Federal Practitioner

Chronic pain is a worldwide cause of impairment. According to data from the 2016 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 50 million American adults suffer from chronic pain, with 19.6 million adults suffering from high-impact chronic pain.¹ This phenomenon is particularly prevalent in the older population. More than 25% of adults aged 65 to 74 years reported that they were often in pain in the past 3 months compared with just 10% of those adults between the ages of 18 and 44 years.²

The economic burdens of chronic pain disorders are well known. In 2010, Gaskin and Richard found that chronic pain has far-reaching consequences for the US economy, ranging from direct health care costs to lost productivity. This study estimated additional health care costs at about $300 billion yearly and lost productivity at $300 billion, bringing total annual costs to about $600 billion. This expense is more than heart disease alone ($309 billion), and cancer and diabetes mellitus ($243 billion and $188 billion respectively) combined.³

Opioid medications are powerful and effective pain-reducing agents that are indicated for short-term acute pain or long-term in the management of chronic, severe cancer-related pain.⁴ Although efficacious, use of these medications carries with it the inherent risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, and overdose.⁵ Since 1999, opioid-related overdose deaths have been on the rise. The CDC estimated that > 15,000 deaths were attributable specifically to prescription opioids in 2015.⁶ The estimates had risen to > 17,000 deaths in 2017, with the number increasing since that time.⁷ Cumulatively, the CDC estimates that > 200,000 deaths in the US between 1999 and 2017 are attributed to prescription opioid overdose, clearly marking this trend as a growing nationwide epidemic.⁸

In 2016, Florence and colleagues estimated costs associated with opioid overdose to be just shy of $80 billion in 2013 dollars.⁹ In October 2017, the US Department of Health and Human Services declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency and committed $900 million to combating the crisis.¹⁰

An abundance of data exist analyzing outpatient prescribing and its impacts on opioid dependence, particularly postoperatively. A study by Brummett and colleagues indicated that the incidence of new persistent opioid use in patients who underwent surgery was 5.9% to 6.5% and did not differ between major and minor surgical procedures. This study concluded that new opioid use could be considered one of the most common complications after elective surgery.¹¹ Similarly, in 2017 Makary and colleagues found that surgeons tend to overprescribe pain medications after procedures; some prescribing as many as 50 to 60 tablets to control pain after simple procedures.¹² This is in stark contrast to pain guideline recommendations of no more than 10 tablets for most standard operative procedures.¹³

Sun and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis of health care claims data in more than 18 million opioid-naïve patients who did and did not undergo surgery. Seven of the 11 surgical procedures were associated with an increased risk of chronic opioid use. The highest incidence of chronic opioid use in the first postoperative year was for total hip arthroplasty (1.4%, OR 5.10; 95% CI, 1.29-1.53). The study found that the risk factors most associated with chronic opioid use after surgery were male sex, aged > 50 years, and preoperative history of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or depression, along with benzodiazepine use or antidepressant use.¹⁴ In a 2018 cohort study that evaluated predictors associated with transitioning to incident chronic opioid therapy, 4 factors were identified. These included opioid duration of action (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 12.28; 95% CI, 8.1-06-18.72), the parent opioid compound (eg, tramadol vs codeine; AOR, 7.26; 95% CI, 5.20-10.13), the presence of conditions that are very likely to cause chronic pain (AOR, 5.47; 95% CI, 3.89-7.68), and drug use disorders (AOR, 4.02; 95% CI, 2.53-6.40).¹⁵

While there has been research into outpatient risk factors and medical practices that may contribute to chronic opioid use, a relative paucity of data exists on the contribution of hospitalization and inpatient opioid use on patient outcomes. A 2014 Canadian study assessed the impact of opioid use in the intensive care unit (ICU) on opioid use after discharge.¹⁶ This study included more than 2,500 patients who were admitted to a Canadian ICU between 2005 and 2008, and then followed after discharge for 48 months to quantify chronic opioid use. Nonopioid users increased from 87.8% in the early post-ICU period to 95.6% at 48 months after discharge. Preadmission chronic opioid use and prolonged hospital length of stay (LOS) were found to be associated with an increased risk of chronic opioid use after discharge.¹⁶ To date, there are no published studies that analyze the incidence of opioid-naïve veterans who convert to chronic opioid use after receiving opioids during an acute hospitalization.

In this retrospective analysis, we analyze the incidence of chronic opioid use after administration of opioids in the ICU as well as a variety of risk factors that may influence conversion to chronic opioid use.

Methods

This analysis was a single center, retrospective chart review conducted for patients admitted between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas. MEDVAMC is a 538-bed academic\teaching hospital serving about 130,000 veterans in Southeast Texas. The hospital has 3 ICUs (medical, cardiovascular, and surgical) and 38 total ICU beds. The study was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board and MEDVAMC Research and Development Review Board. Informed consent was not required.

Inclusion criteria consisted of patients aged ≥ 18 years admitted to the ICU in the above-specified time frame, who were administered a continuous infusion of an opioid for at least 12 hours. Patients were excluded if they were not opioid naïve prior to admission, defined as receiving > 30 days of opioids in the prior 12 months. Patients who died during hospital admission, never received an opioid despite having an active order, were hospital-to-hospital transfers, or were still admitted at the time of data collection were excluded from the analysis.

All pertinent data were collected using the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and the Critical Care Manager (Picis Clinical Solutions) ICU monitoring application. Critical Care Manager was used to track the time frame, duration, and amounts of opioid infusions administered in the ICU. Patient demographic and preadmission data, including date of birth, age, race, history of substance use/alcohol use disorder (defined as a previous diagnosis) and previous opioid prescriptions within the past year were recorded. For the inpatient admission, the ICU LOS, hospital LOS, primary admission diagnosis, type of opioid medication administered, and total duration and dose of opioid administered were collected. After discharge, opioid medication fill data at 3, 6, and 12 months were collected. This information included names of any outpatient opioids filled, dosage unit, quantity, day supply, and number of refills.

The primary outcome for this study was to determine the incidence of chronic opioid use at 3, 6, and 12 months after discharge, defined as the percentage of patients receiving outpatient opioid prescriptions at each time point. Analyses were conducted to observe the effect of age, race, history of substance use or history of alcohol use (International Classification of Diseases documented diagnosis, 9th edition), ICU type (medical, surgical, or cardiovascular), surgical/nonsurgical admission, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, total time, and amount of opioids administered during admission on risk of conversion to chronic opioid use.

Descriptive statistics were calculated to analyze the incidence of chronic opioid use. Univariate logistic regression analysis, including ORs, 95% CIs, and P values, was conducted to determine the effects of the risk factors noted earlier on chronic opioid use at each time point. A multivariate logistic regression model was performed to assess the effect of multiple independent variables on opioid use at 3, 6, and 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed using StataCorp Stata SE.

Results

During the study period, 330 patients were admitted to the ICU. After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 118 patients were included in the final analysis. The most frequent reasons for exclusion from the study were patient death (n = 77), a past history of opioid use (n = 56), and not having received an opioid infusion for at least 12 hours (n = 68). The average age of the patients included was 67 years (Table 1). A total of 14% and 9% of patients, respectively, had a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder or substance use disorder recorded in CPRS. After admission, the most common location for these patients was the surgical ICU (65%). All patients were male. The average hospital LOS was 18.6 days , and the ICU LOS was 8.3 days. The average duration of administration for the opioid (fentanyl) infusion was 63 hours, and the average amount of fentanyl administered to each patient was 57.1 mcg/h.

The incidence of opioid-naïve patients receiving opioids after discharge was 76.3% (n = 90) at 3 months, 19.5% (n = 23) at 6 months and 7.6% (n = 9) at 12 months (Figure). The daily morphine milligram equivalent (MME) of patients prescribed opioids at 3, 6, and 12 months was similar (3 months, 22.7; 6 months, 19.7; 12 months, 20.9). In the univariate regression analysis, several variables were found to be associated with converting to chronic opioid use. Prior history of alcohol use disorder (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.10-0.88; P = .03), ICU type (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.73-8.75; P = .001) and ICU LOS (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.95; P = .01) had a statistically significant association on opioid use at 3 months. (Table 2). No variables evaluated had a statistically significant effect on chronic opioid use at 6 months, and only age (OR 0.93; 95% CI. 0.87-0.99; P = .02) was statistically significant at 12 months. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, history of alcohol abuse, admission for surgery, and hospital LOS were significant at 3 months (Table 3).

Discussion

In this single-center analysis conducted at a VA academic hospital of opioid-naïve patients who were administered opioids in the ICU, the incidence of patients subsequently receiving outpatient opioid prescriptions at 12 months after discharge was 7.6%. There also was a decrease in the amount of opioids received by patients (daily MME) after discharge at 3, 6, and 12 months. This trend did not demonstrate the propensity for inpatient opioid use to convert opioid-naïve patients to chronic opioid users.

The most common outpatient opioids prescribed were hydrocodone/acetaminophen, morphine, and tramadol. Logistic regression showed few factors that correlated significantly with opioid use in the long-term (12 month) period. This finding is a deviation from the findings of Yaffe and colleagues who found hospital LOS to be one of the only predictors of long-term opioid use in their population (defined as use at 48 months).¹⁶ One important difference between our study and the Yaffe and colleagues study was that they evaluated all patients who were admitted to the ICU, regardless of the exposure to opioids during their inpatient stay. Consequently, this difference may have resulted in the differences in findings.

Strengths and Limitations

Location was a strength of our study, as this analysis was conducted at an integrated health care system that provides comprehensive inpatient and outpatient care. The VA uses a closed electronic health record, which allowed patients to be followed both in the inpatient and outpatient settings to determine which medications were prescribed at each time. In other health care systems this information would have been difficult to follow as patients often fill outpatient prescriptions at community pharmacies not affiliated with the treating hospital. However, any patient not using a VA prescriber for subsequent opioid prescriptions or patients who received opioids through other sources would not have had their continued opioid use captured. These data may be available in the states prescription monitoring program, but it was not available to query for research at this time.

This study also excluded chronic opioid users, which could have been another confounding factor to account for when analyzing the results. However, the primary objective of the study was to determine the impact of opioids prescribed in the ICU on converting previous opioid-naïve patients to chronic users. Finally, a multivariate logistic regression was incorporated to assess for factors that may predispose certain patients to convert to chronic opioid users. This analysis served to extend the applicability of our study by not only analyzing whether receiving opioids in the ICU contributed to chronic opioid use in the long-term, but also which populations may be at greatest risk. This information can be used in the future to target harm-reduction efforts toward high-risk hospitalized patients.

One limitation of this study was that it was conducted as a retrospective, single-center chart review in Houston, Texas. Because this was not a randomized controlled trial, it is difficult to imply any causation between exposure to opioids in the ICU and chronic use. In addition, because this study was conducted at a single site, the results may not be able to be generalized to other populations. VA populations tend to be elderly and predominantly male, as was reflected by the study population. These factors, along with regional variability in patient characteristics, may limit the generalizability of this study to older male patients located in Southeast Texas or other similar populations. Other limitations of this study also included the small sample size, limited period of follow-up obtained, and that other comorbidity information (pain scores during stay, use of nonopioid pain medications, past history of anxiety or depression, or other acute illnesses or surgeries that may have required opioid therapy during admission) was not collected.

This study was only able to review 118 patients for a follow-up duration of 1 year. In the Yaffe and colleagues study, more than 2,500 patients were followed over 4 years, which provided a more long-term overview of the clinical course of these patients and may be another reason for discrepant findings. However, this study did not actually assess the impact on administration of opioids on the development of chronic opioid use.¹⁶ Finally, the biggest limitation to this study may be the potential for confounding discharge prescriptions. After discharge, patients’ prescriptions were evaluated from discharge to 3 months, in between 3 and 6 months, and between 6 and 12 months for the presence of an opioid prescription. Due to this methodology, any opioid prescription a patient was discharged with was counted in the 3-month time point. Since many patients included in the study were admitted to the surgical ICU (65%), it was logical that they were discharged with opioids after their procedure. While including the immediate postdischarge prescription data was useful for evaluating the decrease in opioid use and incidence over time, it did cause the 3-month time point to appear overly inflated, potentially signaling that at 3 months after discharge many of these patients were still requiring opioid use.

The Society of Critical Care Medicine still recommends opioids as first-line therapy for non-neuropathic pain in the ICU setting.¹⁷ Additionally, postoperative pain can be difficult to manage in the surgical population and is often treated with opioids, though treatment with multimodal pain regimens is becoming more common.¹⁸ It is difficult to imagine that a finding that implicates opioid use in the hospital with conversion to chronic opioid use would prompt a cessation in the use of opioid in these settings, especially in the context of analgosedation related to mechanically ventilated patients. However, it would be plausible to use this knowledge to advocate for opioid-sparing therapies and consideration for weaning individuals at high risk for misuse after discharge from opioid-containing sedation or analgesia regimens in a timelier manner.

Though our findings did not show a clinically relevant increase in chronic opioid users, clinicians can still use this information to encourage targeted education and closer monitoring for those patients deemed as high risk at discharge to prevent unnecessary prolonged opioid use. By having more frequent follow-up in pain clinics, switching patients to nonopioid therapies after discharge, and ensuring high-risk patients are discharged with naloxone rescue kits, it would be possible to drastically reduce the number of potential overdoses for patients who previously required opioid therapy in the ICU.

Conclusion

After discharge, 7.6% of previously opioid-naïve patients who were treated with opioids in the ICU were still receiving prescriptions for opioids at 12 months. These findings did not suggest a clinically significant increase in the incidence of chronic opioid use after inpatient administration of opioids. However, these results prompt the need for larger, prospective, multicenter studies to evaluate the effect on hospitalization on converting to chronic opioid use and a deeper evaluation of other potential risk factors that may be present.

Chronic pain is a worldwide cause of impairment. According to data from the 2016 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 50 million American adults suffer from chronic pain, with 19.6 million adults suffering from high-impact chronic pain.¹ This phenomenon is particularly prevalent in the older population. More than 25% of adults aged 65 to 74 years reported that they were often in pain in the past 3 months compared with just 10% of those adults between the ages of 18 and 44 years.²

The economic burdens of chronic pain disorders are well known. In 2010, Gaskin and Richard found that chronic pain has far-reaching consequences for the US economy, ranging from direct health care costs to lost productivity. This study estimated additional health care costs at about $300 billion yearly and lost productivity at $300 billion, bringing total annual costs to about $600 billion. This expense is more than heart disease alone ($309 billion), and cancer and diabetes mellitus ($243 billion and $188 billion respectively) combined.³

Opioid medications are powerful and effective pain-reducing agents that are indicated for short-term acute pain or long-term in the management of chronic, severe cancer-related pain.⁴ Although efficacious, use of these medications carries with it the inherent risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, and overdose.⁵ Since 1999, opioid-related overdose deaths have been on the rise. The CDC estimated that > 15,000 deaths were attributable specifically to prescription opioids in 2015.⁶ The estimates had risen to > 17,000 deaths in 2017, with the number increasing since that time.⁷ Cumulatively, the CDC estimates that > 200,000 deaths in the US between 1999 and 2017 are attributed to prescription opioid overdose, clearly marking this trend as a growing nationwide epidemic.⁸

In 2016, Florence and colleagues estimated costs associated with opioid overdose to be just shy of $80 billion in 2013 dollars.⁹ In October 2017, the US Department of Health and Human Services declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency and committed $900 million to combating the crisis.¹⁰

An abundance of data exist analyzing outpatient prescribing and its impacts on opioid dependence, particularly postoperatively. A study by Brummett and colleagues indicated that the incidence of new persistent opioid use in patients who underwent surgery was 5.9% to 6.5% and did not differ between major and minor surgical procedures. This study concluded that new opioid use could be considered one of the most common complications after elective surgery.¹¹ Similarly, in 2017 Makary and colleagues found that surgeons tend to overprescribe pain medications after procedures; some prescribing as many as 50 to 60 tablets to control pain after simple procedures.¹² This is in stark contrast to pain guideline recommendations of no more than 10 tablets for most standard operative procedures.¹³

Sun and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis of health care claims data in more than 18 million opioid-naïve patients who did and did not undergo surgery. Seven of the 11 surgical procedures were associated with an increased risk of chronic opioid use. The highest incidence of chronic opioid use in the first postoperative year was for total hip arthroplasty (1.4%, OR 5.10; 95% CI, 1.29-1.53). The study found that the risk factors most associated with chronic opioid use after surgery were male sex, aged > 50 years, and preoperative history of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or depression, along with benzodiazepine use or antidepressant use.¹⁴ In a 2018 cohort study that evaluated predictors associated with transitioning to incident chronic opioid therapy, 4 factors were identified. These included opioid duration of action (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 12.28; 95% CI, 8.1-06-18.72), the parent opioid compound (eg, tramadol vs codeine; AOR, 7.26; 95% CI, 5.20-10.13), the presence of conditions that are very likely to cause chronic pain (AOR, 5.47; 95% CI, 3.89-7.68), and drug use disorders (AOR, 4.02; 95% CI, 2.53-6.40).¹⁵

While there has been research into outpatient risk factors and medical practices that may contribute to chronic opioid use, a relative paucity of data exists on the contribution of hospitalization and inpatient opioid use on patient outcomes. A 2014 Canadian study assessed the impact of opioid use in the intensive care unit (ICU) on opioid use after discharge.¹⁶ This study included more than 2,500 patients who were admitted to a Canadian ICU between 2005 and 2008, and then followed after discharge for 48 months to quantify chronic opioid use. Nonopioid users increased from 87.8% in the early post-ICU period to 95.6% at 48 months after discharge. Preadmission chronic opioid use and prolonged hospital length of stay (LOS) were found to be associated with an increased risk of chronic opioid use after discharge.¹⁶ To date, there are no published studies that analyze the incidence of opioid-naïve veterans who convert to chronic opioid use after receiving opioids during an acute hospitalization.

In this retrospective analysis, we analyze the incidence of chronic opioid use after administration of opioids in the ICU as well as a variety of risk factors that may influence conversion to chronic opioid use.

Methods

This analysis was a single center, retrospective chart review conducted for patients admitted between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas. MEDVAMC is a 538-bed academic\teaching hospital serving about 130,000 veterans in Southeast Texas. The hospital has 3 ICUs (medical, cardiovascular, and surgical) and 38 total ICU beds. The study was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board and MEDVAMC Research and Development Review Board. Informed consent was not required.

Inclusion criteria consisted of patients aged ≥ 18 years admitted to the ICU in the above-specified time frame, who were administered a continuous infusion of an opioid for at least 12 hours. Patients were excluded if they were not opioid naïve prior to admission, defined as receiving > 30 days of opioids in the prior 12 months. Patients who died during hospital admission, never received an opioid despite having an active order, were hospital-to-hospital transfers, or were still admitted at the time of data collection were excluded from the analysis.

All pertinent data were collected using the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and the Critical Care Manager (Picis Clinical Solutions) ICU monitoring application. Critical Care Manager was used to track the time frame, duration, and amounts of opioid infusions administered in the ICU. Patient demographic and preadmission data, including date of birth, age, race, history of substance use/alcohol use disorder (defined as a previous diagnosis) and previous opioid prescriptions within the past year were recorded. For the inpatient admission, the ICU LOS, hospital LOS, primary admission diagnosis, type of opioid medication administered, and total duration and dose of opioid administered were collected. After discharge, opioid medication fill data at 3, 6, and 12 months were collected. This information included names of any outpatient opioids filled, dosage unit, quantity, day supply, and number of refills.

The primary outcome for this study was to determine the incidence of chronic opioid use at 3, 6, and 12 months after discharge, defined as the percentage of patients receiving outpatient opioid prescriptions at each time point. Analyses were conducted to observe the effect of age, race, history of substance use or history of alcohol use (International Classification of Diseases documented diagnosis, 9th edition), ICU type (medical, surgical, or cardiovascular), surgical/nonsurgical admission, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, total time, and amount of opioids administered during admission on risk of conversion to chronic opioid use.

Descriptive statistics were calculated to analyze the incidence of chronic opioid use. Univariate logistic regression analysis, including ORs, 95% CIs, and P values, was conducted to determine the effects of the risk factors noted earlier on chronic opioid use at each time point. A multivariate logistic regression model was performed to assess the effect of multiple independent variables on opioid use at 3, 6, and 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed using StataCorp Stata SE.

Results

During the study period, 330 patients were admitted to the ICU. After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 118 patients were included in the final analysis. The most frequent reasons for exclusion from the study were patient death (n = 77), a past history of opioid use (n = 56), and not having received an opioid infusion for at least 12 hours (n = 68). The average age of the patients included was 67 years (Table 1). A total of 14% and 9% of patients, respectively, had a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder or substance use disorder recorded in CPRS. After admission, the most common location for these patients was the surgical ICU (65%). All patients were male. The average hospital LOS was 18.6 days , and the ICU LOS was 8.3 days. The average duration of administration for the opioid (fentanyl) infusion was 63 hours, and the average amount of fentanyl administered to each patient was 57.1 mcg/h.

The incidence of opioid-naïve patients receiving opioids after discharge was 76.3% (n = 90) at 3 months, 19.5% (n = 23) at 6 months and 7.6% (n = 9) at 12 months (Figure). The daily morphine milligram equivalent (MME) of patients prescribed opioids at 3, 6, and 12 months was similar (3 months, 22.7; 6 months, 19.7; 12 months, 20.9). In the univariate regression analysis, several variables were found to be associated with converting to chronic opioid use. Prior history of alcohol use disorder (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.10-0.88; P = .03), ICU type (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.73-8.75; P = .001) and ICU LOS (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.95; P = .01) had a statistically significant association on opioid use at 3 months. (Table 2). No variables evaluated had a statistically significant effect on chronic opioid use at 6 months, and only age (OR 0.93; 95% CI. 0.87-0.99; P = .02) was statistically significant at 12 months. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, history of alcohol abuse, admission for surgery, and hospital LOS were significant at 3 months (Table 3).

Discussion

In this single-center analysis conducted at a VA academic hospital of opioid-naïve patients who were administered opioids in the ICU, the incidence of patients subsequently receiving outpatient opioid prescriptions at 12 months after discharge was 7.6%. There also was a decrease in the amount of opioids received by patients (daily MME) after discharge at 3, 6, and 12 months. This trend did not demonstrate the propensity for inpatient opioid use to convert opioid-naïve patients to chronic opioid users.

The most common outpatient opioids prescribed were hydrocodone/acetaminophen, morphine, and tramadol. Logistic regression showed few factors that correlated significantly with opioid use in the long-term (12 month) period. This finding is a deviation from the findings of Yaffe and colleagues who found hospital LOS to be one of the only predictors of long-term opioid use in their population (defined as use at 48 months).¹⁶ One important difference between our study and the Yaffe and colleagues study was that they evaluated all patients who were admitted to the ICU, regardless of the exposure to opioids during their inpatient stay. Consequently, this difference may have resulted in the differences in findings.

Strengths and Limitations

Location was a strength of our study, as this analysis was conducted at an integrated health care system that provides comprehensive inpatient and outpatient care. The VA uses a closed electronic health record, which allowed patients to be followed both in the inpatient and outpatient settings to determine which medications were prescribed at each time. In other health care systems this information would have been difficult to follow as patients often fill outpatient prescriptions at community pharmacies not affiliated with the treating hospital. However, any patient not using a VA prescriber for subsequent opioid prescriptions or patients who received opioids through other sources would not have had their continued opioid use captured. These data may be available in the states prescription monitoring program, but it was not available to query for research at this time.

This study also excluded chronic opioid users, which could have been another confounding factor to account for when analyzing the results. However, the primary objective of the study was to determine the impact of opioids prescribed in the ICU on converting previous opioid-naïve patients to chronic users. Finally, a multivariate logistic regression was incorporated to assess for factors that may predispose certain patients to convert to chronic opioid users. This analysis served to extend the applicability of our study by not only analyzing whether receiving opioids in the ICU contributed to chronic opioid use in the long-term, but also which populations may be at greatest risk. This information can be used in the future to target harm-reduction efforts toward high-risk hospitalized patients.

One limitation of this study was that it was conducted as a retrospective, single-center chart review in Houston, Texas. Because this was not a randomized controlled trial, it is difficult to imply any causation between exposure to opioids in the ICU and chronic use. In addition, because this study was conducted at a single site, the results may not be able to be generalized to other populations. VA populations tend to be elderly and predominantly male, as was reflected by the study population. These factors, along with regional variability in patient characteristics, may limit the generalizability of this study to older male patients located in Southeast Texas or other similar populations. Other limitations of this study also included the small sample size, limited period of follow-up obtained, and that other comorbidity information (pain scores during stay, use of nonopioid pain medications, past history of anxiety or depression, or other acute illnesses or surgeries that may have required opioid therapy during admission) was not collected.

This study was only able to review 118 patients for a follow-up duration of 1 year. In the Yaffe and colleagues study, more than 2,500 patients were followed over 4 years, which provided a more long-term overview of the clinical course of these patients and may be another reason for discrepant findings. However, this study did not actually assess the impact on administration of opioids on the development of chronic opioid use.¹⁶ Finally, the biggest limitation to this study may be the potential for confounding discharge prescriptions. After discharge, patients’ prescriptions were evaluated from discharge to 3 months, in between 3 and 6 months, and between 6 and 12 months for the presence of an opioid prescription. Due to this methodology, any opioid prescription a patient was discharged with was counted in the 3-month time point. Since many patients included in the study were admitted to the surgical ICU (65%), it was logical that they were discharged with opioids after their procedure. While including the immediate postdischarge prescription data was useful for evaluating the decrease in opioid use and incidence over time, it did cause the 3-month time point to appear overly inflated, potentially signaling that at 3 months after discharge many of these patients were still requiring opioid use.

The Society of Critical Care Medicine still recommends opioids as first-line therapy for non-neuropathic pain in the ICU setting.¹⁷ Additionally, postoperative pain can be difficult to manage in the surgical population and is often treated with opioids, though treatment with multimodal pain regimens is becoming more common.¹⁸ It is difficult to imagine that a finding that implicates opioid use in the hospital with conversion to chronic opioid use would prompt a cessation in the use of opioid in these settings, especially in the context of analgosedation related to mechanically ventilated patients. However, it would be plausible to use this knowledge to advocate for opioid-sparing therapies and consideration for weaning individuals at high risk for misuse after discharge from opioid-containing sedation or analgesia regimens in a timelier manner.

Though our findings did not show a clinically relevant increase in chronic opioid users, clinicians can still use this information to encourage targeted education and closer monitoring for those patients deemed as high risk at discharge to prevent unnecessary prolonged opioid use. By having more frequent follow-up in pain clinics, switching patients to nonopioid therapies after discharge, and ensuring high-risk patients are discharged with naloxone rescue kits, it would be possible to drastically reduce the number of potential overdoses for patients who previously required opioid therapy in the ICU.

Conclusion

After discharge, 7.6% of previously opioid-naïve patients who were treated with opioids in the ICU were still receiving prescriptions for opioids at 12 months. These findings did not suggest a clinically significant increase in the incidence of chronic opioid use after inpatient administration of opioids. However, these results prompt the need for larger, prospective, multicenter studies to evaluate the effect on hospitalization on converting to chronic opioid use and a deeper evaluation of other potential risk factors that may be present.

Chronic pain is a worldwide cause of impairment. According to data from the 2016 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 50 million American adults suffer from chronic pain, with 19.6 million adults suffering from high-impact chronic pain.¹ This phenomenon is particularly prevalent in the older population. More than 25% of adults aged 65 to 74 years reported that they were often in pain in the past 3 months compared with just 10% of those adults between the ages of 18 and 44 years.²

The economic burdens of chronic pain disorders are well known. In 2010, Gaskin and Richard found that chronic pain has far-reaching consequences for the US economy, ranging from direct health care costs to lost productivity. This study estimated additional health care costs at about $300 billion yearly and lost productivity at $300 billion, bringing total annual costs to about $600 billion. This expense is more than heart disease alone ($309 billion), and cancer and diabetes mellitus ($243 billion and $188 billion respectively) combined.³

Opioid medications are powerful and effective pain-reducing agents that are indicated for short-term acute pain or long-term in the management of chronic, severe cancer-related pain.⁴ Although efficacious, use of these medications carries with it the inherent risks of abuse, misuse, addiction, and overdose.⁵ Since 1999, opioid-related overdose deaths have been on the rise. The CDC estimated that > 15,000 deaths were attributable specifically to prescription opioids in 2015.⁶ The estimates had risen to > 17,000 deaths in 2017, with the number increasing since that time.⁷ Cumulatively, the CDC estimates that > 200,000 deaths in the US between 1999 and 2017 are attributed to prescription opioid overdose, clearly marking this trend as a growing nationwide epidemic.⁸

In 2016, Florence and colleagues estimated costs associated with opioid overdose to be just shy of $80 billion in 2013 dollars.⁹ In October 2017, the US Department of Health and Human Services declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency and committed $900 million to combating the crisis.¹⁰

An abundance of data exist analyzing outpatient prescribing and its impacts on opioid dependence, particularly postoperatively. A study by Brummett and colleagues indicated that the incidence of new persistent opioid use in patients who underwent surgery was 5.9% to 6.5% and did not differ between major and minor surgical procedures. This study concluded that new opioid use could be considered one of the most common complications after elective surgery.¹¹ Similarly, in 2017 Makary and colleagues found that surgeons tend to overprescribe pain medications after procedures; some prescribing as many as 50 to 60 tablets to control pain after simple procedures.¹² This is in stark contrast to pain guideline recommendations of no more than 10 tablets for most standard operative procedures.¹³

Sun and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis of health care claims data in more than 18 million opioid-naïve patients who did and did not undergo surgery. Seven of the 11 surgical procedures were associated with an increased risk of chronic opioid use. The highest incidence of chronic opioid use in the first postoperative year was for total hip arthroplasty (1.4%, OR 5.10; 95% CI, 1.29-1.53). The study found that the risk factors most associated with chronic opioid use after surgery were male sex, aged > 50 years, and preoperative history of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or depression, along with benzodiazepine use or antidepressant use.¹⁴ In a 2018 cohort study that evaluated predictors associated with transitioning to incident chronic opioid therapy, 4 factors were identified. These included opioid duration of action (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 12.28; 95% CI, 8.1-06-18.72), the parent opioid compound (eg, tramadol vs codeine; AOR, 7.26; 95% CI, 5.20-10.13), the presence of conditions that are very likely to cause chronic pain (AOR, 5.47; 95% CI, 3.89-7.68), and drug use disorders (AOR, 4.02; 95% CI, 2.53-6.40).¹⁵

While there has been research into outpatient risk factors and medical practices that may contribute to chronic opioid use, a relative paucity of data exists on the contribution of hospitalization and inpatient opioid use on patient outcomes. A 2014 Canadian study assessed the impact of opioid use in the intensive care unit (ICU) on opioid use after discharge.¹⁶ This study included more than 2,500 patients who were admitted to a Canadian ICU between 2005 and 2008, and then followed after discharge for 48 months to quantify chronic opioid use. Nonopioid users increased from 87.8% in the early post-ICU period to 95.6% at 48 months after discharge. Preadmission chronic opioid use and prolonged hospital length of stay (LOS) were found to be associated with an increased risk of chronic opioid use after discharge.¹⁶ To date, there are no published studies that analyze the incidence of opioid-naïve veterans who convert to chronic opioid use after receiving opioids during an acute hospitalization.

In this retrospective analysis, we analyze the incidence of chronic opioid use after administration of opioids in the ICU as well as a variety of risk factors that may influence conversion to chronic opioid use.

Methods

This analysis was a single center, retrospective chart review conducted for patients admitted between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas. MEDVAMC is a 538-bed academic\teaching hospital serving about 130,000 veterans in Southeast Texas. The hospital has 3 ICUs (medical, cardiovascular, and surgical) and 38 total ICU beds. The study was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board and MEDVAMC Research and Development Review Board. Informed consent was not required.

Inclusion criteria consisted of patients aged ≥ 18 years admitted to the ICU in the above-specified time frame, who were administered a continuous infusion of an opioid for at least 12 hours. Patients were excluded if they were not opioid naïve prior to admission, defined as receiving > 30 days of opioids in the prior 12 months. Patients who died during hospital admission, never received an opioid despite having an active order, were hospital-to-hospital transfers, or were still admitted at the time of data collection were excluded from the analysis.

All pertinent data were collected using the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and the Critical Care Manager (Picis Clinical Solutions) ICU monitoring application. Critical Care Manager was used to track the time frame, duration, and amounts of opioid infusions administered in the ICU. Patient demographic and preadmission data, including date of birth, age, race, history of substance use/alcohol use disorder (defined as a previous diagnosis) and previous opioid prescriptions within the past year were recorded. For the inpatient admission, the ICU LOS, hospital LOS, primary admission diagnosis, type of opioid medication administered, and total duration and dose of opioid administered were collected. After discharge, opioid medication fill data at 3, 6, and 12 months were collected. This information included names of any outpatient opioids filled, dosage unit, quantity, day supply, and number of refills.

The primary outcome for this study was to determine the incidence of chronic opioid use at 3, 6, and 12 months after discharge, defined as the percentage of patients receiving outpatient opioid prescriptions at each time point. Analyses were conducted to observe the effect of age, race, history of substance use or history of alcohol use (International Classification of Diseases documented diagnosis, 9th edition), ICU type (medical, surgical, or cardiovascular), surgical/nonsurgical admission, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, total time, and amount of opioids administered during admission on risk of conversion to chronic opioid use.

Descriptive statistics were calculated to analyze the incidence of chronic opioid use. Univariate logistic regression analysis, including ORs, 95% CIs, and P values, was conducted to determine the effects of the risk factors noted earlier on chronic opioid use at each time point. A multivariate logistic regression model was performed to assess the effect of multiple independent variables on opioid use at 3, 6, and 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed using StataCorp Stata SE.

Results

During the study period, 330 patients were admitted to the ICU. After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 118 patients were included in the final analysis. The most frequent reasons for exclusion from the study were patient death (n = 77), a past history of opioid use (n = 56), and not having received an opioid infusion for at least 12 hours (n = 68). The average age of the patients included was 67 years (Table 1). A total of 14% and 9% of patients, respectively, had a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder or substance use disorder recorded in CPRS. After admission, the most common location for these patients was the surgical ICU (65%). All patients were male. The average hospital LOS was 18.6 days , and the ICU LOS was 8.3 days. The average duration of administration for the opioid (fentanyl) infusion was 63 hours, and the average amount of fentanyl administered to each patient was 57.1 mcg/h.

The incidence of opioid-naïve patients receiving opioids after discharge was 76.3% (n = 90) at 3 months, 19.5% (n = 23) at 6 months and 7.6% (n = 9) at 12 months (Figure). The daily morphine milligram equivalent (MME) of patients prescribed opioids at 3, 6, and 12 months was similar (3 months, 22.7; 6 months, 19.7; 12 months, 20.9). In the univariate regression analysis, several variables were found to be associated with converting to chronic opioid use. Prior history of alcohol use disorder (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.10-0.88; P = .03), ICU type (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.73-8.75; P = .001) and ICU LOS (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.95; P = .01) had a statistically significant association on opioid use at 3 months. (Table 2). No variables evaluated had a statistically significant effect on chronic opioid use at 6 months, and only age (OR 0.93; 95% CI. 0.87-0.99; P = .02) was statistically significant at 12 months. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, history of alcohol abuse, admission for surgery, and hospital LOS were significant at 3 months (Table 3).

Discussion

In this single-center analysis conducted at a VA academic hospital of opioid-naïve patients who were administered opioids in the ICU, the incidence of patients subsequently receiving outpatient opioid prescriptions at 12 months after discharge was 7.6%. There also was a decrease in the amount of opioids received by patients (daily MME) after discharge at 3, 6, and 12 months. This trend did not demonstrate the propensity for inpatient opioid use to convert opioid-naïve patients to chronic opioid users.

The most common outpatient opioids prescribed were hydrocodone/acetaminophen, morphine, and tramadol. Logistic regression showed few factors that correlated significantly with opioid use in the long-term (12 month) period. This finding is a deviation from the findings of Yaffe and colleagues who found hospital LOS to be one of the only predictors of long-term opioid use in their population (defined as use at 48 months).¹⁶ One important difference between our study and the Yaffe and colleagues study was that they evaluated all patients who were admitted to the ICU, regardless of the exposure to opioids during their inpatient stay. Consequently, this difference may have resulted in the differences in findings.

Strengths and Limitations

Location was a strength of our study, as this analysis was conducted at an integrated health care system that provides comprehensive inpatient and outpatient care. The VA uses a closed electronic health record, which allowed patients to be followed both in the inpatient and outpatient settings to determine which medications were prescribed at each time. In other health care systems this information would have been difficult to follow as patients often fill outpatient prescriptions at community pharmacies not affiliated with the treating hospital. However, any patient not using a VA prescriber for subsequent opioid prescriptions or patients who received opioids through other sources would not have had their continued opioid use captured. These data may be available in the states prescription monitoring program, but it was not available to query for research at this time.

This study also excluded chronic opioid users, which could have been another confounding factor to account for when analyzing the results. However, the primary objective of the study was to determine the impact of opioids prescribed in the ICU on converting previous opioid-naïve patients to chronic users. Finally, a multivariate logistic regression was incorporated to assess for factors that may predispose certain patients to convert to chronic opioid users. This analysis served to extend the applicability of our study by not only analyzing whether receiving opioids in the ICU contributed to chronic opioid use in the long-term, but also which populations may be at greatest risk. This information can be used in the future to target harm-reduction efforts toward high-risk hospitalized patients.

One limitation of this study was that it was conducted as a retrospective, single-center chart review in Houston, Texas. Because this was not a randomized controlled trial, it is difficult to imply any causation between exposure to opioids in the ICU and chronic use. In addition, because this study was conducted at a single site, the results may not be able to be generalized to other populations. VA populations tend to be elderly and predominantly male, as was reflected by the study population. These factors, along with regional variability in patient characteristics, may limit the generalizability of this study to older male patients located in Southeast Texas or other similar populations. Other limitations of this study also included the small sample size, limited period of follow-up obtained, and that other comorbidity information (pain scores during stay, use of nonopioid pain medications, past history of anxiety or depression, or other acute illnesses or surgeries that may have required opioid therapy during admission) was not collected.

This study was only able to review 118 patients for a follow-up duration of 1 year. In the Yaffe and colleagues study, more than 2,500 patients were followed over 4 years, which provided a more long-term overview of the clinical course of these patients and may be another reason for discrepant findings. However, this study did not actually assess the impact on administration of opioids on the development of chronic opioid use.¹⁶ Finally, the biggest limitation to this study may be the potential for confounding discharge prescriptions. After discharge, patients’ prescriptions were evaluated from discharge to 3 months, in between 3 and 6 months, and between 6 and 12 months for the presence of an opioid prescription. Due to this methodology, any opioid prescription a patient was discharged with was counted in the 3-month time point. Since many patients included in the study were admitted to the surgical ICU (65%), it was logical that they were discharged with opioids after their procedure. While including the immediate postdischarge prescription data was useful for evaluating the decrease in opioid use and incidence over time, it did cause the 3-month time point to appear overly inflated, potentially signaling that at 3 months after discharge many of these patients were still requiring opioid use.

The Society of Critical Care Medicine still recommends opioids as first-line therapy for non-neuropathic pain in the ICU setting.¹⁷ Additionally, postoperative pain can be difficult to manage in the surgical population and is often treated with opioids, though treatment with multimodal pain regimens is becoming more common.¹⁸ It is difficult to imagine that a finding that implicates opioid use in the hospital with conversion to chronic opioid use would prompt a cessation in the use of opioid in these settings, especially in the context of analgosedation related to mechanically ventilated patients. However, it would be plausible to use this knowledge to advocate for opioid-sparing therapies and consideration for weaning individuals at high risk for misuse after discharge from opioid-containing sedation or analgesia regimens in a timelier manner.

Though our findings did not show a clinically relevant increase in chronic opioid users, clinicians can still use this information to encourage targeted education and closer monitoring for those patients deemed as high risk at discharge to prevent unnecessary prolonged opioid use. By having more frequent follow-up in pain clinics, switching patients to nonopioid therapies after discharge, and ensuring high-risk patients are discharged with naloxone rescue kits, it would be possible to drastically reduce the number of potential overdoses for patients who previously required opioid therapy in the ICU.

Conclusion

After discharge, 7.6% of previously opioid-naïve patients who were treated with opioids in the ICU were still receiving prescriptions for opioids at 12 months. These findings did not suggest a clinically significant increase in the incidence of chronic opioid use after inpatient administration of opioids. However, these results prompt the need for larger, prospective, multicenter studies to evaluate the effect on hospitalization on converting to chronic opioid use and a deeper evaluation of other potential risk factors that may be present.

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease or other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors appear generally safe, though they may increase the risk of herpes zoster infection, according to a large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data from more than 66,000 patients revealed no significant links between JAK inhibitors and risks of serious infections, malignancy, or major adverse cardiovascular events, reported lead author Pablo Olivera, MD, of Centro de Educación Médica e Investigación Clínica (CEMIC) in Buenos Aires and colleagues.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating the risk profile of JAK inhibitors in a wide spectrum of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.

The investigators drew studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from 1990 to 2019 and from conference databases from 2012 to 2018. Out of 973 studies identified, 82 were included in the final analysis, of which two-thirds were randomized clinical trials. In total, 101,925 subjects were included, of whom a majority had rheumatoid arthritis (n = 86,308), followed by psoriasis (n = 9,311), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 5,987), and ankylosing spondylitis (n = 319).

Meta-analysis of JAK inhibitor usage involved 66,159 patients. Four JAK inhibitors were included: tofacitinib, filgotinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of adverse events and serious adverse events. The investigators also estimated incidence rates of herpes zoster infection, serious infections, mortality, malignancy, and major adverse cardiovascular events. These rates were compared with those of patients who received placebo or an active comparator in clinical trials.

Analysis showed that almost 9 out of 10 patients (87.16%) who were exposed to a JAK inhibitor received tofacitinib. The investigators described high variability in treatment duration and baseline characteristics of participants. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events also fell across a broad spectrum, from 10% to 82% and from 0% to 29%, respectively.

“Most [adverse events] were mild, and included worsening of the underlying condition, probably showing lack of efficacy,” the investigators wrote.

Rates of mortality and most adverse events were not significantly associated with JAK inhibitor exposure. In contrast, relative risk of herpes zoster infection was 57% higher in patients who received a JAK inhibitor than in those who received a placebo or comparator (RR, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.37).

“Regarding the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors, the largest evidence comes from the use of tofacitinib, but it appears to be a class effect, with a clear dose-dependent effect,” the investigators wrote.

Although risks of herpes zoster may be carried across the drug class, they may not be evenly distributed given that a subgroup analysis revealed that some JAK inhibitors may bring higher risks than others; specifically, tofacitinib and baricitinib were associated with higher relative risks of herpes zoster than were upadacitinib and filgotinib.

“Although this is merely a qualitative comparison, this difference could be related to the fact that both filgotinib and upadacitinib are selective JAK1 inhibitors, whereas tofacitinib is a JAK1/JAK3 inhibitor and baricitinib a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor,” the investigators wrote. “Further studies are needed to determine if JAK isoform selectivity affects the risk of herpes zoster.”

The investigators emphasized this need for more research. While the present findings help illuminate the safety profile of JAK inhibitors, they are clouded by various other factors, such as disease-specific considerations, a lack of real-world data, and studies that are likely too short to accurately determine risk of malignancy, the investigators wrote.

“More studies with long follow-up and in the real world setting, in different conditions, will be needed to fully elucidate the safety profile of the different JAK inhibitors,” the investigators concluded.

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Olivera P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.001.

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease or other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors appear generally safe, though they may increase the risk of herpes zoster infection, according to a large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data from more than 66,000 patients revealed no significant links between JAK inhibitors and risks of serious infections, malignancy, or major adverse cardiovascular events, reported lead author Pablo Olivera, MD, of Centro de Educación Médica e Investigación Clínica (CEMIC) in Buenos Aires and colleagues.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating the risk profile of JAK inhibitors in a wide spectrum of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.

The investigators drew studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from 1990 to 2019 and from conference databases from 2012 to 2018. Out of 973 studies identified, 82 were included in the final analysis, of which two-thirds were randomized clinical trials. In total, 101,925 subjects were included, of whom a majority had rheumatoid arthritis (n = 86,308), followed by psoriasis (n = 9,311), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 5,987), and ankylosing spondylitis (n = 319).

Meta-analysis of JAK inhibitor usage involved 66,159 patients. Four JAK inhibitors were included: tofacitinib, filgotinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of adverse events and serious adverse events. The investigators also estimated incidence rates of herpes zoster infection, serious infections, mortality, malignancy, and major adverse cardiovascular events. These rates were compared with those of patients who received placebo or an active comparator in clinical trials.

Analysis showed that almost 9 out of 10 patients (87.16%) who were exposed to a JAK inhibitor received tofacitinib. The investigators described high variability in treatment duration and baseline characteristics of participants. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events also fell across a broad spectrum, from 10% to 82% and from 0% to 29%, respectively.

“Most [adverse events] were mild, and included worsening of the underlying condition, probably showing lack of efficacy,” the investigators wrote.

Rates of mortality and most adverse events were not significantly associated with JAK inhibitor exposure. In contrast, relative risk of herpes zoster infection was 57% higher in patients who received a JAK inhibitor than in those who received a placebo or comparator (RR, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.37).

“Regarding the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors, the largest evidence comes from the use of tofacitinib, but it appears to be a class effect, with a clear dose-dependent effect,” the investigators wrote.

Although risks of herpes zoster may be carried across the drug class, they may not be evenly distributed given that a subgroup analysis revealed that some JAK inhibitors may bring higher risks than others; specifically, tofacitinib and baricitinib were associated with higher relative risks of herpes zoster than were upadacitinib and filgotinib.

“Although this is merely a qualitative comparison, this difference could be related to the fact that both filgotinib and upadacitinib are selective JAK1 inhibitors, whereas tofacitinib is a JAK1/JAK3 inhibitor and baricitinib a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor,” the investigators wrote. “Further studies are needed to determine if JAK isoform selectivity affects the risk of herpes zoster.”

The investigators emphasized this need for more research. While the present findings help illuminate the safety profile of JAK inhibitors, they are clouded by various other factors, such as disease-specific considerations, a lack of real-world data, and studies that are likely too short to accurately determine risk of malignancy, the investigators wrote.

“More studies with long follow-up and in the real world setting, in different conditions, will be needed to fully elucidate the safety profile of the different JAK inhibitors,” the investigators concluded.

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Olivera P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.001.

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease or other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors appear generally safe, though they may increase the risk of herpes zoster infection, according to a large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data from more than 66,000 patients revealed no significant links between JAK inhibitors and risks of serious infections, malignancy, or major adverse cardiovascular events, reported lead author Pablo Olivera, MD, of Centro de Educación Médica e Investigación Clínica (CEMIC) in Buenos Aires and colleagues.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating the risk profile of JAK inhibitors in a wide spectrum of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.

The investigators drew studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from 1990 to 2019 and from conference databases from 2012 to 2018. Out of 973 studies identified, 82 were included in the final analysis, of which two-thirds were randomized clinical trials. In total, 101,925 subjects were included, of whom a majority had rheumatoid arthritis (n = 86,308), followed by psoriasis (n = 9,311), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 5,987), and ankylosing spondylitis (n = 319).

Meta-analysis of JAK inhibitor usage involved 66,159 patients. Four JAK inhibitors were included: tofacitinib, filgotinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of adverse events and serious adverse events. The investigators also estimated incidence rates of herpes zoster infection, serious infections, mortality, malignancy, and major adverse cardiovascular events. These rates were compared with those of patients who received placebo or an active comparator in clinical trials.

Analysis showed that almost 9 out of 10 patients (87.16%) who were exposed to a JAK inhibitor received tofacitinib. The investigators described high variability in treatment duration and baseline characteristics of participants. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events also fell across a broad spectrum, from 10% to 82% and from 0% to 29%, respectively.

“Most [adverse events] were mild, and included worsening of the underlying condition, probably showing lack of efficacy,” the investigators wrote.

Rates of mortality and most adverse events were not significantly associated with JAK inhibitor exposure. In contrast, relative risk of herpes zoster infection was 57% higher in patients who received a JAK inhibitor than in those who received a placebo or comparator (RR, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.37).

“Regarding the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors, the largest evidence comes from the use of tofacitinib, but it appears to be a class effect, with a clear dose-dependent effect,” the investigators wrote.

Although risks of herpes zoster may be carried across the drug class, they may not be evenly distributed given that a subgroup analysis revealed that some JAK inhibitors may bring higher risks than others; specifically, tofacitinib and baricitinib were associated with higher relative risks of herpes zoster than were upadacitinib and filgotinib.

“Although this is merely a qualitative comparison, this difference could be related to the fact that both filgotinib and upadacitinib are selective JAK1 inhibitors, whereas tofacitinib is a JAK1/JAK3 inhibitor and baricitinib a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor,” the investigators wrote. “Further studies are needed to determine if JAK isoform selectivity affects the risk of herpes zoster.”

The investigators emphasized this need for more research. While the present findings help illuminate the safety profile of JAK inhibitors, they are clouded by various other factors, such as disease-specific considerations, a lack of real-world data, and studies that are likely too short to accurately determine risk of malignancy, the investigators wrote.

“More studies with long follow-up and in the real world setting, in different conditions, will be needed to fully elucidate the safety profile of the different JAK inhibitors,” the investigators concluded.

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Olivera P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.001.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nearly two dozen tests for the novel coronavirus through its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) policy, according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

“Based on what we know about influenza, it’s unlikely that all of these tests are going to perform exactly the same way,” said Angela M. Caliendo, MD, executive vice chair of the department of medicine at Brown University in Providence, R.I., at a press briefing. Although these tests are good, no test is perfect, she added.

The development and availability of testing has improved over time, but clinical laboratories still face challenges, said Kimberly E. Hanson, MD, associate professor of internal medicine at University of Utah, Salt Lake City. These challenges include shortages of devices for specimen collection, media, test tubes, and reagents. Although the goal is to test all symptomatic patients, these shortages require laboratories to prioritize health care workers and the sickest patients.
 

Tests are being approved through an abbreviated process

Two types of test, rapid tests and serology tests, are in use. Rapid tests use polymerase chain reactions to detect the virus in a clinical specimen. This type of testing is used to diagnose infection. Serology tests measure antibodies to the virus and are more appropriate for indicating whether a patient has been exposed to the virus.

The declaration of a national emergency enabled the FDA to activate its EUA policy, which allows for quicker approval of tests. Normally, a test must be assessed in the laboratory (such as with a mock specimen or an inactivated virus) and in a clinical study of patients. Under the EUA, clinical assessment is not required for the approval of a test. Consequently, the clinical performance of a test approved under EUA is unknown.

Collecting a specimen of good quality is critical to the quality of the test result, said Dr. Caliendo, the secretary of IDSA’s board of directors. Clinicians and investigators have used nasopharyngeal swabs, sputum, and specimens collected from deep within the lung. “We’re still collecting data to determine which is the best specimen type.” As coronavirus testing expands, particularly to drive-through testing sites, “we may be using people who are not as experienced, and so you might not get as high a quality specimen in that situation,” Dr. Caliendo added.

The timing of the test influences the quality of the result, as well, because the amount of virus is lower at the onset of symptoms than it is later. Another factor that affects the quality of the results is the test’s sensitivity.
 

The time to obtain results varies

The value of having several tests available is that it enables many patients to be tested simultaneously, said Dr. Hanson, a member of IDSA’s board of directors. It also helps to reduce potential problems with the supply of test kits. A test manufacturer, however, may supply parts of the test kit but not the whole kit. This requires the hospital or laboratory to obtain the remaining parts from other suppliers. Furthermore, test manufacturers may need to prioritize areas with high rates of infection or transmission when they ship their tests, which limits testing in other areas.

One reason for the lack of a national plan for testing is that the virus has affected different regions at different times, said Dr. Caliendo. Some tests are more difficult to perform than others, and not all laboratories are equally sophisticated, which can limit testing. It is necessary to test not only symptomatic patients who have been hospitalized, but also symptomatic patients in the community, said Dr. Caliendo. “Ideally, we’re going to need to couple acute diagnostics [testing while people are sick] with serologic testing. Serologic testing is going to be important for us to see who has been infected. That will give us an idea of who is left in our community who is at risk for developing infection.”

How quickly test results are available depends on the type of test and where it is administered. Recently established drive-through clinics can provide results in about 30 minutes. Tests performed in hospitals may take between 1 and 6 hours to yield results. “The issue is, do we have reagents that day?” said Dr. Caliendo. “We have to be careful whom we choose to test, and we screen that in the hospital so that we have enough tests to run as we need them.” But many locations have backlogs. “When you have a backlog of testing, you’re going to wait days, unfortunately, to get a result,” said Dr. Caliendo.

Dr. Caliendo and Dr. Hanson did not report disclosures for this briefing.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nearly two dozen tests for the novel coronavirus through its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) policy, according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

“Based on what we know about influenza, it’s unlikely that all of these tests are going to perform exactly the same way,” said Angela M. Caliendo, MD, executive vice chair of the department of medicine at Brown University in Providence, R.I., at a press briefing. Although these tests are good, no test is perfect, she added.

The development and availability of testing has improved over time, but clinical laboratories still face challenges, said Kimberly E. Hanson, MD, associate professor of internal medicine at University of Utah, Salt Lake City. These challenges include shortages of devices for specimen collection, media, test tubes, and reagents. Although the goal is to test all symptomatic patients, these shortages require laboratories to prioritize health care workers and the sickest patients.
 

Tests are being approved through an abbreviated process

Two types of test, rapid tests and serology tests, are in use. Rapid tests use polymerase chain reactions to detect the virus in a clinical specimen. This type of testing is used to diagnose infection. Serology tests measure antibodies to the virus and are more appropriate for indicating whether a patient has been exposed to the virus.

The declaration of a national emergency enabled the FDA to activate its EUA policy, which allows for quicker approval of tests. Normally, a test must be assessed in the laboratory (such as with a mock specimen or an inactivated virus) and in a clinical study of patients. Under the EUA, clinical assessment is not required for the approval of a test. Consequently, the clinical performance of a test approved under EUA is unknown.

Collecting a specimen of good quality is critical to the quality of the test result, said Dr. Caliendo, the secretary of IDSA’s board of directors. Clinicians and investigators have used nasopharyngeal swabs, sputum, and specimens collected from deep within the lung. “We’re still collecting data to determine which is the best specimen type.” As coronavirus testing expands, particularly to drive-through testing sites, “we may be using people who are not as experienced, and so you might not get as high a quality specimen in that situation,” Dr. Caliendo added.

The timing of the test influences the quality of the result, as well, because the amount of virus is lower at the onset of symptoms than it is later. Another factor that affects the quality of the results is the test’s sensitivity.
 

The time to obtain results varies

The value of having several tests available is that it enables many patients to be tested simultaneously, said Dr. Hanson, a member of IDSA’s board of directors. It also helps to reduce potential problems with the supply of test kits. A test manufacturer, however, may supply parts of the test kit but not the whole kit. This requires the hospital or laboratory to obtain the remaining parts from other suppliers. Furthermore, test manufacturers may need to prioritize areas with high rates of infection or transmission when they ship their tests, which limits testing in other areas.

One reason for the lack of a national plan for testing is that the virus has affected different regions at different times, said Dr. Caliendo. Some tests are more difficult to perform than others, and not all laboratories are equally sophisticated, which can limit testing. It is necessary to test not only symptomatic patients who have been hospitalized, but also symptomatic patients in the community, said Dr. Caliendo. “Ideally, we’re going to need to couple acute diagnostics [testing while people are sick] with serologic testing. Serologic testing is going to be important for us to see who has been infected. That will give us an idea of who is left in our community who is at risk for developing infection.”

How quickly test results are available depends on the type of test and where it is administered. Recently established drive-through clinics can provide results in about 30 minutes. Tests performed in hospitals may take between 1 and 6 hours to yield results. “The issue is, do we have reagents that day?” said Dr. Caliendo. “We have to be careful whom we choose to test, and we screen that in the hospital so that we have enough tests to run as we need them.” But many locations have backlogs. “When you have a backlog of testing, you’re going to wait days, unfortunately, to get a result,” said Dr. Caliendo.

Dr. Caliendo and Dr. Hanson did not report disclosures for this briefing.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nearly two dozen tests for the novel coronavirus through its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) policy, according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

“Based on what we know about influenza, it’s unlikely that all of these tests are going to perform exactly the same way,” said Angela M. Caliendo, MD, executive vice chair of the department of medicine at Brown University in Providence, R.I., at a press briefing. Although these tests are good, no test is perfect, she added.

The development and availability of testing has improved over time, but clinical laboratories still face challenges, said Kimberly E. Hanson, MD, associate professor of internal medicine at University of Utah, Salt Lake City. These challenges include shortages of devices for specimen collection, media, test tubes, and reagents. Although the goal is to test all symptomatic patients, these shortages require laboratories to prioritize health care workers and the sickest patients.
 

Tests are being approved through an abbreviated process

Two types of test, rapid tests and serology tests, are in use. Rapid tests use polymerase chain reactions to detect the virus in a clinical specimen. This type of testing is used to diagnose infection. Serology tests measure antibodies to the virus and are more appropriate for indicating whether a patient has been exposed to the virus.

The declaration of a national emergency enabled the FDA to activate its EUA policy, which allows for quicker approval of tests. Normally, a test must be assessed in the laboratory (such as with a mock specimen or an inactivated virus) and in a clinical study of patients. Under the EUA, clinical assessment is not required for the approval of a test. Consequently, the clinical performance of a test approved under EUA is unknown.

Collecting a specimen of good quality is critical to the quality of the test result, said Dr. Caliendo, the secretary of IDSA’s board of directors. Clinicians and investigators have used nasopharyngeal swabs, sputum, and specimens collected from deep within the lung. “We’re still collecting data to determine which is the best specimen type.” As coronavirus testing expands, particularly to drive-through testing sites, “we may be using people who are not as experienced, and so you might not get as high a quality specimen in that situation,” Dr. Caliendo added.

The timing of the test influences the quality of the result, as well, because the amount of virus is lower at the onset of symptoms than it is later. Another factor that affects the quality of the results is the test’s sensitivity.
 

The time to obtain results varies

The value of having several tests available is that it enables many patients to be tested simultaneously, said Dr. Hanson, a member of IDSA’s board of directors. It also helps to reduce potential problems with the supply of test kits. A test manufacturer, however, may supply parts of the test kit but not the whole kit. This requires the hospital or laboratory to obtain the remaining parts from other suppliers. Furthermore, test manufacturers may need to prioritize areas with high rates of infection or transmission when they ship their tests, which limits testing in other areas.

One reason for the lack of a national plan for testing is that the virus has affected different regions at different times, said Dr. Caliendo. Some tests are more difficult to perform than others, and not all laboratories are equally sophisticated, which can limit testing. It is necessary to test not only symptomatic patients who have been hospitalized, but also symptomatic patients in the community, said Dr. Caliendo. “Ideally, we’re going to need to couple acute diagnostics [testing while people are sick] with serologic testing. Serologic testing is going to be important for us to see who has been infected. That will give us an idea of who is left in our community who is at risk for developing infection.”

How quickly test results are available depends on the type of test and where it is administered. Recently established drive-through clinics can provide results in about 30 minutes. Tests performed in hospitals may take between 1 and 6 hours to yield results. “The issue is, do we have reagents that day?” said Dr. Caliendo. “We have to be careful whom we choose to test, and we screen that in the hospital so that we have enough tests to run as we need them.” But many locations have backlogs. “When you have a backlog of testing, you’re going to wait days, unfortunately, to get a result,” said Dr. Caliendo.

Dr. Caliendo and Dr. Hanson did not report disclosures for this briefing.

[email protected]

A large amount of data suggest that mild or severe cytokine storms, accompanied by high expression of interleukin-6 (IL-6), occur in patients with severe coronavirus disease and can be an important cause of death. Blocking the signal transduction pathway of IL-6 is expected to become a new method for the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19, with the IL-6 inhibitor, tocilizumab (Actemra), poised to become an effective drug for these patients, according to the authors of a review published online in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The reviewers from China detailed the metabolic pathways and regulation of cytokine release syndrome, especially with respect to what is known about severe COVID-19, and discussed the results of recent trials with tocilizumab, which is currently used for treatment of CRS in a variety of cancers and other metabolic disorders.

Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody against human IL-6 receptor of immunoglobulin IgG1 subtype and has been approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis. The antibody specifically binds soluble- and membrane-bound IL-6 receptors (sIL-6R and mIL-6R) and inhibits sIL-6R– and mIL-6R–mediated signal transduction. It has been shown to be effective in the treatment of severe CRS patients. In 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved tocilizumab for the treatment of CRS caused by CAR-T (chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapy) therapy.

A small clinical trial in China examined the effectiveness of tocilizumab in 21 patients who met the criteria for severe or critical COVID-19, including respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, shock, or admission to the ICU with other organ failure. After a few days of tocilizumab treatment, the body temperatures returned to normal (initially, all 21 patients had fevers), and all other symptoms were significantly improved, according to the authors. A total of 75% (15/20) of the patients reduced their oxygen intake, and 1 patient did not need oxygen. CT scanning showed that 90.5% (19/21) of the patients had absorption of pulmonary lesions, and lab tests showed that the proportion of peripheral blood lymphocytes and C-reactive protein in the patients returned to normal.

The main deficiency of the study was that only the level of IL-6 in peripheral blood before treatment with tocilizumab was reported (mean value, 132.38 ± 278.54 pg/mL), but the level of IL-6 following treatment was not given, according to the reviewers. Serum levels of IL-6 in normal patients are undetectable or very low.

Based upon their analysis of COVID-19’s possible mechanism and the small samples of clinical data available, tocilizumab appeared effective, and “we suggest that it should be used in critically ill COVID-19 patients with significantly elevated IL-6,” the authors stated.

“CRS occurs in a large number of patients with severe COVID-19, which is also an important cause of death. IL-6 is the key molecule of CRS, so IL-6R antagonist tocilizumab may be an important drug to save patients’ lives,” the researchers concluded.

This study was supported by China Mega-Project for Infectious Diseases and the China Mega-Project for Innovative Drugs. The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang C et al. Int J Antimicrobial Agents. 2020. doi. org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105954.

A large amount of data suggest that mild or severe cytokine storms, accompanied by high expression of interleukin-6 (IL-6), occur in patients with severe coronavirus disease and can be an important cause of death. Blocking the signal transduction pathway of IL-6 is expected to become a new method for the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19, with the IL-6 inhibitor, tocilizumab (Actemra), poised to become an effective drug for these patients, according to the authors of a review published online in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The reviewers from China detailed the metabolic pathways and regulation of cytokine release syndrome, especially with respect to what is known about severe COVID-19, and discussed the results of recent trials with tocilizumab, which is currently used for treatment of CRS in a variety of cancers and other metabolic disorders.

Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody against human IL-6 receptor of immunoglobulin IgG1 subtype and has been approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis. The antibody specifically binds soluble- and membrane-bound IL-6 receptors (sIL-6R and mIL-6R) and inhibits sIL-6R– and mIL-6R–mediated signal transduction. It has been shown to be effective in the treatment of severe CRS patients. In 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved tocilizumab for the treatment of CRS caused by CAR-T (chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapy) therapy.

A small clinical trial in China examined the effectiveness of tocilizumab in 21 patients who met the criteria for severe or critical COVID-19, including respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, shock, or admission to the ICU with other organ failure. After a few days of tocilizumab treatment, the body temperatures returned to normal (initially, all 21 patients had fevers), and all other symptoms were significantly improved, according to the authors. A total of 75% (15/20) of the patients reduced their oxygen intake, and 1 patient did not need oxygen. CT scanning showed that 90.5% (19/21) of the patients had absorption of pulmonary lesions, and lab tests showed that the proportion of peripheral blood lymphocytes and C-reactive protein in the patients returned to normal.

The main deficiency of the study was that only the level of IL-6 in peripheral blood before treatment with tocilizumab was reported (mean value, 132.38 ± 278.54 pg/mL), but the level of IL-6 following treatment was not given, according to the reviewers. Serum levels of IL-6 in normal patients are undetectable or very low.

Based upon their analysis of COVID-19’s possible mechanism and the small samples of clinical data available, tocilizumab appeared effective, and “we suggest that it should be used in critically ill COVID-19 patients with significantly elevated IL-6,” the authors stated.

“CRS occurs in a large number of patients with severe COVID-19, which is also an important cause of death. IL-6 is the key molecule of CRS, so IL-6R antagonist tocilizumab may be an important drug to save patients’ lives,” the researchers concluded.

This study was supported by China Mega-Project for Infectious Diseases and the China Mega-Project for Innovative Drugs. The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang C et al. Int J Antimicrobial Agents. 2020. doi. org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105954.

A large amount of data suggest that mild or severe cytokine storms, accompanied by high expression of interleukin-6 (IL-6), occur in patients with severe coronavirus disease and can be an important cause of death. Blocking the signal transduction pathway of IL-6 is expected to become a new method for the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19, with the IL-6 inhibitor, tocilizumab (Actemra), poised to become an effective drug for these patients, according to the authors of a review published online in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The reviewers from China detailed the metabolic pathways and regulation of cytokine release syndrome, especially with respect to what is known about severe COVID-19, and discussed the results of recent trials with tocilizumab, which is currently used for treatment of CRS in a variety of cancers and other metabolic disorders.

Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody against human IL-6 receptor of immunoglobulin IgG1 subtype and has been approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis. The antibody specifically binds soluble- and membrane-bound IL-6 receptors (sIL-6R and mIL-6R) and inhibits sIL-6R– and mIL-6R–mediated signal transduction. It has been shown to be effective in the treatment of severe CRS patients. In 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved tocilizumab for the treatment of CRS caused by CAR-T (chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapy) therapy.

A small clinical trial in China examined the effectiveness of tocilizumab in 21 patients who met the criteria for severe or critical COVID-19, including respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, shock, or admission to the ICU with other organ failure. After a few days of tocilizumab treatment, the body temperatures returned to normal (initially, all 21 patients had fevers), and all other symptoms were significantly improved, according to the authors. A total of 75% (15/20) of the patients reduced their oxygen intake, and 1 patient did not need oxygen. CT scanning showed that 90.5% (19/21) of the patients had absorption of pulmonary lesions, and lab tests showed that the proportion of peripheral blood lymphocytes and C-reactive protein in the patients returned to normal.

The main deficiency of the study was that only the level of IL-6 in peripheral blood before treatment with tocilizumab was reported (mean value, 132.38 ± 278.54 pg/mL), but the level of IL-6 following treatment was not given, according to the reviewers. Serum levels of IL-6 in normal patients are undetectable or very low.

Based upon their analysis of COVID-19’s possible mechanism and the small samples of clinical data available, tocilizumab appeared effective, and “we suggest that it should be used in critically ill COVID-19 patients with significantly elevated IL-6,” the authors stated.

“CRS occurs in a large number of patients with severe COVID-19, which is also an important cause of death. IL-6 is the key molecule of CRS, so IL-6R antagonist tocilizumab may be an important drug to save patients’ lives,” the researchers concluded.

This study was supported by China Mega-Project for Infectious Diseases and the China Mega-Project for Innovative Drugs. The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang C et al. Int J Antimicrobial Agents. 2020. doi. org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105954.

Hospitals across the country encountered severe challenges as the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic swept over them, and they anticipated much worse to come, according to a new report from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

From March 23 to 27, the OIG interviewed 323 hospitals of several types in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The report it pulled together from these interviews is intended to help HHS manage the crisis, rather than to review its response to the pandemic, the OIG said.

The most significant hospital challenges, the report states, were testing and caring for patients with known or suspected COVID-19 and protecting staff members. In addition, the hospitals faced challenges in maintaining or expanding their capacities to treat COVID-19 patients and ensuring the adequacy of basic supplies.

The critical shortages of ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE), and test kits in hospitals have been widely reported by the media. But the OIG report also focused on some areas that have received less press attention.

To begin with, the shortage of tests has not only slowed the national response to the pandemic, but has had a major impact on inpatient care, according to the report’s authors. The limited number of test kits means that only symptomatic staff members and patients can be tested; in some hospitals, there aren’t even enough tests for that, and some facilities subdivided the test kits they had, the report states.

Moreover, the test results often took 7 days or more to come back from commercial or government labs, the report states. In the meantime, symptomatic patients were presumed to have the coronavirus. While awaiting the results, they had to stay in the hospital, using beds and requiring staff who could otherwise have been assigned to other patients.

The doctors and nurse who cared for these presumptive COVID-19 patients also had to take time suiting up in PPE before seeing them; much of that scarce PPE was wasted on those who were later found not to have the illness.

As one administrator explained to OIG, “Sitting with 60 patients with presumed positives in our hospital isn’t healthy for anybody.”

Delayed test results also reduced hospitals’ ability to provide care by sidelining clinicians who reported COVID-19 symptoms. In one hospital, 20% to 25% of staff were determined to be presumptively positive for COVID-19. As a result of their tests not being analyzed promptly, these doctors and nurses were prevented from providing clinical services for longer than necessary.
 

Supply Shortages

The report also described some factors contributing to mask shortages. Because of the fear factor, for example, all staff members in one hospital were wearing masks, instead of just those in designated areas. An administrator said the hospital was using 2,000 masks a day, 10 times the number before the COVID-19 crisis.

Another hospital received 2,300 N95 masks from a state reserve, but they were unusable because the elastic bands had dry-rotted.

Meanwhile, some vendors were profiteering. Masks that used to cost 50 cents now sold for $6 each, one administrator said.

To combat the supply chain disruptions, some facilities were buying PPE from nontraditional sources such as online retailers, home supply stores, paint stores, autobody supply shops, and beauty salons. Other hospitals were using non–medical-grade PPE such as construction masks and handmade masks and gowns.

Other hospitals reported they were conserving and reusing PPE to stretch their supplies. In some cases, they had even changed policies to reduce the extent and frequency of patient interactions with clinicians so the latter would have to change their gear less often.

Shortages of other critical supplies and materials were also reported. Hospitals were running out of supplies that supported patient rooms, such as IV poles, medical gas, linens, toilet paper, and food.

Hospitals across the country were also expecting or experiencing a shortage of ventilators, although none said any patients had been denied access to them. Some institutions were adapting anesthesia machines and single-use emergency transport ventilators.

Also concerning to hospitals was the shortage of intensive-care specialists and nurses to operate the ventilators and care for critically ill patients. Some facilities were training anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and other nonintensivists on how to use the lifesaving equipment.

Meanwhile, patients with COVID-19 symptoms were continuing to show up in droves at emergency departments. Hospitals were concerned about potential shortages of ICU beds, negative-pressure rooms, and isolation units. Given limited bed availability, some administrators said, it was getting hard to separate COVID-19 from non–COVID-19 patients.
 

What Hospitals Want

As the COVID-19 crisis continues to mount, many hospitals are facing financial emergencies as well, the report noted.

“Hospitals described increasing costs and decreasing revenues as a threat to their financial viability. Hospitals reported that ceasing elective procedures and other services decreased revenues at the same time that their costs have increased as they prepare for a potential surge of patients. Many hospitals reported that their cash reserves were quickly depleting, which could disrupt ongoing hospital operations,” the authors write.

This report was conducted a few days before the passage of the CURES Act, which earmarked $100 billion for hospitals on the frontline of the crisis. As a recent analysis of financial hospital data revealed, however, even with the 20% bump in Medicare payments for COVID-19 care that this cash infusion represents, many hospitals will face a cash-flow crunch within 60 to 90 days, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Besides higher Medicare payments, the OIG report said, hospitals wanted the government to drop the 14-day waiting period for reimbursement and to offer them loans and grants.

Hospitals also want federal and state governments to relax regulations on professional licensing of, and business relationships with, doctors and other clinicians. They’d like the government to:

• Let them reassign licensed professionals within their hospitals and across healthcare networks
• Provide flexibility with respect to licensed professionals practicing across state lines
• Provide relief from regulations that may restrict using contracted staff or physicians based on business relationships

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospitals across the country encountered severe challenges as the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic swept over them, and they anticipated much worse to come, according to a new report from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

From March 23 to 27, the OIG interviewed 323 hospitals of several types in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The report it pulled together from these interviews is intended to help HHS manage the crisis, rather than to review its response to the pandemic, the OIG said.

The most significant hospital challenges, the report states, were testing and caring for patients with known or suspected COVID-19 and protecting staff members. In addition, the hospitals faced challenges in maintaining or expanding their capacities to treat COVID-19 patients and ensuring the adequacy of basic supplies.

The critical shortages of ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE), and test kits in hospitals have been widely reported by the media. But the OIG report also focused on some areas that have received less press attention.

To begin with, the shortage of tests has not only slowed the national response to the pandemic, but has had a major impact on inpatient care, according to the report’s authors. The limited number of test kits means that only symptomatic staff members and patients can be tested; in some hospitals, there aren’t even enough tests for that, and some facilities subdivided the test kits they had, the report states.

Moreover, the test results often took 7 days or more to come back from commercial or government labs, the report states. In the meantime, symptomatic patients were presumed to have the coronavirus. While awaiting the results, they had to stay in the hospital, using beds and requiring staff who could otherwise have been assigned to other patients.

The doctors and nurse who cared for these presumptive COVID-19 patients also had to take time suiting up in PPE before seeing them; much of that scarce PPE was wasted on those who were later found not to have the illness.

As one administrator explained to OIG, “Sitting with 60 patients with presumed positives in our hospital isn’t healthy for anybody.”

Delayed test results also reduced hospitals’ ability to provide care by sidelining clinicians who reported COVID-19 symptoms. In one hospital, 20% to 25% of staff were determined to be presumptively positive for COVID-19. As a result of their tests not being analyzed promptly, these doctors and nurses were prevented from providing clinical services for longer than necessary.
 

Supply Shortages

The report also described some factors contributing to mask shortages. Because of the fear factor, for example, all staff members in one hospital were wearing masks, instead of just those in designated areas. An administrator said the hospital was using 2,000 masks a day, 10 times the number before the COVID-19 crisis.

Another hospital received 2,300 N95 masks from a state reserve, but they were unusable because the elastic bands had dry-rotted.

Meanwhile, some vendors were profiteering. Masks that used to cost 50 cents now sold for $6 each, one administrator said.

To combat the supply chain disruptions, some facilities were buying PPE from nontraditional sources such as online retailers, home supply stores, paint stores, autobody supply shops, and beauty salons. Other hospitals were using non–medical-grade PPE such as construction masks and handmade masks and gowns.

Other hospitals reported they were conserving and reusing PPE to stretch their supplies. In some cases, they had even changed policies to reduce the extent and frequency of patient interactions with clinicians so the latter would have to change their gear less often.

Shortages of other critical supplies and materials were also reported. Hospitals were running out of supplies that supported patient rooms, such as IV poles, medical gas, linens, toilet paper, and food.

Hospitals across the country were also expecting or experiencing a shortage of ventilators, although none said any patients had been denied access to them. Some institutions were adapting anesthesia machines and single-use emergency transport ventilators.

Also concerning to hospitals was the shortage of intensive-care specialists and nurses to operate the ventilators and care for critically ill patients. Some facilities were training anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and other nonintensivists on how to use the lifesaving equipment.

Meanwhile, patients with COVID-19 symptoms were continuing to show up in droves at emergency departments. Hospitals were concerned about potential shortages of ICU beds, negative-pressure rooms, and isolation units. Given limited bed availability, some administrators said, it was getting hard to separate COVID-19 from non–COVID-19 patients.
 

What Hospitals Want

As the COVID-19 crisis continues to mount, many hospitals are facing financial emergencies as well, the report noted.

“Hospitals described increasing costs and decreasing revenues as a threat to their financial viability. Hospitals reported that ceasing elective procedures and other services decreased revenues at the same time that their costs have increased as they prepare for a potential surge of patients. Many hospitals reported that their cash reserves were quickly depleting, which could disrupt ongoing hospital operations,” the authors write.

This report was conducted a few days before the passage of the CURES Act, which earmarked $100 billion for hospitals on the frontline of the crisis. As a recent analysis of financial hospital data revealed, however, even with the 20% bump in Medicare payments for COVID-19 care that this cash infusion represents, many hospitals will face a cash-flow crunch within 60 to 90 days, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Besides higher Medicare payments, the OIG report said, hospitals wanted the government to drop the 14-day waiting period for reimbursement and to offer them loans and grants.

Hospitals also want federal and state governments to relax regulations on professional licensing of, and business relationships with, doctors and other clinicians. They’d like the government to:

• Let them reassign licensed professionals within their hospitals and across healthcare networks
• Provide flexibility with respect to licensed professionals practicing across state lines
• Provide relief from regulations that may restrict using contracted staff or physicians based on business relationships

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospitals across the country encountered severe challenges as the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic swept over them, and they anticipated much worse to come, according to a new report from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

From March 23 to 27, the OIG interviewed 323 hospitals of several types in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The report it pulled together from these interviews is intended to help HHS manage the crisis, rather than to review its response to the pandemic, the OIG said.

The most significant hospital challenges, the report states, were testing and caring for patients with known or suspected COVID-19 and protecting staff members. In addition, the hospitals faced challenges in maintaining or expanding their capacities to treat COVID-19 patients and ensuring the adequacy of basic supplies.

The critical shortages of ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE), and test kits in hospitals have been widely reported by the media. But the OIG report also focused on some areas that have received less press attention.

To begin with, the shortage of tests has not only slowed the national response to the pandemic, but has had a major impact on inpatient care, according to the report’s authors. The limited number of test kits means that only symptomatic staff members and patients can be tested; in some hospitals, there aren’t even enough tests for that, and some facilities subdivided the test kits they had, the report states.

Moreover, the test results often took 7 days or more to come back from commercial or government labs, the report states. In the meantime, symptomatic patients were presumed to have the coronavirus. While awaiting the results, they had to stay in the hospital, using beds and requiring staff who could otherwise have been assigned to other patients.

The doctors and nurse who cared for these presumptive COVID-19 patients also had to take time suiting up in PPE before seeing them; much of that scarce PPE was wasted on those who were later found not to have the illness.

As one administrator explained to OIG, “Sitting with 60 patients with presumed positives in our hospital isn’t healthy for anybody.”

Delayed test results also reduced hospitals’ ability to provide care by sidelining clinicians who reported COVID-19 symptoms. In one hospital, 20% to 25% of staff were determined to be presumptively positive for COVID-19. As a result of their tests not being analyzed promptly, these doctors and nurses were prevented from providing clinical services for longer than necessary.
 

Supply Shortages

The report also described some factors contributing to mask shortages. Because of the fear factor, for example, all staff members in one hospital were wearing masks, instead of just those in designated areas. An administrator said the hospital was using 2,000 masks a day, 10 times the number before the COVID-19 crisis.

Another hospital received 2,300 N95 masks from a state reserve, but they were unusable because the elastic bands had dry-rotted.

Meanwhile, some vendors were profiteering. Masks that used to cost 50 cents now sold for $6 each, one administrator said.

To combat the supply chain disruptions, some facilities were buying PPE from nontraditional sources such as online retailers, home supply stores, paint stores, autobody supply shops, and beauty salons. Other hospitals were using non–medical-grade PPE such as construction masks and handmade masks and gowns.

Other hospitals reported they were conserving and reusing PPE to stretch their supplies. In some cases, they had even changed policies to reduce the extent and frequency of patient interactions with clinicians so the latter would have to change their gear less often.

Shortages of other critical supplies and materials were also reported. Hospitals were running out of supplies that supported patient rooms, such as IV poles, medical gas, linens, toilet paper, and food.

Hospitals across the country were also expecting or experiencing a shortage of ventilators, although none said any patients had been denied access to them. Some institutions were adapting anesthesia machines and single-use emergency transport ventilators.

Also concerning to hospitals was the shortage of intensive-care specialists and nurses to operate the ventilators and care for critically ill patients. Some facilities were training anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and other nonintensivists on how to use the lifesaving equipment.

Meanwhile, patients with COVID-19 symptoms were continuing to show up in droves at emergency departments. Hospitals were concerned about potential shortages of ICU beds, negative-pressure rooms, and isolation units. Given limited bed availability, some administrators said, it was getting hard to separate COVID-19 from non–COVID-19 patients.
 

What Hospitals Want

As the COVID-19 crisis continues to mount, many hospitals are facing financial emergencies as well, the report noted.

“Hospitals described increasing costs and decreasing revenues as a threat to their financial viability. Hospitals reported that ceasing elective procedures and other services decreased revenues at the same time that their costs have increased as they prepare for a potential surge of patients. Many hospitals reported that their cash reserves were quickly depleting, which could disrupt ongoing hospital operations,” the authors write.

This report was conducted a few days before the passage of the CURES Act, which earmarked $100 billion for hospitals on the frontline of the crisis. As a recent analysis of financial hospital data revealed, however, even with the 20% bump in Medicare payments for COVID-19 care that this cash infusion represents, many hospitals will face a cash-flow crunch within 60 to 90 days, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Besides higher Medicare payments, the OIG report said, hospitals wanted the government to drop the 14-day waiting period for reimbursement and to offer them loans and grants.

Hospitals also want federal and state governments to relax regulations on professional licensing of, and business relationships with, doctors and other clinicians. They’d like the government to:

• Let them reassign licensed professionals within their hospitals and across healthcare networks
• Provide flexibility with respect to licensed professionals practicing across state lines
• Provide relief from regulations that may restrict using contracted staff or physicians based on business relationships

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A team of radiation oncologists has devised recommendations and a framework for managing radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The framework involves using remote visits via telemedicine, avoiding radiotherapy in applicable cases, deferring radiotherapy as appropriate, and shortening the fractionation schedule of treatment based on safety and efficacy parameters.

Nicholas G. Zaorsky, MD, of Penn State Cancer Institute in Hershey, Pennsylvania, and colleagues described the framework and recommendations in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

The authors systematically reviewed the body of literature for evidence pertaining to the safe use of telemedicine, avoidance or deferral of radiotherapy, and optimal use of androgen deprivation therapy for patients with prostate cancer. The team also reviewed best practices for patients undergoing radiotherapy based on disease risk.

Based on their findings, Dr. Zaorsky and colleagues recommended that, during the pandemic, all consultations and return visits become telehealth visits. “Very few prostate cancer patients require an in-person visit during a pandemic,” the authors wrote.
 

Lower-risk disease

Dr. Zaorsky and colleagues recommended avoiding radiotherapy in patients with very-low-, low-, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. The authors said data suggest that, in general, treatment can be safely deferred in these patients “until after pandemic-related restrictions have been lifted.” However, this recommendation presumes the pandemic will wane over the next 12 months.

“I reassure my patients with very-low- and low-risk prostate cancer that the preferred, evidence-based treatment for patients in these categories is active surveillance,” said study author Amar U. Kishan, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

“If surveillance is an option, then delaying treatment must be reasonable [during the pandemic],” he added. “For favorable intermediate-risk disease, I [review] the data supporting this approach and discuss that short delays are very unlikely to compromise outcomes.”
 

Higher-risk disease

The authors recommended deferral of radiotherapy for 4-6 months in patients with higher-risk disease, which includes those with unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, very-high-risk, clinical node-positive, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease, as well as patients who have undergone prostatectomy.

The authors noted that in-person consultations and return visits should be converted to “timely remote telehealth visits” for these patients. After these patients have started treatment, androgen deprivation therapy “can allow for further deferral of radiotherapy as necessary based on the nature of the ongoing epidemic.”

In cases where radiotherapy cannot be deferred safely, “the shortest fractionation schedule should be adopted that has evidence of safety and efficacy,” the authors wrote.

They acknowledged that these recommendations are only applicable to patients not infected with COVID-19. In cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19, local institutional policies and practices should be followed.

The authors further explained that, due to the rapidly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, state and federal guidelines should be followed when made available.

The authors reported having no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

SOURCE: Zaorsky NG et al. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.010.

A team of radiation oncologists has devised recommendations and a framework for managing radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The framework involves using remote visits via telemedicine, avoiding radiotherapy in applicable cases, deferring radiotherapy as appropriate, and shortening the fractionation schedule of treatment based on safety and efficacy parameters.

Nicholas G. Zaorsky, MD, of Penn State Cancer Institute in Hershey, Pennsylvania, and colleagues described the framework and recommendations in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

The authors systematically reviewed the body of literature for evidence pertaining to the safe use of telemedicine, avoidance or deferral of radiotherapy, and optimal use of androgen deprivation therapy for patients with prostate cancer. The team also reviewed best practices for patients undergoing radiotherapy based on disease risk.

Based on their findings, Dr. Zaorsky and colleagues recommended that, during the pandemic, all consultations and return visits become telehealth visits. “Very few prostate cancer patients require an in-person visit during a pandemic,” the authors wrote.
 

Lower-risk disease

Dr. Zaorsky and colleagues recommended avoiding radiotherapy in patients with very-low-, low-, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. The authors said data suggest that, in general, treatment can be safely deferred in these patients “until after pandemic-related restrictions have been lifted.” However, this recommendation presumes the pandemic will wane over the next 12 months.

“I reassure my patients with very-low- and low-risk prostate cancer that the preferred, evidence-based treatment for patients in these categories is active surveillance,” said study author Amar U. Kishan, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

“If surveillance is an option, then delaying treatment must be reasonable [during the pandemic],” he added. “For favorable intermediate-risk disease, I [review] the data supporting this approach and discuss that short delays are very unlikely to compromise outcomes.”
 

Higher-risk disease

The authors recommended deferral of radiotherapy for 4-6 months in patients with higher-risk disease, which includes those with unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, very-high-risk, clinical node-positive, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease, as well as patients who have undergone prostatectomy.

The authors noted that in-person consultations and return visits should be converted to “timely remote telehealth visits” for these patients. After these patients have started treatment, androgen deprivation therapy “can allow for further deferral of radiotherapy as necessary based on the nature of the ongoing epidemic.”

In cases where radiotherapy cannot be deferred safely, “the shortest fractionation schedule should be adopted that has evidence of safety and efficacy,” the authors wrote.

They acknowledged that these recommendations are only applicable to patients not infected with COVID-19. In cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19, local institutional policies and practices should be followed.

The authors further explained that, due to the rapidly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, state and federal guidelines should be followed when made available.

The authors reported having no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

SOURCE: Zaorsky NG et al. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.010.

A team of radiation oncologists has devised recommendations and a framework for managing radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The framework involves using remote visits via telemedicine, avoiding radiotherapy in applicable cases, deferring radiotherapy as appropriate, and shortening the fractionation schedule of treatment based on safety and efficacy parameters.

Nicholas G. Zaorsky, MD, of Penn State Cancer Institute in Hershey, Pennsylvania, and colleagues described the framework and recommendations in Advances in Radiation Oncology.

The authors systematically reviewed the body of literature for evidence pertaining to the safe use of telemedicine, avoidance or deferral of radiotherapy, and optimal use of androgen deprivation therapy for patients with prostate cancer. The team also reviewed best practices for patients undergoing radiotherapy based on disease risk.

Based on their findings, Dr. Zaorsky and colleagues recommended that, during the pandemic, all consultations and return visits become telehealth visits. “Very few prostate cancer patients require an in-person visit during a pandemic,” the authors wrote.
 

Lower-risk disease

Dr. Zaorsky and colleagues recommended avoiding radiotherapy in patients with very-low-, low-, and favorable intermediate-risk disease. The authors said data suggest that, in general, treatment can be safely deferred in these patients “until after pandemic-related restrictions have been lifted.” However, this recommendation presumes the pandemic will wane over the next 12 months.

“I reassure my patients with very-low- and low-risk prostate cancer that the preferred, evidence-based treatment for patients in these categories is active surveillance,” said study author Amar U. Kishan, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.

“If surveillance is an option, then delaying treatment must be reasonable [during the pandemic],” he added. “For favorable intermediate-risk disease, I [review] the data supporting this approach and discuss that short delays are very unlikely to compromise outcomes.”
 

Higher-risk disease

The authors recommended deferral of radiotherapy for 4-6 months in patients with higher-risk disease, which includes those with unfavorable intermediate-risk, high-risk, very-high-risk, clinical node-positive, oligometastatic, and low-volume M1 disease, as well as patients who have undergone prostatectomy.

The authors noted that in-person consultations and return visits should be converted to “timely remote telehealth visits” for these patients. After these patients have started treatment, androgen deprivation therapy “can allow for further deferral of radiotherapy as necessary based on the nature of the ongoing epidemic.”

In cases where radiotherapy cannot be deferred safely, “the shortest fractionation schedule should be adopted that has evidence of safety and efficacy,” the authors wrote.

They acknowledged that these recommendations are only applicable to patients not infected with COVID-19. In cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19, local institutional policies and practices should be followed.

The authors further explained that, due to the rapidly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, state and federal guidelines should be followed when made available.

The authors reported having no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

SOURCE: Zaorsky NG et al. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020 Apr 1. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2020.03.010.

Beyond asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), inhalation therapy is a mainstay in the management of bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis, and pulmonary artery hypertension. Several US Food and Drug Administration off-label indications for inhalational medications include hypoxia secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and intraoperative and postoperative pulmonary hypertension during and following cardiac surgery, respectively.^1-11 Therapeutic delivery of aerosols to the lung may be provided via nebulization, pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDI), and other devices (eg, dry powder inhalers, soft-mist inhalers, and smart inhalers).¹² The most common aerosolized medications given in the clinical setting are bronchodilators.¹²

Product selection is often guided by practice guidelines (Table 1), consideration of the formulation’s advantages and disadvantages (Table 2), and/or formulary considerations. For example, current guidelines for COPD state that there is no evidence for superiority of nebulized bronchodilator therapy over handheld devices in patients who can use them properly.² Due to equivalence, nebulized formulations are commonly used in hospitals, emergency departments (EDs) and ambulatory clinics based on the drug’s unit cost. In contrast, a pMDI is often more cost-effective for use in ambulatory patients who are administering multiple doses from the same canister.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend droplet and contact precautions for all patients suspected or diagnosed with novel coronavirus-19 (COVID-19).^13,14 Airborne precautions must be applied when performing aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMPs), including but not limited to, open suctioning of the respiratory tract, intubation, bronchoscopy, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Data from the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) epidemic suggest that nebulization of medication is also an AGMP.^15-17

Institutions must ensure that their health care workers (HCWs) are wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) including gloves, long-sleeved gowns, eye protection, and fit-tested particulate respirators (N95 mask) for airborne procedures and are carefully discarding PPE after use.^13,14 Due to severe shortages in available respirators in the US supply chain, the CDC has temporarily modified WHO recommendations. Face masks are now an acceptable alternative to protect HCWs from splashes and sprays from procedures not likely to generate aerosols and for cleaning of rooms, although there is no evidence to support this decision.

Internationally, HCWs are falling ill with COVID-19. Data from Italy and Spain show that about 9% to 13% of these countries’ cases are HCWs.^18,19 Within the US, the Ohio health department reports approximately 16% of cases are HCWs.²⁰ It is possible that 20% of frontline HCWs will become infected.²¹ Evolving laboratory research shows that COVID-19 remains viable in aerosols for up to 3 hours postaerosolization, thus making aerosol transmission plausible.²² Nebulizers convert liquids into aerosols and during dispersal may potentially cause secondary inhalation of fugitive emissions.²³ Since interim CDC infection control guidance is to allow only essential personnel to enter the room of patients with COVID-19, many facilities will rely on their frontline nursing staff to clean and disinfect high-touch surfaces following routine care activities.²⁴

Achieving adequate fomite disinfection following viral aerosolization may pose a significant problem for any patient receiving scheduled doses of nebulized medications. Additionally, for personnel who clean rooms following intermittent drug nebulization while wearing PPE that includes a face mask, protection from aerosolized virus may be inadequate. Subsequently, fugitive emissions from nebulized medications may potentially contribute to both nosocomial COVID-19 transmission and viral infections in the medical staff until proven otherwise by studies conducted outside of the laboratory. Prevention of infection in the medical staff is imperative since federal health care systems cannot sustain a significant loss of its workforce.

Recommendations

We recommend that health care systems stop business as usual and adopt public health recommendations issued by Canadian and Hong Kong health care authorities for the management of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 disease.^25-28 We have further clarified and expanded on these interventions. During viral pandemics, prescribers and health care systems should:

1. Deprescribe nebulized therapies on medical wards and intensive care units as an infection control measure. Also avoid use in any outpatient health care setting (eg, community-based clinics, EDs, triage).
2. Avoid initiation of nebulized unproven therapies (eg, n-acetylcysteine, hypertonic saline).¹
3. Use alternative bronchodilator formulations as appropriate (eg, oral β-2 agonist, recognizing its slower onset) before prescribing nebulized agents to patients who are uncooperative or unable to follow directions needed to use a pMDI with a spacer or have experienced a prior poor response to a pMDI with spacer (eg, OptiChamber Diamond, Philips).^25,27
4.  Limit nebulized drug utilization (eg, bronchodilators, epoprostenol) to patients who are on mechanical ventilation and will receive nebulized therapies via a closed system or to patients housed in negative pressure hospital rooms.²² Use a viral filter (eg, Salter Labs system) to decrease the spread of infection for those receiving epoprostenol via face mask.²⁵
5. Adjust procurement practices (eg, pharmacy, logistics) to address the transition from nebulized drugs to alternatives.
6. Add a safety net to the drug-ordering process by restricting new orders for nebulized therapies to the prior authorization process.²⁷ Apply the exclusion criterion of suspected or definite COVID-19.
7. Add a safety net to environmental service practices. Nursing staff should track patients who received ≥ 1 nebulizations via open (before diagnosis) or closed systems so that staff wear suitable PPE to include a N-95 mask while cleaning the room.

Conclusions

To implement the aggressive infection control guidance promulgated here, we recommend collaboration with infection control, pharmacy service (eg, prior authorization team, clinical pharmacy team, and procurement team), respiratory therapy, pulmonary and other critical care physicians, EDs, CPR committee, and other stakeholders. When making significant transitions in clinical care during a viral pandemic, guidelines must be timely, use imperative wording, and consist of easily identifiable education and/or instructions for the affected frontline staff in order to change attitudes.²⁹ Additionally, when transitioning from nebulized bronchodilators to pMDI, educational in-services should be provided to frontline staff to avoid misconceptions regarding pMDI treatment efficacy and patients’ ability to use their pMDI with spacer.³⁰

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System in Nashville.

Beyond asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), inhalation therapy is a mainstay in the management of bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis, and pulmonary artery hypertension. Several US Food and Drug Administration off-label indications for inhalational medications include hypoxia secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and intraoperative and postoperative pulmonary hypertension during and following cardiac surgery, respectively.^1-11 Therapeutic delivery of aerosols to the lung may be provided via nebulization, pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDI), and other devices (eg, dry powder inhalers, soft-mist inhalers, and smart inhalers).¹² The most common aerosolized medications given in the clinical setting are bronchodilators.¹²

Product selection is often guided by practice guidelines (Table 1), consideration of the formulation’s advantages and disadvantages (Table 2), and/or formulary considerations. For example, current guidelines for COPD state that there is no evidence for superiority of nebulized bronchodilator therapy over handheld devices in patients who can use them properly.² Due to equivalence, nebulized formulations are commonly used in hospitals, emergency departments (EDs) and ambulatory clinics based on the drug’s unit cost. In contrast, a pMDI is often more cost-effective for use in ambulatory patients who are administering multiple doses from the same canister.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend droplet and contact precautions for all patients suspected or diagnosed with novel coronavirus-19 (COVID-19).^13,14 Airborne precautions must be applied when performing aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMPs), including but not limited to, open suctioning of the respiratory tract, intubation, bronchoscopy, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Data from the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) epidemic suggest that nebulization of medication is also an AGMP.^15-17

Institutions must ensure that their health care workers (HCWs) are wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) including gloves, long-sleeved gowns, eye protection, and fit-tested particulate respirators (N95 mask) for airborne procedures and are carefully discarding PPE after use.^13,14 Due to severe shortages in available respirators in the US supply chain, the CDC has temporarily modified WHO recommendations. Face masks are now an acceptable alternative to protect HCWs from splashes and sprays from procedures not likely to generate aerosols and for cleaning of rooms, although there is no evidence to support this decision.

Internationally, HCWs are falling ill with COVID-19. Data from Italy and Spain show that about 9% to 13% of these countries’ cases are HCWs.^18,19 Within the US, the Ohio health department reports approximately 16% of cases are HCWs.²⁰ It is possible that 20% of frontline HCWs will become infected.²¹ Evolving laboratory research shows that COVID-19 remains viable in aerosols for up to 3 hours postaerosolization, thus making aerosol transmission plausible.²² Nebulizers convert liquids into aerosols and during dispersal may potentially cause secondary inhalation of fugitive emissions.²³ Since interim CDC infection control guidance is to allow only essential personnel to enter the room of patients with COVID-19, many facilities will rely on their frontline nursing staff to clean and disinfect high-touch surfaces following routine care activities.²⁴

Achieving adequate fomite disinfection following viral aerosolization may pose a significant problem for any patient receiving scheduled doses of nebulized medications. Additionally, for personnel who clean rooms following intermittent drug nebulization while wearing PPE that includes a face mask, protection from aerosolized virus may be inadequate. Subsequently, fugitive emissions from nebulized medications may potentially contribute to both nosocomial COVID-19 transmission and viral infections in the medical staff until proven otherwise by studies conducted outside of the laboratory. Prevention of infection in the medical staff is imperative since federal health care systems cannot sustain a significant loss of its workforce.

Recommendations

We recommend that health care systems stop business as usual and adopt public health recommendations issued by Canadian and Hong Kong health care authorities for the management of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 disease.^25-28 We have further clarified and expanded on these interventions. During viral pandemics, prescribers and health care systems should:

1. Deprescribe nebulized therapies on medical wards and intensive care units as an infection control measure. Also avoid use in any outpatient health care setting (eg, community-based clinics, EDs, triage).
2. Avoid initiation of nebulized unproven therapies (eg, n-acetylcysteine, hypertonic saline).¹
3. Use alternative bronchodilator formulations as appropriate (eg, oral β-2 agonist, recognizing its slower onset) before prescribing nebulized agents to patients who are uncooperative or unable to follow directions needed to use a pMDI with a spacer or have experienced a prior poor response to a pMDI with spacer (eg, OptiChamber Diamond, Philips).^25,27
4.  Limit nebulized drug utilization (eg, bronchodilators, epoprostenol) to patients who are on mechanical ventilation and will receive nebulized therapies via a closed system or to patients housed in negative pressure hospital rooms.²² Use a viral filter (eg, Salter Labs system) to decrease the spread of infection for those receiving epoprostenol via face mask.²⁵
5. Adjust procurement practices (eg, pharmacy, logistics) to address the transition from nebulized drugs to alternatives.
6. Add a safety net to the drug-ordering process by restricting new orders for nebulized therapies to the prior authorization process.²⁷ Apply the exclusion criterion of suspected or definite COVID-19.
7. Add a safety net to environmental service practices. Nursing staff should track patients who received ≥ 1 nebulizations via open (before diagnosis) or closed systems so that staff wear suitable PPE to include a N-95 mask while cleaning the room.

Conclusions

To implement the aggressive infection control guidance promulgated here, we recommend collaboration with infection control, pharmacy service (eg, prior authorization team, clinical pharmacy team, and procurement team), respiratory therapy, pulmonary and other critical care physicians, EDs, CPR committee, and other stakeholders. When making significant transitions in clinical care during a viral pandemic, guidelines must be timely, use imperative wording, and consist of easily identifiable education and/or instructions for the affected frontline staff in order to change attitudes.²⁹ Additionally, when transitioning from nebulized bronchodilators to pMDI, educational in-services should be provided to frontline staff to avoid misconceptions regarding pMDI treatment efficacy and patients’ ability to use their pMDI with spacer.³⁰

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System in Nashville.

Beyond asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), inhalation therapy is a mainstay in the management of bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis, and pulmonary artery hypertension. Several US Food and Drug Administration off-label indications for inhalational medications include hypoxia secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and intraoperative and postoperative pulmonary hypertension during and following cardiac surgery, respectively.^1-11 Therapeutic delivery of aerosols to the lung may be provided via nebulization, pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDI), and other devices (eg, dry powder inhalers, soft-mist inhalers, and smart inhalers).¹² The most common aerosolized medications given in the clinical setting are bronchodilators.¹²

Product selection is often guided by practice guidelines (Table 1), consideration of the formulation’s advantages and disadvantages (Table 2), and/or formulary considerations. For example, current guidelines for COPD state that there is no evidence for superiority of nebulized bronchodilator therapy over handheld devices in patients who can use them properly.² Due to equivalence, nebulized formulations are commonly used in hospitals, emergency departments (EDs) and ambulatory clinics based on the drug’s unit cost. In contrast, a pMDI is often more cost-effective for use in ambulatory patients who are administering multiple doses from the same canister.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend droplet and contact precautions for all patients suspected or diagnosed with novel coronavirus-19 (COVID-19).^13,14 Airborne precautions must be applied when performing aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMPs), including but not limited to, open suctioning of the respiratory tract, intubation, bronchoscopy, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Data from the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) epidemic suggest that nebulization of medication is also an AGMP.^15-17

Institutions must ensure that their health care workers (HCWs) are wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) including gloves, long-sleeved gowns, eye protection, and fit-tested particulate respirators (N95 mask) for airborne procedures and are carefully discarding PPE after use.^13,14 Due to severe shortages in available respirators in the US supply chain, the CDC has temporarily modified WHO recommendations. Face masks are now an acceptable alternative to protect HCWs from splashes and sprays from procedures not likely to generate aerosols and for cleaning of rooms, although there is no evidence to support this decision.

Internationally, HCWs are falling ill with COVID-19. Data from Italy and Spain show that about 9% to 13% of these countries’ cases are HCWs.^18,19 Within the US, the Ohio health department reports approximately 16% of cases are HCWs.²⁰ It is possible that 20% of frontline HCWs will become infected.²¹ Evolving laboratory research shows that COVID-19 remains viable in aerosols for up to 3 hours postaerosolization, thus making aerosol transmission plausible.²² Nebulizers convert liquids into aerosols and during dispersal may potentially cause secondary inhalation of fugitive emissions.²³ Since interim CDC infection control guidance is to allow only essential personnel to enter the room of patients with COVID-19, many facilities will rely on their frontline nursing staff to clean and disinfect high-touch surfaces following routine care activities.²⁴

Achieving adequate fomite disinfection following viral aerosolization may pose a significant problem for any patient receiving scheduled doses of nebulized medications. Additionally, for personnel who clean rooms following intermittent drug nebulization while wearing PPE that includes a face mask, protection from aerosolized virus may be inadequate. Subsequently, fugitive emissions from nebulized medications may potentially contribute to both nosocomial COVID-19 transmission and viral infections in the medical staff until proven otherwise by studies conducted outside of the laboratory. Prevention of infection in the medical staff is imperative since federal health care systems cannot sustain a significant loss of its workforce.

Recommendations

We recommend that health care systems stop business as usual and adopt public health recommendations issued by Canadian and Hong Kong health care authorities for the management of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 disease.^25-28 We have further clarified and expanded on these interventions. During viral pandemics, prescribers and health care systems should:

1. Deprescribe nebulized therapies on medical wards and intensive care units as an infection control measure. Also avoid use in any outpatient health care setting (eg, community-based clinics, EDs, triage).
2. Avoid initiation of nebulized unproven therapies (eg, n-acetylcysteine, hypertonic saline).¹
3. Use alternative bronchodilator formulations as appropriate (eg, oral β-2 agonist, recognizing its slower onset) before prescribing nebulized agents to patients who are uncooperative or unable to follow directions needed to use a pMDI with a spacer or have experienced a prior poor response to a pMDI with spacer (eg, OptiChamber Diamond, Philips).^25,27
4.  Limit nebulized drug utilization (eg, bronchodilators, epoprostenol) to patients who are on mechanical ventilation and will receive nebulized therapies via a closed system or to patients housed in negative pressure hospital rooms.²² Use a viral filter (eg, Salter Labs system) to decrease the spread of infection for those receiving epoprostenol via face mask.²⁵
5. Adjust procurement practices (eg, pharmacy, logistics) to address the transition from nebulized drugs to alternatives.
6. Add a safety net to the drug-ordering process by restricting new orders for nebulized therapies to the prior authorization process.²⁷ Apply the exclusion criterion of suspected or definite COVID-19.
7. Add a safety net to environmental service practices. Nursing staff should track patients who received ≥ 1 nebulizations via open (before diagnosis) or closed systems so that staff wear suitable PPE to include a N-95 mask while cleaning the room.

Conclusions

To implement the aggressive infection control guidance promulgated here, we recommend collaboration with infection control, pharmacy service (eg, prior authorization team, clinical pharmacy team, and procurement team), respiratory therapy, pulmonary and other critical care physicians, EDs, CPR committee, and other stakeholders. When making significant transitions in clinical care during a viral pandemic, guidelines must be timely, use imperative wording, and consist of easily identifiable education and/or instructions for the affected frontline staff in order to change attitudes.²⁹ Additionally, when transitioning from nebulized bronchodilators to pMDI, educational in-services should be provided to frontline staff to avoid misconceptions regarding pMDI treatment efficacy and patients’ ability to use their pMDI with spacer.³⁰

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System in Nashville.