believes that we can help each other be as knowledgeable and prepared as possible,” wrote the society’s president, Stephanie J. Lee, MD, MPH.

On its website, ASH provides relevant COVID-19 information in a series of FAQ divided into malignant and nonmalignant hematologic diseases and disorders. In the malignant category, the various lymphomas and leukemias are individually addressed, as well as other conditions such as myelodysplastic syndromes, myeloproliferative neoplasms, and multiple myeloma. In the nonmalignant category, ASH has provided FAQ on aplastic anemia, thalassemia, sickle cell disease, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism/anticoagulation, coagulopathy, and immune as well as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

In addition to the continually updated series of relevant FAQ, as part of its response to the pandemic ASH is promoting two unique COVID-19 registries for physicians: the ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub COVID-19 Registry and the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Under Research Exclusion Sickle Cell Disease (SECURE-SCD) Registry.

“The ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub launched the COVID-19 Registry and is currently capturing data on people who test positive for COVID-19 and have been or are currently being treated for hematologic malignancy,” according to the website. The intention is to provide “near real-time observational data summaries,” which will hopefully provide useful information to clinicians treating hematologic malignancies in patients in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The registry allows clinicians to enter their own cases in a specified format to allow data analysis on clinical practice and patient outcomes that will be aggregated to provide rapid insights for clinicians to help them care for their patients, according to ASH.

The second registry specifically deals with COVID-19 cases in patients with sickle cell disease. It also allows clinicians to add cases with a similar intention of aggregating data to provide near real-time insights into patient care. “We are asking providers caring for these patients to report all of their cases of COVID-19 to this registry,” according to the registry website. The registry is for reporting COVID-19 cases in sickle cell disease patients “after sufficient time has passed to observe the disease course through resolution of acute illness and/or death.”

ASH also provides more generalized information for hematology practitioners dealing with COVID-19 on the topics of conducting their practice and using telemedicine, among others.

Correction, April 15, 2020: This story originally said incorrectly that ASH developed the 2 new registries. The registries are merely being promoted on the ASH website.

[email protected]

The American Society of Hematology has committed a portion of its website to providing continually updated information addressing specific hematologic disorders in relation to COVID-19.

“As the world grapples with the novel coronavirus, ASH believes that we can help each other be as knowledgeable and prepared as possible,” wrote the society’s president, Stephanie J. Lee, MD, MPH.

On its website, ASH provides relevant COVID-19 information in a series of FAQ divided into malignant and nonmalignant hematologic diseases and disorders. In the malignant category, the various lymphomas and leukemias are individually addressed, as well as other conditions such as myelodysplastic syndromes, myeloproliferative neoplasms, and multiple myeloma. In the nonmalignant category, ASH has provided FAQ on aplastic anemia, thalassemia, sickle cell disease, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism/anticoagulation, coagulopathy, and immune as well as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

In addition to the continually updated series of relevant FAQ, as part of its response to the pandemic ASH is promoting two unique COVID-19 registries for physicians: the ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub COVID-19 Registry and the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Under Research Exclusion Sickle Cell Disease (SECURE-SCD) Registry.

“The ASH Research Collaborative’s (ASH RC) Data Hub launched the COVID-19 Registry and is currently capturing data on people who test positive for COVID-19 and have been or are currently being treated for hematologic malignancy,” according to the website. The intention is to provide “near real-time observational data summaries,” which will hopefully provide useful information to clinicians treating hematologic malignancies in patients in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The registry allows clinicians to enter their own cases in a specified format to allow data analysis on clinical practice and patient outcomes that will be aggregated to provide rapid insights for clinicians to help them care for their patients, according to ASH.

The second registry specifically deals with COVID-19 cases in patients with sickle cell disease. It also allows clinicians to add cases with a similar intention of aggregating data to provide near real-time insights into patient care. “We are asking providers caring for these patients to report all of their cases of COVID-19 to this registry,” according to the registry website. The registry is for reporting COVID-19 cases in sickle cell disease patients “after sufficient time has passed to observe the disease course through resolution of acute illness and/or death.”

ASH also provides more generalized information for hematology practitioners dealing with COVID-19 on the topics of conducting their practice and using telemedicine, among others.

Correction, April 15, 2020: This story originally said incorrectly that ASH developed the 2 new registries. The registries are merely being promoted on the ASH website.

[email protected]

Physicians will not lose their certification if they are unable to complete maintenance of certification requirements in 2020, the American Board of Internal Medicine announced.

“Any physician who is currently certified and has a Maintenance of Certification requirement due in 2020 – including an assessment, point requirement or attestation – will now have until the end of 2021 to complete it,” ABIM President Richard Baron, MD, said in a letter sent to all diplomates.

Additionally, physicians “currently in their grace year will also be afforded an additional grace year in 2021,” the letter continued.

ABIM noted that many assessments were planned for the fall of 2020 and the organization will continue to offer them as planned for physicians who are able to take them. It added that more assessment dates for 2020 and 2021 will be sent out later this year.

“The next few weeks and months will challenge our health care system and country like never before,” Dr. Baron stated. “Our many internal medicine colleagues – and the clinical teams that support them – have been heroic in their response, often selflessly putting their own personal safety at risk while using their superb skills to provide care for others. They have inspired all of us.”

[email protected]