Federal Practitioner

In the COMPASS trial of patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease (PAD), the combination of aspirin plus rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice daily, provided a larger absolute benefit on cardiovascular endpoints — including a threefold greater reduction in all-cause mortality — in patients with diabetes compared with the overall population.

The results of the diabetes subset of the COMPASS trial were presented by Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, Massachusetts, on March 28 at the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). They were also simultaneously published online in Circulation.

“Use of dual pathway inhibition with low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin is particularly attractive in high-risk patients such as those with diabetes,” Bhatt concluded.

The COMPASS trial was first reported in 2017 and showed a new low dose of rivaroxaban (2.5-mg twice-daily; Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) plus aspirin, 100 mg once daily, was associated with a reduction in ischemic events and mortality and a superior net clinical benefit, balancing ischemic benefit with severe bleeding, compared with aspirin alone for secondary prevention in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.

But clinicians have been slow to prescribe rivaroxaban in this new and very large population.

“It’s been more than 2 years now since main COMPASS results, and there isn’t a sense that this therapy has really caught on,” chair of the current ACC session at which the diabetes subgroup results were presented, Hadley Wilson, MD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina, commented:

He asked Bhatt whether the diabetes subgroup may be “the tipping point that will make people aware of rivaroxaban and then that may trickle down to other patients.”

Bhatt said that he hoped that would be the case. “We as a steering committee of this trial could say the results were positive so rivaroxaban should now be used in everyone with stable coronary or peripheral arterial disease, but that is impractical and as you out point out it hasn’t happened,” he replied.

“In PAD/vascular medicine we have embraced this new therapy. In the broader cardiology world there are a lot of patients with stable coronary arterial disease at high ischemic risk who could take rivaroxaban, but its use is bound to be limited by it being a branded drug and the fact that there is a bleeding risk,” Bhatt explained.

“I think we need to identify patients with the highest ischemic risk and focus drugs such as these with a financial cost and a bleeding risk on those who most likely will derive the greatest absolute reduction in risk,” he said. “The PAD subgroup is one group where this is the case, and now we have shown the diabetes subgroup is another. And there is no incremental bleeding risk in this group over the whole population, so they get a much greater benefit without a greater risk. I hope this helps get rivaroxaban at the new lower dose used much more often.”

A total of 18,278 patients were randomly assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or aspirin alone in the COMPASS trial. Of these, 6922 had diabetes mellitus at baseline and 11,356 did not have diabetes.

Results from the current analysis show a consistent and similar relative risk reduction for benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs placebo plus aspirin in patients both with and without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke, with a hazard ratio of 0.74 for patients with diabetes and 0.77 for those without diabetes, the researchers report.

Because of the higher baseline risk in the diabetes subgroup, these patients had numerically larger absolute risk reductions with rivaroxaban than those without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint at 3 years (2.3% vs 1.4%) and for all-cause mortality (1.9% vs 0.6%).

These results translate into a number needed to treat (NNT) with rivaroxaban for 3 years to prevent one CV death, MI, or stroke of 44 for the diabetes group vs 73 for the nondiabetes group; the NNT to prevent one all-cause death was 54 for the diabetes group vs 167 for the nondiabetes group, the authors write.

Because the bleeding hazards were similar among patients with and without diabetes, the absolute net clinical benefit (MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, or bleeding leading to death or symptomatic bleeding into a critical organ) for rivaroxaban was “particularly favorable” in the diabetes group (2.7% fewer events in the diabetes group vs 1.0% fewer events in the nondiabetes group), they add.

Panelist at the ACC Featured Clinical Research session at which these results were presented, Jennifer Robinson, MD, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, asked Bhatt how clinicians were supposed to decide which of the many new agents now becoming available for patients with stable coronary artery disease to prescribe first.

“We often forget about rivaroxaban when we’re thinking about what to add next for our secondary prevention patients,” she said. “You also led the REDUCE-IT trial showing benefit of icosapent ethyl, icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl and there is also ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors. For your patients with coronary disease who are already on a high dose statin which one of these would you add next?”

“That is what physicians need to ponder all the time,” Bhatt replied. “And when a patient has several risk factors that are not well controlled, I guess it’s all important. I go through a checklist with my patients and try and figure what they’re not on that could further reduce their risk.”

“In the COMPASS trial there was an overall positive result with rivaroxaban in the whole population. And now we have shown that patients with diabetes had an even greater absolute risk reduction. That pattern has also been seen with other classes of agents including the statins, PCSK9 inhibitors, and icosapent ethyl,” Bhatt noted.

“In patients with diabetes, I will usually target whatever is standing out most at that time. If their glycemic control is completely out of whack, then that is what I would focus on first, and these days often with a SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. If the LDL was out of control, I would add ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor. If the triglycerides were high, I would add icosapent ethyl. If multiple things were out of control, I would usually focus on the number most out of kilter first and try not to forget about everything else.”

But Bhatt noted that the challenge with rivaroxaban is that there is no test of thrombosis risk that would prompt the physician to take action. “Basically, the doctor just has to remember to do it. In that regard I would consider whether patients are at low bleeding risk and are they still at high ischemic risk despite controlling other risk factors and, if so, then I would add this low dose of rivaroxaban.”

Another panel member, Sekar Kathiresan, MD, asked Bhatt whether he recommended using available scores to assess the bleeding/thrombosis risk/benefits of adding an antithrombotic.

Bhatt replied: “That’s a terrific question. I guess the right answer is that we should be doing that, but in reality I have to concede that I don’t use these scores. They have shown appropriate C statistics in populations, but they are not fantastic in individual patients.”

“I have to confess that I use the eyeball test. There is nothing as good at predicting future bleeding as past bleeding. So if a patient has had bleeding problems on aspirin alone I wouldn’t add rivaroxaban. But if a patient hasn’t bled before, especially if they had some experience of dual antiplatelet therapy, then they would be good candidates for a low vascular dose of rivaroxaban,” he said.

“It is not as easy as with other drugs as there is always a bleeding trade-off with an antithrombotic. There is no such thing as a free lunch. So patients need careful assessment when considering prescribing rivaroxaban and regular reassessment over time to check if they have had any bleeding,” he added.

The COMPASS study was funded by Bayer. Bhatt reports honoraria from Bayer via the Population Health Research Institute for his role on the COMPASS trial and other research funding from Bayer to the Brigham & Women’s Hospital.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 20-LB-20544-ACC. Presented March 28, 2020.

Circulation. Published online March 28, 2020. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the COMPASS trial of patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease (PAD), the combination of aspirin plus rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice daily, provided a larger absolute benefit on cardiovascular endpoints — including a threefold greater reduction in all-cause mortality — in patients with diabetes compared with the overall population.

The results of the diabetes subset of the COMPASS trial were presented by Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, Massachusetts, on March 28 at the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). They were also simultaneously published online in Circulation.

“Use of dual pathway inhibition with low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin is particularly attractive in high-risk patients such as those with diabetes,” Bhatt concluded.

The COMPASS trial was first reported in 2017 and showed a new low dose of rivaroxaban (2.5-mg twice-daily; Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) plus aspirin, 100 mg once daily, was associated with a reduction in ischemic events and mortality and a superior net clinical benefit, balancing ischemic benefit with severe bleeding, compared with aspirin alone for secondary prevention in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.

But clinicians have been slow to prescribe rivaroxaban in this new and very large population.

“It’s been more than 2 years now since main COMPASS results, and there isn’t a sense that this therapy has really caught on,” chair of the current ACC session at which the diabetes subgroup results were presented, Hadley Wilson, MD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina, commented:

He asked Bhatt whether the diabetes subgroup may be “the tipping point that will make people aware of rivaroxaban and then that may trickle down to other patients.”

Bhatt said that he hoped that would be the case. “We as a steering committee of this trial could say the results were positive so rivaroxaban should now be used in everyone with stable coronary or peripheral arterial disease, but that is impractical and as you out point out it hasn’t happened,” he replied.

“In PAD/vascular medicine we have embraced this new therapy. In the broader cardiology world there are a lot of patients with stable coronary arterial disease at high ischemic risk who could take rivaroxaban, but its use is bound to be limited by it being a branded drug and the fact that there is a bleeding risk,” Bhatt explained.

“I think we need to identify patients with the highest ischemic risk and focus drugs such as these with a financial cost and a bleeding risk on those who most likely will derive the greatest absolute reduction in risk,” he said. “The PAD subgroup is one group where this is the case, and now we have shown the diabetes subgroup is another. And there is no incremental bleeding risk in this group over the whole population, so they get a much greater benefit without a greater risk. I hope this helps get rivaroxaban at the new lower dose used much more often.”

A total of 18,278 patients were randomly assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or aspirin alone in the COMPASS trial. Of these, 6922 had diabetes mellitus at baseline and 11,356 did not have diabetes.

Results from the current analysis show a consistent and similar relative risk reduction for benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs placebo plus aspirin in patients both with and without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke, with a hazard ratio of 0.74 for patients with diabetes and 0.77 for those without diabetes, the researchers report.

Because of the higher baseline risk in the diabetes subgroup, these patients had numerically larger absolute risk reductions with rivaroxaban than those without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint at 3 years (2.3% vs 1.4%) and for all-cause mortality (1.9% vs 0.6%).

These results translate into a number needed to treat (NNT) with rivaroxaban for 3 years to prevent one CV death, MI, or stroke of 44 for the diabetes group vs 73 for the nondiabetes group; the NNT to prevent one all-cause death was 54 for the diabetes group vs 167 for the nondiabetes group, the authors write.

Because the bleeding hazards were similar among patients with and without diabetes, the absolute net clinical benefit (MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, or bleeding leading to death or symptomatic bleeding into a critical organ) for rivaroxaban was “particularly favorable” in the diabetes group (2.7% fewer events in the diabetes group vs 1.0% fewer events in the nondiabetes group), they add.

Panelist at the ACC Featured Clinical Research session at which these results were presented, Jennifer Robinson, MD, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, asked Bhatt how clinicians were supposed to decide which of the many new agents now becoming available for patients with stable coronary artery disease to prescribe first.

“We often forget about rivaroxaban when we’re thinking about what to add next for our secondary prevention patients,” she said. “You also led the REDUCE-IT trial showing benefit of icosapent ethyl, icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl and there is also ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors. For your patients with coronary disease who are already on a high dose statin which one of these would you add next?”

“That is what physicians need to ponder all the time,” Bhatt replied. “And when a patient has several risk factors that are not well controlled, I guess it’s all important. I go through a checklist with my patients and try and figure what they’re not on that could further reduce their risk.”

“In the COMPASS trial there was an overall positive result with rivaroxaban in the whole population. And now we have shown that patients with diabetes had an even greater absolute risk reduction. That pattern has also been seen with other classes of agents including the statins, PCSK9 inhibitors, and icosapent ethyl,” Bhatt noted.

“In patients with diabetes, I will usually target whatever is standing out most at that time. If their glycemic control is completely out of whack, then that is what I would focus on first, and these days often with a SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. If the LDL was out of control, I would add ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor. If the triglycerides were high, I would add icosapent ethyl. If multiple things were out of control, I would usually focus on the number most out of kilter first and try not to forget about everything else.”

But Bhatt noted that the challenge with rivaroxaban is that there is no test of thrombosis risk that would prompt the physician to take action. “Basically, the doctor just has to remember to do it. In that regard I would consider whether patients are at low bleeding risk and are they still at high ischemic risk despite controlling other risk factors and, if so, then I would add this low dose of rivaroxaban.”

Another panel member, Sekar Kathiresan, MD, asked Bhatt whether he recommended using available scores to assess the bleeding/thrombosis risk/benefits of adding an antithrombotic.

Bhatt replied: “That’s a terrific question. I guess the right answer is that we should be doing that, but in reality I have to concede that I don’t use these scores. They have shown appropriate C statistics in populations, but they are not fantastic in individual patients.”

“I have to confess that I use the eyeball test. There is nothing as good at predicting future bleeding as past bleeding. So if a patient has had bleeding problems on aspirin alone I wouldn’t add rivaroxaban. But if a patient hasn’t bled before, especially if they had some experience of dual antiplatelet therapy, then they would be good candidates for a low vascular dose of rivaroxaban,” he said.

“It is not as easy as with other drugs as there is always a bleeding trade-off with an antithrombotic. There is no such thing as a free lunch. So patients need careful assessment when considering prescribing rivaroxaban and regular reassessment over time to check if they have had any bleeding,” he added.

The COMPASS study was funded by Bayer. Bhatt reports honoraria from Bayer via the Population Health Research Institute for his role on the COMPASS trial and other research funding from Bayer to the Brigham & Women’s Hospital.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 20-LB-20544-ACC. Presented March 28, 2020.

Circulation. Published online March 28, 2020. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the COMPASS trial of patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease (PAD), the combination of aspirin plus rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice daily, provided a larger absolute benefit on cardiovascular endpoints — including a threefold greater reduction in all-cause mortality — in patients with diabetes compared with the overall population.

The results of the diabetes subset of the COMPASS trial were presented by Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, Massachusetts, on March 28 at the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). They were also simultaneously published online in Circulation.

“Use of dual pathway inhibition with low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin is particularly attractive in high-risk patients such as those with diabetes,” Bhatt concluded.

The COMPASS trial was first reported in 2017 and showed a new low dose of rivaroxaban (2.5-mg twice-daily; Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) plus aspirin, 100 mg once daily, was associated with a reduction in ischemic events and mortality and a superior net clinical benefit, balancing ischemic benefit with severe bleeding, compared with aspirin alone for secondary prevention in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.

But clinicians have been slow to prescribe rivaroxaban in this new and very large population.

“It’s been more than 2 years now since main COMPASS results, and there isn’t a sense that this therapy has really caught on,” chair of the current ACC session at which the diabetes subgroup results were presented, Hadley Wilson, MD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina, commented:

He asked Bhatt whether the diabetes subgroup may be “the tipping point that will make people aware of rivaroxaban and then that may trickle down to other patients.”

Bhatt said that he hoped that would be the case. “We as a steering committee of this trial could say the results were positive so rivaroxaban should now be used in everyone with stable coronary or peripheral arterial disease, but that is impractical and as you out point out it hasn’t happened,” he replied.

“In PAD/vascular medicine we have embraced this new therapy. In the broader cardiology world there are a lot of patients with stable coronary arterial disease at high ischemic risk who could take rivaroxaban, but its use is bound to be limited by it being a branded drug and the fact that there is a bleeding risk,” Bhatt explained.

“I think we need to identify patients with the highest ischemic risk and focus drugs such as these with a financial cost and a bleeding risk on those who most likely will derive the greatest absolute reduction in risk,” he said. “The PAD subgroup is one group where this is the case, and now we have shown the diabetes subgroup is another. And there is no incremental bleeding risk in this group over the whole population, so they get a much greater benefit without a greater risk. I hope this helps get rivaroxaban at the new lower dose used much more often.”

A total of 18,278 patients were randomly assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or aspirin alone in the COMPASS trial. Of these, 6922 had diabetes mellitus at baseline and 11,356 did not have diabetes.

Results from the current analysis show a consistent and similar relative risk reduction for benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs placebo plus aspirin in patients both with and without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke, with a hazard ratio of 0.74 for patients with diabetes and 0.77 for those without diabetes, the researchers report.

Because of the higher baseline risk in the diabetes subgroup, these patients had numerically larger absolute risk reductions with rivaroxaban than those without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint at 3 years (2.3% vs 1.4%) and for all-cause mortality (1.9% vs 0.6%).

These results translate into a number needed to treat (NNT) with rivaroxaban for 3 years to prevent one CV death, MI, or stroke of 44 for the diabetes group vs 73 for the nondiabetes group; the NNT to prevent one all-cause death was 54 for the diabetes group vs 167 for the nondiabetes group, the authors write.

Because the bleeding hazards were similar among patients with and without diabetes, the absolute net clinical benefit (MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, or bleeding leading to death or symptomatic bleeding into a critical organ) for rivaroxaban was “particularly favorable” in the diabetes group (2.7% fewer events in the diabetes group vs 1.0% fewer events in the nondiabetes group), they add.

Panelist at the ACC Featured Clinical Research session at which these results were presented, Jennifer Robinson, MD, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, asked Bhatt how clinicians were supposed to decide which of the many new agents now becoming available for patients with stable coronary artery disease to prescribe first.

“We often forget about rivaroxaban when we’re thinking about what to add next for our secondary prevention patients,” she said. “You also led the REDUCE-IT trial showing benefit of icosapent ethyl, icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl and there is also ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors. For your patients with coronary disease who are already on a high dose statin which one of these would you add next?”

“That is what physicians need to ponder all the time,” Bhatt replied. “And when a patient has several risk factors that are not well controlled, I guess it’s all important. I go through a checklist with my patients and try and figure what they’re not on that could further reduce their risk.”

“In the COMPASS trial there was an overall positive result with rivaroxaban in the whole population. And now we have shown that patients with diabetes had an even greater absolute risk reduction. That pattern has also been seen with other classes of agents including the statins, PCSK9 inhibitors, and icosapent ethyl,” Bhatt noted.

“In patients with diabetes, I will usually target whatever is standing out most at that time. If their glycemic control is completely out of whack, then that is what I would focus on first, and these days often with a SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. If the LDL was out of control, I would add ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor. If the triglycerides were high, I would add icosapent ethyl. If multiple things were out of control, I would usually focus on the number most out of kilter first and try not to forget about everything else.”

But Bhatt noted that the challenge with rivaroxaban is that there is no test of thrombosis risk that would prompt the physician to take action. “Basically, the doctor just has to remember to do it. In that regard I would consider whether patients are at low bleeding risk and are they still at high ischemic risk despite controlling other risk factors and, if so, then I would add this low dose of rivaroxaban.”

Another panel member, Sekar Kathiresan, MD, asked Bhatt whether he recommended using available scores to assess the bleeding/thrombosis risk/benefits of adding an antithrombotic.

Bhatt replied: “That’s a terrific question. I guess the right answer is that we should be doing that, but in reality I have to concede that I don’t use these scores. They have shown appropriate C statistics in populations, but they are not fantastic in individual patients.”

“I have to confess that I use the eyeball test. There is nothing as good at predicting future bleeding as past bleeding. So if a patient has had bleeding problems on aspirin alone I wouldn’t add rivaroxaban. But if a patient hasn’t bled before, especially if they had some experience of dual antiplatelet therapy, then they would be good candidates for a low vascular dose of rivaroxaban,” he said.

“It is not as easy as with other drugs as there is always a bleeding trade-off with an antithrombotic. There is no such thing as a free lunch. So patients need careful assessment when considering prescribing rivaroxaban and regular reassessment over time to check if they have had any bleeding,” he added.

The COMPASS study was funded by Bayer. Bhatt reports honoraria from Bayer via the Population Health Research Institute for his role on the COMPASS trial and other research funding from Bayer to the Brigham & Women’s Hospital.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 20-LB-20544-ACC. Presented March 28, 2020.

Circulation. Published online March 28, 2020. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A powerful genetic predisposition to cardiovascular disease was overcome by low lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure in a naturalistic study conducted in nearly half a million people, Brian A. Ference, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Frontline Medical News

This novel finding potentially opens the door to primordial cardiovascular prevention, the earliest possible form of primary prevention, in which cardiovascular risk factors are curtailed before they can become established.

“It’s important to note that the trajectories of lifetime risk for cardiovascular disease predicted by a PGS [polygenic risk score] are not fixed. At the same level of a PGS for coronary artery disease, participants with lower lifetime exposure to LDL and systolic blood pressure had a lower trajectory of risk for cardiovascular disease. This finding implies that the trajectory of cardiovascular risk predicted by a PGS can be reduced by lowering LDL and blood pressure,” observed Dr. Ference, professor of translational therapeutics and executive director of the Center for Naturally Randomised Trials at the University of Cambridge (England).

Together with an international team of coinvestigators, he analyzed lifetime cardiovascular risk as predicted by a PGS derived by genomic testing in relation to lifetime LDL and systolic blood pressure levels in 445,566 participants in the UK Biobank. Subjects had a mean age of 57.2 years at enrollment and 65.2 years at last follow-up. The primary study outcome, a first major coronary event (MCE) as defined by a fatal or nonfatal MI or coronary revascularization, occurred in 23,032 subjects.

The investigators found a stepwise increase in MCE risk across increasing quintiles of genetic risk as reflected in the PGS, such that participants in the top PGS quintile were at 2.8-fold greater risk of an MCE than those in the first quintile. The risk was essentially the same in men and women.

A key finding was that, at any level of lifetime MCE risk as defined by PGS, the actual event rate varied 10-fold depending upon lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure (SBP). For example, men in the top PGS quintile with high lifetime SBP and LDL cholesterol had a 93% lifetime MCE risk, but that MCE risk plummeted to 8% in those in the top quintile but with low lifetime SBP and LDL cholesterol.

Small differences in those two cardiovascular risk factors over the course of many decades had a big impact. For example, it took only a 10-mg/dL lower lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and a 2–mm Hg lower SBP to blunt the trajectory of lifetime risk for MCE in individuals in the middle quintile of PGS to the more favorable trajectory of those in the lowest PGS quintile. Conversely, with a 10-mg/dL increase in LDL cholesterol and 2–mm Hg greater SBP over the course of a lifetime, the trajectory of risk for people in the middle quintile of PGS became essentially superimposable upon the trajectory associated with the highest PGS quintile, the cardiologist explained.

“Participants with low lifetime exposure to LDL and blood pressure had a low lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease at all levels of PGS for coronary disease. This implies that LDL and blood pressure, which are modifiable, may be more powerful determinants of lifetime risk than polygenic predisposition,” Dr. Ference declared.

Discussant Vera Bittner, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said that for her this study carried a heartening take-home message: “The polygenic risk score can stratify the population into different risk groups and, at the same time, lifetime exposure to LDL and blood pressure significantly modifies the risk, suggesting that genetics is not destiny, and we may be able to intervene.”

“To be able to know what your cardiovascular risk is from an early age and to plan therapies to prevent cardiovascular disease would be incredible,” agreed session chair B. Hadley Wilson, MD, of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

Sekar Kathiresan, MD, said the study introduces the PGS as a new risk factor for coronary artery disease. Focusing efforts to achieve lifelong low exposure to LDL cholesterol and blood pressure in those individuals in the top 10%-20% in PGS should provide a great absolute reduction in MCE risk.

“It potentially can give you a 30- or 40-year head start in understanding who’s at risk because the factor can be measured as early as birth,” observed Dr. Kathiresan, a cardiologist who is director of the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“It’s also very inexpensive: You get the information once, bank it, and use it throughout life,” noted Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“A genome-wide scan will give us information not just on cardiovascular risk, but on cancer risk, on risk of kidney disease, and on the risk of a host of other issues. It’s a very different way of thinking about risk presentation across a whole variety of endpoints,” Dr. Ridker added.

Dr. Ference reported receiving fees and/or research grants from Merck, Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, NovoNordisk, The Medicines Company, Mylan, Daiichi Sankyo, Silence Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, dalCOR, CiVi Pharma, KrKa Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, and Celera.

[email protected]

A powerful genetic predisposition to cardiovascular disease was overcome by low lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure in a naturalistic study conducted in nearly half a million people, Brian A. Ference, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Frontline Medical News

This novel finding potentially opens the door to primordial cardiovascular prevention, the earliest possible form of primary prevention, in which cardiovascular risk factors are curtailed before they can become established.

“It’s important to note that the trajectories of lifetime risk for cardiovascular disease predicted by a PGS [polygenic risk score] are not fixed. At the same level of a PGS for coronary artery disease, participants with lower lifetime exposure to LDL and systolic blood pressure had a lower trajectory of risk for cardiovascular disease. This finding implies that the trajectory of cardiovascular risk predicted by a PGS can be reduced by lowering LDL and blood pressure,” observed Dr. Ference, professor of translational therapeutics and executive director of the Center for Naturally Randomised Trials at the University of Cambridge (England).

Together with an international team of coinvestigators, he analyzed lifetime cardiovascular risk as predicted by a PGS derived by genomic testing in relation to lifetime LDL and systolic blood pressure levels in 445,566 participants in the UK Biobank. Subjects had a mean age of 57.2 years at enrollment and 65.2 years at last follow-up. The primary study outcome, a first major coronary event (MCE) as defined by a fatal or nonfatal MI or coronary revascularization, occurred in 23,032 subjects.

The investigators found a stepwise increase in MCE risk across increasing quintiles of genetic risk as reflected in the PGS, such that participants in the top PGS quintile were at 2.8-fold greater risk of an MCE than those in the first quintile. The risk was essentially the same in men and women.

A key finding was that, at any level of lifetime MCE risk as defined by PGS, the actual event rate varied 10-fold depending upon lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure (SBP). For example, men in the top PGS quintile with high lifetime SBP and LDL cholesterol had a 93% lifetime MCE risk, but that MCE risk plummeted to 8% in those in the top quintile but with low lifetime SBP and LDL cholesterol.

Small differences in those two cardiovascular risk factors over the course of many decades had a big impact. For example, it took only a 10-mg/dL lower lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and a 2–mm Hg lower SBP to blunt the trajectory of lifetime risk for MCE in individuals in the middle quintile of PGS to the more favorable trajectory of those in the lowest PGS quintile. Conversely, with a 10-mg/dL increase in LDL cholesterol and 2–mm Hg greater SBP over the course of a lifetime, the trajectory of risk for people in the middle quintile of PGS became essentially superimposable upon the trajectory associated with the highest PGS quintile, the cardiologist explained.

“Participants with low lifetime exposure to LDL and blood pressure had a low lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease at all levels of PGS for coronary disease. This implies that LDL and blood pressure, which are modifiable, may be more powerful determinants of lifetime risk than polygenic predisposition,” Dr. Ference declared.

Discussant Vera Bittner, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said that for her this study carried a heartening take-home message: “The polygenic risk score can stratify the population into different risk groups and, at the same time, lifetime exposure to LDL and blood pressure significantly modifies the risk, suggesting that genetics is not destiny, and we may be able to intervene.”

“To be able to know what your cardiovascular risk is from an early age and to plan therapies to prevent cardiovascular disease would be incredible,” agreed session chair B. Hadley Wilson, MD, of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

Sekar Kathiresan, MD, said the study introduces the PGS as a new risk factor for coronary artery disease. Focusing efforts to achieve lifelong low exposure to LDL cholesterol and blood pressure in those individuals in the top 10%-20% in PGS should provide a great absolute reduction in MCE risk.

“It potentially can give you a 30- or 40-year head start in understanding who’s at risk because the factor can be measured as early as birth,” observed Dr. Kathiresan, a cardiologist who is director of the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“It’s also very inexpensive: You get the information once, bank it, and use it throughout life,” noted Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“A genome-wide scan will give us information not just on cardiovascular risk, but on cancer risk, on risk of kidney disease, and on the risk of a host of other issues. It’s a very different way of thinking about risk presentation across a whole variety of endpoints,” Dr. Ridker added.

Dr. Ference reported receiving fees and/or research grants from Merck, Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, NovoNordisk, The Medicines Company, Mylan, Daiichi Sankyo, Silence Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, dalCOR, CiVi Pharma, KrKa Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, and Celera.

[email protected]

A powerful genetic predisposition to cardiovascular disease was overcome by low lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure in a naturalistic study conducted in nearly half a million people, Brian A. Ference, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Frontline Medical News

This novel finding potentially opens the door to primordial cardiovascular prevention, the earliest possible form of primary prevention, in which cardiovascular risk factors are curtailed before they can become established.

“It’s important to note that the trajectories of lifetime risk for cardiovascular disease predicted by a PGS [polygenic risk score] are not fixed. At the same level of a PGS for coronary artery disease, participants with lower lifetime exposure to LDL and systolic blood pressure had a lower trajectory of risk for cardiovascular disease. This finding implies that the trajectory of cardiovascular risk predicted by a PGS can be reduced by lowering LDL and blood pressure,” observed Dr. Ference, professor of translational therapeutics and executive director of the Center for Naturally Randomised Trials at the University of Cambridge (England).

Together with an international team of coinvestigators, he analyzed lifetime cardiovascular risk as predicted by a PGS derived by genomic testing in relation to lifetime LDL and systolic blood pressure levels in 445,566 participants in the UK Biobank. Subjects had a mean age of 57.2 years at enrollment and 65.2 years at last follow-up. The primary study outcome, a first major coronary event (MCE) as defined by a fatal or nonfatal MI or coronary revascularization, occurred in 23,032 subjects.

The investigators found a stepwise increase in MCE risk across increasing quintiles of genetic risk as reflected in the PGS, such that participants in the top PGS quintile were at 2.8-fold greater risk of an MCE than those in the first quintile. The risk was essentially the same in men and women.

A key finding was that, at any level of lifetime MCE risk as defined by PGS, the actual event rate varied 10-fold depending upon lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure (SBP). For example, men in the top PGS quintile with high lifetime SBP and LDL cholesterol had a 93% lifetime MCE risk, but that MCE risk plummeted to 8% in those in the top quintile but with low lifetime SBP and LDL cholesterol.

Small differences in those two cardiovascular risk factors over the course of many decades had a big impact. For example, it took only a 10-mg/dL lower lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and a 2–mm Hg lower SBP to blunt the trajectory of lifetime risk for MCE in individuals in the middle quintile of PGS to the more favorable trajectory of those in the lowest PGS quintile. Conversely, with a 10-mg/dL increase in LDL cholesterol and 2–mm Hg greater SBP over the course of a lifetime, the trajectory of risk for people in the middle quintile of PGS became essentially superimposable upon the trajectory associated with the highest PGS quintile, the cardiologist explained.

“Participants with low lifetime exposure to LDL and blood pressure had a low lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease at all levels of PGS for coronary disease. This implies that LDL and blood pressure, which are modifiable, may be more powerful determinants of lifetime risk than polygenic predisposition,” Dr. Ference declared.

Discussant Vera Bittner, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said that for her this study carried a heartening take-home message: “The polygenic risk score can stratify the population into different risk groups and, at the same time, lifetime exposure to LDL and blood pressure significantly modifies the risk, suggesting that genetics is not destiny, and we may be able to intervene.”

“To be able to know what your cardiovascular risk is from an early age and to plan therapies to prevent cardiovascular disease would be incredible,” agreed session chair B. Hadley Wilson, MD, of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

Sekar Kathiresan, MD, said the study introduces the PGS as a new risk factor for coronary artery disease. Focusing efforts to achieve lifelong low exposure to LDL cholesterol and blood pressure in those individuals in the top 10%-20% in PGS should provide a great absolute reduction in MCE risk.

“It potentially can give you a 30- or 40-year head start in understanding who’s at risk because the factor can be measured as early as birth,” observed Dr. Kathiresan, a cardiologist who is director of the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“It’s also very inexpensive: You get the information once, bank it, and use it throughout life,” noted Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“A genome-wide scan will give us information not just on cardiovascular risk, but on cancer risk, on risk of kidney disease, and on the risk of a host of other issues. It’s a very different way of thinking about risk presentation across a whole variety of endpoints,” Dr. Ridker added.

Dr. Ference reported receiving fees and/or research grants from Merck, Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, NovoNordisk, The Medicines Company, Mylan, Daiichi Sankyo, Silence Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, dalCOR, CiVi Pharma, KrKa Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, and Celera.

[email protected]

As the proportion of patients infected with COVID-19 continues to rise in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is facilitating access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma for use in patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 infections.

While clinical trials are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of administering convalescent plasma to patients with COVID-19, the FDA is granting clinicians permission for use of investigational convalescent plasma under single-patient emergency Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), since no known cure exists and a vaccine is more than 1 year away from becoming available.

This allows the use of an investigational drug for the treatment of an individual patient by a licensed physician upon FDA authorization. This does not include the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the prevention of infection, according to a statement issued by the agency on March 24.

“It is possible that convalescent plasma that contains antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) might be effective against the infection,” the FDA statement reads. “Use of convalescent plasma has been studied in outbreaks of other respiratory infections, including the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not been shown to be effective in every disease studied.”

“I think the FDA got caught initially a little flat-footed when it came to the development of COVID-19 tests, but they’re quickly catching up,” Peter J. Pitts, who was the FDA’s associate commissioner from 2002 to 2004, said in an interview. “I think that the attitude now is, ‘If it’s safe, let’s create a pathway to see how these things work in the real world.’ I think that’s going to be as true for treatments to lessen the symptoms and shorten the duration of the disease, as well as convalescent plasma as a potential alternative to a yet-to-be-developed vaccine.”

At the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, and her colleagues are recruiting recovered COVID-19 patients to donate plasma for seriously ill patients affected with the virus. “The thought of using convalescent plasma makes total sense, because it’s immediately available, and it’s something that we can try to give people,” said Dr. Gernsheimer, a hematologist who is professor of medicine at the medical school. “It’s been used in China, and reports should be coming out shortly about their experience with this.”

In a case series that appeared in JAMA on March 27 (doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4783), Chinese researchers led by Chenguang Shen, PhD, reported findings from five critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who received a transfusion with convalescent plasma at Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital 10 and 22 days after hospital admission. The patients ranged in age from 36 to 73 years, three were men, and all were receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of treatment.

Dr. Shen and colleagues reported that viral loads decreased and became negative within 12 days following the transfusion. Three of the patients were discharged from the hospital after a length of stay that ranged from 51 to 55 days, and two remain in stable condition at 37 days after the transfusion. The researchers pointed out that all patients received antiviral agents, including interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir, during and following convalescent plasma treatment, “which also may have contributed to the viral clearance observed.”

Under the FDA policy on emergency IND use, COVID-19 convalescent plasma must only be collected from recovered individuals if they are eligible to donate blood, required testing must be performed, and the donation must be found suitable.

Potential donors “are going to be screened the way all blood donors are screened,” Dr. Gernsheimer said. “It’s not going to be any less safe than any unit of plasma that’s on the shelf that comes from our volunteer donors. There are always transfusion reactions that we have to worry about, [and] there are potentially unknown pathogens that we don’t yet know about that we are not yet testing for. It’s the regular risk we see with any unit of plasma.”

She added that COVID-19 survivors appear to start increasing their titer of the antibody around day 28. “We’ll be looking for recovered individuals who have had a documented infection, and whose symptoms started about 28 days before we collect,” she said.

The FDA advises clinicians to address several considerations for donor eligibility, including prior diagnosis of COVID-19 documented by a laboratory test; complete resolution of symptoms at least 14 days prior to donation; female donors negative for HLA antibodies or male donors, and negative results for COVID-19 either from one or more nasopharyngeal swab specimens or by a molecular diagnostic test from blood. [A partial list of available tests can be accessed on the FDA website.] The agency also advises that donors have defined SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody titers, if testing can be conducted (optimally greater than 1:320).

Patients eligible to receive COVID-19 convalescent plasma must have a severe or immediately life-threatening infection with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The agency defines severe disease as dyspnea, respiratory frequency of 30 per minute or greater, blood oxygen saturation of 93% or less, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of less than 300, and/or lung infiltrates of greater than 50% within 24-48 hours. Life-threatening disease is defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction or failure. Patients must provide informed consent.

The potential risks of receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma remain unknown, according to Dr. Gernsheimer. “What some people have thought about is, could there be such an inflammatory response with the virus that we would initially see these patients get worse?” she said. “My understanding is that has not occurred in China yet, but we don’t have all those data. But we always worry if we have something that’s going to cause inflammation around an infection, for example, that could initially make it more difficult to breathe if it’s a lung infection. So far, my understanding is that has not been seen.”

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response within 4-8 hours, requesting clinicians may complete form 3296 and submit it by email to [email protected].

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response in less than 4 hours, or if the clinician is unable to complete and submit form 3926 because of extenuating circumstances, verbal authorization can be sought by calling the FDA’s Office of Emergency Operations at 1-866-300-4374.

The FDA is working with the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other government partners to develop protocols for use by multiple investigators in order to coordinate the collection and use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“It’s crucial that data be captured for every patient so that we really understand what safety and effectiveness looks like on as close to a real-world level as we can, as quickly as we can,” said Mr. Pitts, who is president and cofounder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, and who also does consulting work for the FDA. “I understand that health care professionals are overworked and overburdened right now. I applaud them for their heroic work. But that doesn’t mean that we can shirk off collecting the data. When I was at the FDA, I helped address the SARS epidemic. The agency attitude at that point was, ‘Let’s get things that just might work through the process, as long as the cure isn’t going to be worse than the disease.’ I think that’s the attitude that’s leading the charge today.”

[email protected]

As the proportion of patients infected with COVID-19 continues to rise in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is facilitating access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma for use in patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 infections.

While clinical trials are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of administering convalescent plasma to patients with COVID-19, the FDA is granting clinicians permission for use of investigational convalescent plasma under single-patient emergency Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), since no known cure exists and a vaccine is more than 1 year away from becoming available.

This allows the use of an investigational drug for the treatment of an individual patient by a licensed physician upon FDA authorization. This does not include the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the prevention of infection, according to a statement issued by the agency on March 24.

“It is possible that convalescent plasma that contains antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) might be effective against the infection,” the FDA statement reads. “Use of convalescent plasma has been studied in outbreaks of other respiratory infections, including the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not been shown to be effective in every disease studied.”

“I think the FDA got caught initially a little flat-footed when it came to the development of COVID-19 tests, but they’re quickly catching up,” Peter J. Pitts, who was the FDA’s associate commissioner from 2002 to 2004, said in an interview. “I think that the attitude now is, ‘If it’s safe, let’s create a pathway to see how these things work in the real world.’ I think that’s going to be as true for treatments to lessen the symptoms and shorten the duration of the disease, as well as convalescent plasma as a potential alternative to a yet-to-be-developed vaccine.”

At the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, and her colleagues are recruiting recovered COVID-19 patients to donate plasma for seriously ill patients affected with the virus. “The thought of using convalescent plasma makes total sense, because it’s immediately available, and it’s something that we can try to give people,” said Dr. Gernsheimer, a hematologist who is professor of medicine at the medical school. “It’s been used in China, and reports should be coming out shortly about their experience with this.”

In a case series that appeared in JAMA on March 27 (doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4783), Chinese researchers led by Chenguang Shen, PhD, reported findings from five critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who received a transfusion with convalescent plasma at Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital 10 and 22 days after hospital admission. The patients ranged in age from 36 to 73 years, three were men, and all were receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of treatment.

Dr. Shen and colleagues reported that viral loads decreased and became negative within 12 days following the transfusion. Three of the patients were discharged from the hospital after a length of stay that ranged from 51 to 55 days, and two remain in stable condition at 37 days after the transfusion. The researchers pointed out that all patients received antiviral agents, including interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir, during and following convalescent plasma treatment, “which also may have contributed to the viral clearance observed.”

Under the FDA policy on emergency IND use, COVID-19 convalescent plasma must only be collected from recovered individuals if they are eligible to donate blood, required testing must be performed, and the donation must be found suitable.

Potential donors “are going to be screened the way all blood donors are screened,” Dr. Gernsheimer said. “It’s not going to be any less safe than any unit of plasma that’s on the shelf that comes from our volunteer donors. There are always transfusion reactions that we have to worry about, [and] there are potentially unknown pathogens that we don’t yet know about that we are not yet testing for. It’s the regular risk we see with any unit of plasma.”

She added that COVID-19 survivors appear to start increasing their titer of the antibody around day 28. “We’ll be looking for recovered individuals who have had a documented infection, and whose symptoms started about 28 days before we collect,” she said.

The FDA advises clinicians to address several considerations for donor eligibility, including prior diagnosis of COVID-19 documented by a laboratory test; complete resolution of symptoms at least 14 days prior to donation; female donors negative for HLA antibodies or male donors, and negative results for COVID-19 either from one or more nasopharyngeal swab specimens or by a molecular diagnostic test from blood. [A partial list of available tests can be accessed on the FDA website.] The agency also advises that donors have defined SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody titers, if testing can be conducted (optimally greater than 1:320).

Patients eligible to receive COVID-19 convalescent plasma must have a severe or immediately life-threatening infection with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The agency defines severe disease as dyspnea, respiratory frequency of 30 per minute or greater, blood oxygen saturation of 93% or less, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of less than 300, and/or lung infiltrates of greater than 50% within 24-48 hours. Life-threatening disease is defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction or failure. Patients must provide informed consent.

The potential risks of receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma remain unknown, according to Dr. Gernsheimer. “What some people have thought about is, could there be such an inflammatory response with the virus that we would initially see these patients get worse?” she said. “My understanding is that has not occurred in China yet, but we don’t have all those data. But we always worry if we have something that’s going to cause inflammation around an infection, for example, that could initially make it more difficult to breathe if it’s a lung infection. So far, my understanding is that has not been seen.”

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response within 4-8 hours, requesting clinicians may complete form 3296 and submit it by email to [email protected].

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response in less than 4 hours, or if the clinician is unable to complete and submit form 3926 because of extenuating circumstances, verbal authorization can be sought by calling the FDA’s Office of Emergency Operations at 1-866-300-4374.

The FDA is working with the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other government partners to develop protocols for use by multiple investigators in order to coordinate the collection and use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“It’s crucial that data be captured for every patient so that we really understand what safety and effectiveness looks like on as close to a real-world level as we can, as quickly as we can,” said Mr. Pitts, who is president and cofounder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, and who also does consulting work for the FDA. “I understand that health care professionals are overworked and overburdened right now. I applaud them for their heroic work. But that doesn’t mean that we can shirk off collecting the data. When I was at the FDA, I helped address the SARS epidemic. The agency attitude at that point was, ‘Let’s get things that just might work through the process, as long as the cure isn’t going to be worse than the disease.’ I think that’s the attitude that’s leading the charge today.”

[email protected]

As the proportion of patients infected with COVID-19 continues to rise in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is facilitating access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma for use in patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 infections.

While clinical trials are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of administering convalescent plasma to patients with COVID-19, the FDA is granting clinicians permission for use of investigational convalescent plasma under single-patient emergency Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), since no known cure exists and a vaccine is more than 1 year away from becoming available.

This allows the use of an investigational drug for the treatment of an individual patient by a licensed physician upon FDA authorization. This does not include the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the prevention of infection, according to a statement issued by the agency on March 24.

“It is possible that convalescent plasma that contains antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) might be effective against the infection,” the FDA statement reads. “Use of convalescent plasma has been studied in outbreaks of other respiratory infections, including the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not been shown to be effective in every disease studied.”

“I think the FDA got caught initially a little flat-footed when it came to the development of COVID-19 tests, but they’re quickly catching up,” Peter J. Pitts, who was the FDA’s associate commissioner from 2002 to 2004, said in an interview. “I think that the attitude now is, ‘If it’s safe, let’s create a pathway to see how these things work in the real world.’ I think that’s going to be as true for treatments to lessen the symptoms and shorten the duration of the disease, as well as convalescent plasma as a potential alternative to a yet-to-be-developed vaccine.”

At the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, and her colleagues are recruiting recovered COVID-19 patients to donate plasma for seriously ill patients affected with the virus. “The thought of using convalescent plasma makes total sense, because it’s immediately available, and it’s something that we can try to give people,” said Dr. Gernsheimer, a hematologist who is professor of medicine at the medical school. “It’s been used in China, and reports should be coming out shortly about their experience with this.”

In a case series that appeared in JAMA on March 27 (doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4783), Chinese researchers led by Chenguang Shen, PhD, reported findings from five critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who received a transfusion with convalescent plasma at Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital 10 and 22 days after hospital admission. The patients ranged in age from 36 to 73 years, three were men, and all were receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of treatment.

Dr. Shen and colleagues reported that viral loads decreased and became negative within 12 days following the transfusion. Three of the patients were discharged from the hospital after a length of stay that ranged from 51 to 55 days, and two remain in stable condition at 37 days after the transfusion. The researchers pointed out that all patients received antiviral agents, including interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir, during and following convalescent plasma treatment, “which also may have contributed to the viral clearance observed.”

Under the FDA policy on emergency IND use, COVID-19 convalescent plasma must only be collected from recovered individuals if they are eligible to donate blood, required testing must be performed, and the donation must be found suitable.

Potential donors “are going to be screened the way all blood donors are screened,” Dr. Gernsheimer said. “It’s not going to be any less safe than any unit of plasma that’s on the shelf that comes from our volunteer donors. There are always transfusion reactions that we have to worry about, [and] there are potentially unknown pathogens that we don’t yet know about that we are not yet testing for. It’s the regular risk we see with any unit of plasma.”

She added that COVID-19 survivors appear to start increasing their titer of the antibody around day 28. “We’ll be looking for recovered individuals who have had a documented infection, and whose symptoms started about 28 days before we collect,” she said.

The FDA advises clinicians to address several considerations for donor eligibility, including prior diagnosis of COVID-19 documented by a laboratory test; complete resolution of symptoms at least 14 days prior to donation; female donors negative for HLA antibodies or male donors, and negative results for COVID-19 either from one or more nasopharyngeal swab specimens or by a molecular diagnostic test from blood. [A partial list of available tests can be accessed on the FDA website.] The agency also advises that donors have defined SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody titers, if testing can be conducted (optimally greater than 1:320).

Patients eligible to receive COVID-19 convalescent plasma must have a severe or immediately life-threatening infection with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The agency defines severe disease as dyspnea, respiratory frequency of 30 per minute or greater, blood oxygen saturation of 93% or less, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of less than 300, and/or lung infiltrates of greater than 50% within 24-48 hours. Life-threatening disease is defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction or failure. Patients must provide informed consent.

The potential risks of receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma remain unknown, according to Dr. Gernsheimer. “What some people have thought about is, could there be such an inflammatory response with the virus that we would initially see these patients get worse?” she said. “My understanding is that has not occurred in China yet, but we don’t have all those data. But we always worry if we have something that’s going to cause inflammation around an infection, for example, that could initially make it more difficult to breathe if it’s a lung infection. So far, my understanding is that has not been seen.”

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response within 4-8 hours, requesting clinicians may complete form 3296 and submit it by email to [email protected].

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response in less than 4 hours, or if the clinician is unable to complete and submit form 3926 because of extenuating circumstances, verbal authorization can be sought by calling the FDA’s Office of Emergency Operations at 1-866-300-4374.

The FDA is working with the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other government partners to develop protocols for use by multiple investigators in order to coordinate the collection and use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“It’s crucial that data be captured for every patient so that we really understand what safety and effectiveness looks like on as close to a real-world level as we can, as quickly as we can,” said Mr. Pitts, who is president and cofounder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, and who also does consulting work for the FDA. “I understand that health care professionals are overworked and overburdened right now. I applaud them for their heroic work. But that doesn’t mean that we can shirk off collecting the data. When I was at the FDA, I helped address the SARS epidemic. The agency attitude at that point was, ‘Let’s get things that just might work through the process, as long as the cure isn’t going to be worse than the disease.’ I think that’s the attitude that’s leading the charge today.”

[email protected]

US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Robert Wilkie is finding out what it means to be on wartime footing against a virus. He is overseeing the VA’s internal response to COVID-19 while deciding how to fulfil the VA’s fourth mission: providing reinforcement for the nation’s healthcare system in a national emergency. Meanwhile, he’s facing hostilities on a third front: criticism of his efforts so far.

In late February, when lawmakers asked whether the VA needed more resources to fight COVID-19, Wilkie said no. He told NPR on March 19 that “we are poised for the onslaught.” But on March 13, 2020, the VA was being attacked for not releasing a comprehensive emergency response to the incipient pandemic. Wilkie countered, “Before there was a single confirmed case in the US,” he wrote in a recent op-ed piece for Military Times, “the VA was already conducting emergency preparedness exercises.”

In the NPR interview, Wilkie said the VA had undertaken “a very aggressive public health response at an early stage.” Now, the VA has added other measures. The VA, he said, was the first health system to stop people from entering its facilities without being questioned or tested, and the first to adopt the “hard decision” of a no-visitor rule for veterans in nursing homes. Every veteran who comes to a VA facility with flu-like symptoms is screened. Further, via tweets and blog posts, Wilkie is “inviting” retired medical personnel back to work to help deal with the pandemic.

The VA is also the “buttress force,” Wilkie says, for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the US Department of Health and Human Services if they need medical professionals for crises. “We plan for that every day,” he says. “We are gaming out emergency preparedness scenarios and we stand ready when the President needs us to expand our mission.” But in The American Prospect, Suzanne Gordon and Jasper Craven, both fellows at the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute, write that “one quiet action is ominous”—the VA website has deleted any mention of the department’s credo of caring for civilians in times of crisis.

According to Gordon and Craven, on Wednesday Wilkie “came out of the woodwork” to express the department’s readiness to help in the crisis. The VA has established 19 emergency operations centers across the country, Wilkie says, and has stopped elective surgeries to free up thousands of beds. He touts the agency’s flexibility, saying it’s prepared to move resources around the country as needed. “Some veterans hospitals have not been impacted [by the virus],” Wilkie said. “So, I’m not going to keep 500 respirators in the middle of a state that has one veteran with the infection, when I can use that in Seattle or New Orleans, or New York City.”

Wilkie says the VA has stockpiled equipment and its supply chain is stable. However, in the NPR interview, Mary Louise Kelly said the NPR VA correspondent had been hearing complaints about lack of gear, such as masks. When pressed on his claim that the VA had adequate protective supplies, Wilkie said those complaints “have not reached us.” In fact, he said, “I can tell you that the arrangements that we have made on both the masks side and also on the testing side—we’re in a very good place.”

Nonetheless, on March 16, the employee unions representing nearly 350,000 VA healthcare workers issued a joint statement that called on VHA management to “work with us to ensure the nation’s VA health facilities can safely handle COVID-19.” It’s time, said Everett Kelley, National President of the American Federation of Government Employees, “for the VA to invite our members to the table, instead of kicking them off the property, so we can finally work together on a solution….”

“Instead of relaxing standards and efforts,” the unions said, “like we have seen the CDC do [in allowing healthcare workers to reuse facemasks and rely on simple surgical facemasks], “we need to be stepping it up.”

It all takes money. After weeks of debate, the US Senate has just released details of the $2 trillion coronavirus aid package. The US Department of Defense (DoD) seems about to get $10.5 billion in emergency funding and the VA another $19.6 billion. The money includes funding for National Guard deployments to help state governments respond to emerging health needs, the expansion of military hospitals and mobile medical centers if needed, and help with production of medical supplies. Nearly $16 billion will be used for direct care specifically in response to veterans’ health needs, covering treatment for COVID-19 in VA hospitals, community urgent care clinics and emergency departments; overtime for clinical staff; and purchase of protective equipment, tests, and other supplies.

Despite having one of the best telehealth systems in the US, the VA has also come under fire for its telehealth preparations to meet the current pandemic-related demand. Former VA Under Secretary of Health Kenneth Kizer wrote in an op-ed for Military Times, “Regrettably, so far, there is no coordinated strategy for ramping up and optimizing the use of telehealth to combat the growing epidemic in the US.” The relief package proposes $3 billion for new telemedicine efforts, including staffing and equipping mobile treatment sites.

In mid-March, the VA had 3,000 coronavirus test kits but still had not used roughly 90%, an article in Mother Jones charged. At a White house press conference around that time, Wilkie was asked how many veterans of those who needed to be tested had been. “We believe we’ve caught most of them,” he replied.

But that was in the early days of the crisis.

With results from the 322 tests administered by Mar. 18, the VA had confirmed five positive cases, was tracking 33 presumptive cases, and acknowledged the first veteran death linked to COVID-19. As of Mar. 26, the VA had administered roughly 7,500 COVID-19 tests nationwide.

Secretary Wilkie has promised that the department’s first focus will always be caring for veterans. In an interview with Military Times, he said, “We don’t release any beds if veterans are needing them. The veterans still are primary. We are a [health] bridge for the larger community, but that’s only after veterans are taken care of.”

US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Robert Wilkie is finding out what it means to be on wartime footing against a virus. He is overseeing the VA’s internal response to COVID-19 while deciding how to fulfil the VA’s fourth mission: providing reinforcement for the nation’s healthcare system in a national emergency. Meanwhile, he’s facing hostilities on a third front: criticism of his efforts so far.

In late February, when lawmakers asked whether the VA needed more resources to fight COVID-19, Wilkie said no. He told NPR on March 19 that “we are poised for the onslaught.” But on March 13, 2020, the VA was being attacked for not releasing a comprehensive emergency response to the incipient pandemic. Wilkie countered, “Before there was a single confirmed case in the US,” he wrote in a recent op-ed piece for Military Times, “the VA was already conducting emergency preparedness exercises.”

In the NPR interview, Wilkie said the VA had undertaken “a very aggressive public health response at an early stage.” Now, the VA has added other measures. The VA, he said, was the first health system to stop people from entering its facilities without being questioned or tested, and the first to adopt the “hard decision” of a no-visitor rule for veterans in nursing homes. Every veteran who comes to a VA facility with flu-like symptoms is screened. Further, via tweets and blog posts, Wilkie is “inviting” retired medical personnel back to work to help deal with the pandemic.

The VA is also the “buttress force,” Wilkie says, for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the US Department of Health and Human Services if they need medical professionals for crises. “We plan for that every day,” he says. “We are gaming out emergency preparedness scenarios and we stand ready when the President needs us to expand our mission.” But in The American Prospect, Suzanne Gordon and Jasper Craven, both fellows at the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute, write that “one quiet action is ominous”—the VA website has deleted any mention of the department’s credo of caring for civilians in times of crisis.

According to Gordon and Craven, on Wednesday Wilkie “came out of the woodwork” to express the department’s readiness to help in the crisis. The VA has established 19 emergency operations centers across the country, Wilkie says, and has stopped elective surgeries to free up thousands of beds. He touts the agency’s flexibility, saying it’s prepared to move resources around the country as needed. “Some veterans hospitals have not been impacted [by the virus],” Wilkie said. “So, I’m not going to keep 500 respirators in the middle of a state that has one veteran with the infection, when I can use that in Seattle or New Orleans, or New York City.”

Wilkie says the VA has stockpiled equipment and its supply chain is stable. However, in the NPR interview, Mary Louise Kelly said the NPR VA correspondent had been hearing complaints about lack of gear, such as masks. When pressed on his claim that the VA had adequate protective supplies, Wilkie said those complaints “have not reached us.” In fact, he said, “I can tell you that the arrangements that we have made on both the masks side and also on the testing side—we’re in a very good place.”

Nonetheless, on March 16, the employee unions representing nearly 350,000 VA healthcare workers issued a joint statement that called on VHA management to “work with us to ensure the nation’s VA health facilities can safely handle COVID-19.” It’s time, said Everett Kelley, National President of the American Federation of Government Employees, “for the VA to invite our members to the table, instead of kicking them off the property, so we can finally work together on a solution….”

“Instead of relaxing standards and efforts,” the unions said, “like we have seen the CDC do [in allowing healthcare workers to reuse facemasks and rely on simple surgical facemasks], “we need to be stepping it up.”

It all takes money. After weeks of debate, the US Senate has just released details of the $2 trillion coronavirus aid package. The US Department of Defense (DoD) seems about to get $10.5 billion in emergency funding and the VA another $19.6 billion. The money includes funding for National Guard deployments to help state governments respond to emerging health needs, the expansion of military hospitals and mobile medical centers if needed, and help with production of medical supplies. Nearly $16 billion will be used for direct care specifically in response to veterans’ health needs, covering treatment for COVID-19 in VA hospitals, community urgent care clinics and emergency departments; overtime for clinical staff; and purchase of protective equipment, tests, and other supplies.

Despite having one of the best telehealth systems in the US, the VA has also come under fire for its telehealth preparations to meet the current pandemic-related demand. Former VA Under Secretary of Health Kenneth Kizer wrote in an op-ed for Military Times, “Regrettably, so far, there is no coordinated strategy for ramping up and optimizing the use of telehealth to combat the growing epidemic in the US.” The relief package proposes $3 billion for new telemedicine efforts, including staffing and equipping mobile treatment sites.

In mid-March, the VA had 3,000 coronavirus test kits but still had not used roughly 90%, an article in Mother Jones charged. At a White house press conference around that time, Wilkie was asked how many veterans of those who needed to be tested had been. “We believe we’ve caught most of them,” he replied.

But that was in the early days of the crisis.

With results from the 322 tests administered by Mar. 18, the VA had confirmed five positive cases, was tracking 33 presumptive cases, and acknowledged the first veteran death linked to COVID-19. As of Mar. 26, the VA had administered roughly 7,500 COVID-19 tests nationwide.

Secretary Wilkie has promised that the department’s first focus will always be caring for veterans. In an interview with Military Times, he said, “We don’t release any beds if veterans are needing them. The veterans still are primary. We are a [health] bridge for the larger community, but that’s only after veterans are taken care of.”

US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Robert Wilkie is finding out what it means to be on wartime footing against a virus. He is overseeing the VA’s internal response to COVID-19 while deciding how to fulfil the VA’s fourth mission: providing reinforcement for the nation’s healthcare system in a national emergency. Meanwhile, he’s facing hostilities on a third front: criticism of his efforts so far.

In late February, when lawmakers asked whether the VA needed more resources to fight COVID-19, Wilkie said no. He told NPR on March 19 that “we are poised for the onslaught.” But on March 13, 2020, the VA was being attacked for not releasing a comprehensive emergency response to the incipient pandemic. Wilkie countered, “Before there was a single confirmed case in the US,” he wrote in a recent op-ed piece for Military Times, “the VA was already conducting emergency preparedness exercises.”

In the NPR interview, Wilkie said the VA had undertaken “a very aggressive public health response at an early stage.” Now, the VA has added other measures. The VA, he said, was the first health system to stop people from entering its facilities without being questioned or tested, and the first to adopt the “hard decision” of a no-visitor rule for veterans in nursing homes. Every veteran who comes to a VA facility with flu-like symptoms is screened. Further, via tweets and blog posts, Wilkie is “inviting” retired medical personnel back to work to help deal with the pandemic.

The VA is also the “buttress force,” Wilkie says, for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the US Department of Health and Human Services if they need medical professionals for crises. “We plan for that every day,” he says. “We are gaming out emergency preparedness scenarios and we stand ready when the President needs us to expand our mission.” But in The American Prospect, Suzanne Gordon and Jasper Craven, both fellows at the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute, write that “one quiet action is ominous”—the VA website has deleted any mention of the department’s credo of caring for civilians in times of crisis.

According to Gordon and Craven, on Wednesday Wilkie “came out of the woodwork” to express the department’s readiness to help in the crisis. The VA has established 19 emergency operations centers across the country, Wilkie says, and has stopped elective surgeries to free up thousands of beds. He touts the agency’s flexibility, saying it’s prepared to move resources around the country as needed. “Some veterans hospitals have not been impacted [by the virus],” Wilkie said. “So, I’m not going to keep 500 respirators in the middle of a state that has one veteran with the infection, when I can use that in Seattle or New Orleans, or New York City.”

Wilkie says the VA has stockpiled equipment and its supply chain is stable. However, in the NPR interview, Mary Louise Kelly said the NPR VA correspondent had been hearing complaints about lack of gear, such as masks. When pressed on his claim that the VA had adequate protective supplies, Wilkie said those complaints “have not reached us.” In fact, he said, “I can tell you that the arrangements that we have made on both the masks side and also on the testing side—we’re in a very good place.”

Nonetheless, on March 16, the employee unions representing nearly 350,000 VA healthcare workers issued a joint statement that called on VHA management to “work with us to ensure the nation’s VA health facilities can safely handle COVID-19.” It’s time, said Everett Kelley, National President of the American Federation of Government Employees, “for the VA to invite our members to the table, instead of kicking them off the property, so we can finally work together on a solution….”

“Instead of relaxing standards and efforts,” the unions said, “like we have seen the CDC do [in allowing healthcare workers to reuse facemasks and rely on simple surgical facemasks], “we need to be stepping it up.”

It all takes money. After weeks of debate, the US Senate has just released details of the $2 trillion coronavirus aid package. The US Department of Defense (DoD) seems about to get $10.5 billion in emergency funding and the VA another $19.6 billion. The money includes funding for National Guard deployments to help state governments respond to emerging health needs, the expansion of military hospitals and mobile medical centers if needed, and help with production of medical supplies. Nearly $16 billion will be used for direct care specifically in response to veterans’ health needs, covering treatment for COVID-19 in VA hospitals, community urgent care clinics and emergency departments; overtime for clinical staff; and purchase of protective equipment, tests, and other supplies.

Despite having one of the best telehealth systems in the US, the VA has also come under fire for its telehealth preparations to meet the current pandemic-related demand. Former VA Under Secretary of Health Kenneth Kizer wrote in an op-ed for Military Times, “Regrettably, so far, there is no coordinated strategy for ramping up and optimizing the use of telehealth to combat the growing epidemic in the US.” The relief package proposes $3 billion for new telemedicine efforts, including staffing and equipping mobile treatment sites.

In mid-March, the VA had 3,000 coronavirus test kits but still had not used roughly 90%, an article in Mother Jones charged. At a White house press conference around that time, Wilkie was asked how many veterans of those who needed to be tested had been. “We believe we’ve caught most of them,” he replied.

But that was in the early days of the crisis.

With results from the 322 tests administered by Mar. 18, the VA had confirmed five positive cases, was tracking 33 presumptive cases, and acknowledged the first veteran death linked to COVID-19. As of Mar. 26, the VA had administered roughly 7,500 COVID-19 tests nationwide.

Secretary Wilkie has promised that the department’s first focus will always be caring for veterans. In an interview with Military Times, he said, “We don’t release any beds if veterans are needing them. The veterans still are primary. We are a [health] bridge for the larger community, but that’s only after veterans are taken care of.”

Reports of three neonates with elevated IgM antibody concentrations whose mothers had COVID-19 in two articles raise questions about whether the infants may have been infected with the virus in utero.

Courtesy CDC

The data, while provocative, “are not conclusive and do not prove in utero transmission” of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), editorialists cautioned.

“The suggestion of in utero transmission rests on IgM detection in these 3 neonates, and IgM is a challenging way to diagnose many congenital infections,” David W. Kimberlin, MD, and Sergio Stagno, MD, of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in their editorial. “IgM antibodies are too large to cross the placenta and so detection in a newborn reasonably could be assumed to reflect fetal production following in utero infection. However, most congenital infections are not diagnosed based on IgM detection because IgM assays can be prone to false-positive and false-negative results, along with cross-reactivity and testing challenges.”

None of the three infants had a positive reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result, “so there is not virologic evidence for congenital infection in these cases to support the serologic suggestion of in utero transmission,” the editorialists noted.
 

Examining the possibility of vertical transmission

A prior case series of nine pregnant women found no transmission of the virus from mother to child, but the question of in utero transmission is not settled, said Lan Dong, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues. In their research letter, the investigators described a newborn with elevated IgM antibodies to novel coronavirus 2019 born to a mother with COVID-19. The infant was delivered by cesarean section February 22, 2020, at Renmin Hospital in a negative-pressure isolation room.

“The mother wore an N95 mask and did not hold the infant,” the researchers said. “The neonate had no symptoms and was immediately quarantined in the neonatal intensive care unit. At 2 hours of age, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level was 140.32 AU/mL and the IgM level was 45.83 AU/mL.” Although the infant may have been infected at delivery, IgM antibodies usually take days to appear, Dr. Dong and colleagues wrote. “The infant’s repeatedly negative RT-PCR test results on nasopharyngeal swabs are difficult to explain, although these tests are not always positive with infection. ... Additional examination of maternal and newborn samples should be done to confirm this preliminary observation.”
 

A review of infants’ serologic characteristics

Hui Zeng, MD, of the department of laboratory medicine at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues retrospectively reviewed clinical records and laboratory results for six pregnant women with COVID-19, according to a study in JAMA. The women had mild clinical manifestations and were admitted to Zhongnan Hospital between February 16 and March 6. “All had cesarean deliveries in their third trimester in negative pressure isolation rooms,” the investigators said. “All mothers wore masks, and all medical staff wore protective suits and double masks. The infants were isolated from their mothers immediately after delivery.”

Two of the infants had elevated IgG and IgM concentrations. IgM “is not usually transferred from mother to fetus because of its larger macromolecular structure. ... Whether the placentas of women in this study were damaged and abnormal is unknown,” Dr. Zeng and colleagues said. “Alternatively, IgM could have been produced by the infant if the virus crossed the placenta.”

“Although these 2 studies deserve careful evaluation, more definitive evidence is needed” before physicians can “counsel pregnant women that their fetuses are at risk from congenital infection with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno concluded.

Dr. Dong and associates had no conflicts of interest. Their work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project and others. Dr. Zeng and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Their study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Zhongnan Hospital. Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dong L et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4621; Zeng H et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4861.

Reports of three neonates with elevated IgM antibody concentrations whose mothers had COVID-19 in two articles raise questions about whether the infants may have been infected with the virus in utero.

Courtesy CDC

The data, while provocative, “are not conclusive and do not prove in utero transmission” of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), editorialists cautioned.

“The suggestion of in utero transmission rests on IgM detection in these 3 neonates, and IgM is a challenging way to diagnose many congenital infections,” David W. Kimberlin, MD, and Sergio Stagno, MD, of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in their editorial. “IgM antibodies are too large to cross the placenta and so detection in a newborn reasonably could be assumed to reflect fetal production following in utero infection. However, most congenital infections are not diagnosed based on IgM detection because IgM assays can be prone to false-positive and false-negative results, along with cross-reactivity and testing challenges.”

None of the three infants had a positive reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result, “so there is not virologic evidence for congenital infection in these cases to support the serologic suggestion of in utero transmission,” the editorialists noted.
 

Examining the possibility of vertical transmission

A prior case series of nine pregnant women found no transmission of the virus from mother to child, but the question of in utero transmission is not settled, said Lan Dong, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues. In their research letter, the investigators described a newborn with elevated IgM antibodies to novel coronavirus 2019 born to a mother with COVID-19. The infant was delivered by cesarean section February 22, 2020, at Renmin Hospital in a negative-pressure isolation room.

“The mother wore an N95 mask and did not hold the infant,” the researchers said. “The neonate had no symptoms and was immediately quarantined in the neonatal intensive care unit. At 2 hours of age, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level was 140.32 AU/mL and the IgM level was 45.83 AU/mL.” Although the infant may have been infected at delivery, IgM antibodies usually take days to appear, Dr. Dong and colleagues wrote. “The infant’s repeatedly negative RT-PCR test results on nasopharyngeal swabs are difficult to explain, although these tests are not always positive with infection. ... Additional examination of maternal and newborn samples should be done to confirm this preliminary observation.”
 

A review of infants’ serologic characteristics

Hui Zeng, MD, of the department of laboratory medicine at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues retrospectively reviewed clinical records and laboratory results for six pregnant women with COVID-19, according to a study in JAMA. The women had mild clinical manifestations and were admitted to Zhongnan Hospital between February 16 and March 6. “All had cesarean deliveries in their third trimester in negative pressure isolation rooms,” the investigators said. “All mothers wore masks, and all medical staff wore protective suits and double masks. The infants were isolated from their mothers immediately after delivery.”

Two of the infants had elevated IgG and IgM concentrations. IgM “is not usually transferred from mother to fetus because of its larger macromolecular structure. ... Whether the placentas of women in this study were damaged and abnormal is unknown,” Dr. Zeng and colleagues said. “Alternatively, IgM could have been produced by the infant if the virus crossed the placenta.”

“Although these 2 studies deserve careful evaluation, more definitive evidence is needed” before physicians can “counsel pregnant women that their fetuses are at risk from congenital infection with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno concluded.

Dr. Dong and associates had no conflicts of interest. Their work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project and others. Dr. Zeng and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Their study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Zhongnan Hospital. Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dong L et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4621; Zeng H et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4861.

Reports of three neonates with elevated IgM antibody concentrations whose mothers had COVID-19 in two articles raise questions about whether the infants may have been infected with the virus in utero.

Courtesy CDC

The data, while provocative, “are not conclusive and do not prove in utero transmission” of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), editorialists cautioned.

“The suggestion of in utero transmission rests on IgM detection in these 3 neonates, and IgM is a challenging way to diagnose many congenital infections,” David W. Kimberlin, MD, and Sergio Stagno, MD, of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in their editorial. “IgM antibodies are too large to cross the placenta and so detection in a newborn reasonably could be assumed to reflect fetal production following in utero infection. However, most congenital infections are not diagnosed based on IgM detection because IgM assays can be prone to false-positive and false-negative results, along with cross-reactivity and testing challenges.”

None of the three infants had a positive reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result, “so there is not virologic evidence for congenital infection in these cases to support the serologic suggestion of in utero transmission,” the editorialists noted.
 

Examining the possibility of vertical transmission

A prior case series of nine pregnant women found no transmission of the virus from mother to child, but the question of in utero transmission is not settled, said Lan Dong, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues. In their research letter, the investigators described a newborn with elevated IgM antibodies to novel coronavirus 2019 born to a mother with COVID-19. The infant was delivered by cesarean section February 22, 2020, at Renmin Hospital in a negative-pressure isolation room.

“The mother wore an N95 mask and did not hold the infant,” the researchers said. “The neonate had no symptoms and was immediately quarantined in the neonatal intensive care unit. At 2 hours of age, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level was 140.32 AU/mL and the IgM level was 45.83 AU/mL.” Although the infant may have been infected at delivery, IgM antibodies usually take days to appear, Dr. Dong and colleagues wrote. “The infant’s repeatedly negative RT-PCR test results on nasopharyngeal swabs are difficult to explain, although these tests are not always positive with infection. ... Additional examination of maternal and newborn samples should be done to confirm this preliminary observation.”
 

A review of infants’ serologic characteristics

Hui Zeng, MD, of the department of laboratory medicine at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues retrospectively reviewed clinical records and laboratory results for six pregnant women with COVID-19, according to a study in JAMA. The women had mild clinical manifestations and were admitted to Zhongnan Hospital between February 16 and March 6. “All had cesarean deliveries in their third trimester in negative pressure isolation rooms,” the investigators said. “All mothers wore masks, and all medical staff wore protective suits and double masks. The infants were isolated from their mothers immediately after delivery.”

Two of the infants had elevated IgG and IgM concentrations. IgM “is not usually transferred from mother to fetus because of its larger macromolecular structure. ... Whether the placentas of women in this study were damaged and abnormal is unknown,” Dr. Zeng and colleagues said. “Alternatively, IgM could have been produced by the infant if the virus crossed the placenta.”

“Although these 2 studies deserve careful evaluation, more definitive evidence is needed” before physicians can “counsel pregnant women that their fetuses are at risk from congenital infection with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno concluded.

Dr. Dong and associates had no conflicts of interest. Their work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project and others. Dr. Zeng and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Their study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Zhongnan Hospital. Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dong L et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4621; Zeng H et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4861.

As most 2020 medical conferences have, one by one, been canceled or rescheduled as virtual meetings in the time of a pandemic, some physicians and other healthcare professionals are wondering if this is the year that will change the scene forever.

Amid the choruses of resignation (“Unfortunately, it’s the right thing to do.”) and optimism (“See you next year!”), there have been plenty of voices describing another broad sentiment – that all was not well with medical meetings even before the coronavirus.

One dominant criticism is that there are too many meetings.

Indeed, there are many, many meetings. During 2005–2015, there were 30,000-plus medical meetings in the United States, according to a report from the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association.

Most of those are of little value, tweeted Dhruv Khullar, MD, an internist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City (@DhruvKhullar): “One possible consequence of cancelling so many meetings due to #COVID19 is that we realize we probably don’t need most of them.”

The tweet was liked 1.9K times, which is high for a medical post. Comments were mostly in agreement, with some skepticism.

Michaela West, MD, PhD, a surgeon at North Memorial Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, responded (@MichaelaWst): “Agree. COVID-19 may forever change our perspective regarding medical professional meetings.”

Nwando Olayiwola, MD, chair of family medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, strongly agreed (@DrNwando): “This is the tweet I wish I tweeted.”

However, Kelly Swords, MD, MPH, urologist, University of California, San Diego, in a dissenting opinion, stated the obvious (@k_dagger): “Except there is no substitute for human interaction.”
 

Worth the Effort?

The cancellation of medical meetings has given those who regularly attend an opportunity to reassess their value and to question the worth of the effort involved in attending in person.

David Steensma, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston, (@DavidSteensma) tweeted that he would like to scale back: “The present crisis is an opportunity to reassess what is actually necessary and rebalance [in terms of meetings].”

Travel to meetings is often unpleasant, said others.

Chris Palatucci, life sciences executive recruiter, Coulter Partners, Boston, tweeted (@LifeSciRcruitr): “I will die a happy man if I never get on another plane. Glorified bus travel.” He also believes that once the coronavirus crisis is over, its “silver lining” will be the realization that “40% of all meetings are unnecessary.”

Many professionals have welcomed the announcements that major conferences have been canceled and will be conducted virtually.

The latest change is from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), whose annual meeting was to be held in Chicago at the end of May but will now be held online.

Virtual ASCO will be more manageable – and comfy, said Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD, radiation oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

She (@fumikochino) explained why in a recent tweet: “1) I will be finally able to see ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS I wanted to see instead of wandering around feeling overwhelmed. 2) I will be able to FOCUS on the presentations and not searching for a power outlet. 3) PAJAMAS.”

Virtual meetings already beat real meetings, added Adriana Scheliga, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Brazilian National Cancer Institute (@linfopedia): “I’ve been saying this for a while. For me the best ASCO Meetings, for example, are the “virtual meetings!”

However, meetings in place are also very much about professional community and mutual support, reminds Susan E. Sedory, MA, executive director, Society of Interventional Radiology, which canceled its meeting March 6 in a multifaceted process described by Medscape Medical News.
 

Is This the Time to Evaluate Meetings?

Coming up soon is the first major conference to go virtual after being canceled – the American College of Cardiology (ACC), which has been one of the top 20 largest meetings in the United States by attendance.

This meeting, which was to have taken place in Chicago on March 28–30, will now occur online on those days. The ACC says it will stream all “live” sessions on demand and provide access to additional videos, abstracts, and slides for at least 90 days after the meeting. And it will be free to anyone with an Internet connection.

Medical meetings in distant locales may bounce back, as they have grown into a very big business. ASCO is illustrative.

The group’s first scientific annual meeting was held in 1965 in Philadelphia, with about 70 members and invited guests in attendance. Fast forward 50-plus years to 2019: there were 42,500 attendees, a 4.4% increase from 2018. Notably, the top countries in attendance in 2019 were the United States and China.

Not everyone is happy that canceled meetings are being held online in the middle of a pandemic.

“In a COVID-19 world, the brain cannot focus on nonviral topics,” said commentator John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, in his regular column for Medscape Cardiology/theheart.org.

The virtual ACC meeting should be canceled or delayed – to mirror what is happening in the world, he argues. “In hospitals, we have postponed the elective to make room for the coming surge. Shouldn’t ACC do the same? After the crisis passes, we can have a virtual meeting with a proper discussion of the science,” he writes.

But #MedTwitter, with its collective constructive criticism of medical meetings, is perhaps proof that the brain can function – and arrive at clarity – when under pandemic duress.

“Am I the only one experiencing a certain relief at the cancellation of multiple trips and meetings, and vowing to let this revelation affect my decision making in the future,” tweeted Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (@Steve Joffe).

Louise Perkins King, MD, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, responded to Joffe. Hoping not to “belittle” the suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, she (@louise_p_king) addressed her healthcare colleagues: “...there is potential for us all to learn what is essential travel and burden and what is not from this. I hope it leads to lasting change.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As most 2020 medical conferences have, one by one, been canceled or rescheduled as virtual meetings in the time of a pandemic, some physicians and other healthcare professionals are wondering if this is the year that will change the scene forever.

Amid the choruses of resignation (“Unfortunately, it’s the right thing to do.”) and optimism (“See you next year!”), there have been plenty of voices describing another broad sentiment – that all was not well with medical meetings even before the coronavirus.

One dominant criticism is that there are too many meetings.

Indeed, there are many, many meetings. During 2005–2015, there were 30,000-plus medical meetings in the United States, according to a report from the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association.

Most of those are of little value, tweeted Dhruv Khullar, MD, an internist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City (@DhruvKhullar): “One possible consequence of cancelling so many meetings due to #COVID19 is that we realize we probably don’t need most of them.”

The tweet was liked 1.9K times, which is high for a medical post. Comments were mostly in agreement, with some skepticism.

Michaela West, MD, PhD, a surgeon at North Memorial Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, responded (@MichaelaWst): “Agree. COVID-19 may forever change our perspective regarding medical professional meetings.”

Nwando Olayiwola, MD, chair of family medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, strongly agreed (@DrNwando): “This is the tweet I wish I tweeted.”

However, Kelly Swords, MD, MPH, urologist, University of California, San Diego, in a dissenting opinion, stated the obvious (@k_dagger): “Except there is no substitute for human interaction.”
 

Worth the Effort?

The cancellation of medical meetings has given those who regularly attend an opportunity to reassess their value and to question the worth of the effort involved in attending in person.

David Steensma, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston, (@DavidSteensma) tweeted that he would like to scale back: “The present crisis is an opportunity to reassess what is actually necessary and rebalance [in terms of meetings].”

Travel to meetings is often unpleasant, said others.

Chris Palatucci, life sciences executive recruiter, Coulter Partners, Boston, tweeted (@LifeSciRcruitr): “I will die a happy man if I never get on another plane. Glorified bus travel.” He also believes that once the coronavirus crisis is over, its “silver lining” will be the realization that “40% of all meetings are unnecessary.”

Many professionals have welcomed the announcements that major conferences have been canceled and will be conducted virtually.

The latest change is from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), whose annual meeting was to be held in Chicago at the end of May but will now be held online.

Virtual ASCO will be more manageable – and comfy, said Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD, radiation oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

She (@fumikochino) explained why in a recent tweet: “1) I will be finally able to see ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS I wanted to see instead of wandering around feeling overwhelmed. 2) I will be able to FOCUS on the presentations and not searching for a power outlet. 3) PAJAMAS.”

Virtual meetings already beat real meetings, added Adriana Scheliga, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Brazilian National Cancer Institute (@linfopedia): “I’ve been saying this for a while. For me the best ASCO Meetings, for example, are the “virtual meetings!”

However, meetings in place are also very much about professional community and mutual support, reminds Susan E. Sedory, MA, executive director, Society of Interventional Radiology, which canceled its meeting March 6 in a multifaceted process described by Medscape Medical News.
 

Is This the Time to Evaluate Meetings?

Coming up soon is the first major conference to go virtual after being canceled – the American College of Cardiology (ACC), which has been one of the top 20 largest meetings in the United States by attendance.

This meeting, which was to have taken place in Chicago on March 28–30, will now occur online on those days. The ACC says it will stream all “live” sessions on demand and provide access to additional videos, abstracts, and slides for at least 90 days after the meeting. And it will be free to anyone with an Internet connection.

Medical meetings in distant locales may bounce back, as they have grown into a very big business. ASCO is illustrative.

The group’s first scientific annual meeting was held in 1965 in Philadelphia, with about 70 members and invited guests in attendance. Fast forward 50-plus years to 2019: there were 42,500 attendees, a 4.4% increase from 2018. Notably, the top countries in attendance in 2019 were the United States and China.

Not everyone is happy that canceled meetings are being held online in the middle of a pandemic.

“In a COVID-19 world, the brain cannot focus on nonviral topics,” said commentator John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, in his regular column for Medscape Cardiology/theheart.org.

The virtual ACC meeting should be canceled or delayed – to mirror what is happening in the world, he argues. “In hospitals, we have postponed the elective to make room for the coming surge. Shouldn’t ACC do the same? After the crisis passes, we can have a virtual meeting with a proper discussion of the science,” he writes.

But #MedTwitter, with its collective constructive criticism of medical meetings, is perhaps proof that the brain can function – and arrive at clarity – when under pandemic duress.

“Am I the only one experiencing a certain relief at the cancellation of multiple trips and meetings, and vowing to let this revelation affect my decision making in the future,” tweeted Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (@Steve Joffe).

Louise Perkins King, MD, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, responded to Joffe. Hoping not to “belittle” the suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, she (@louise_p_king) addressed her healthcare colleagues: “...there is potential for us all to learn what is essential travel and burden and what is not from this. I hope it leads to lasting change.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As most 2020 medical conferences have, one by one, been canceled or rescheduled as virtual meetings in the time of a pandemic, some physicians and other healthcare professionals are wondering if this is the year that will change the scene forever.

Amid the choruses of resignation (“Unfortunately, it’s the right thing to do.”) and optimism (“See you next year!”), there have been plenty of voices describing another broad sentiment – that all was not well with medical meetings even before the coronavirus.

One dominant criticism is that there are too many meetings.

Indeed, there are many, many meetings. During 2005–2015, there were 30,000-plus medical meetings in the United States, according to a report from the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association.

Most of those are of little value, tweeted Dhruv Khullar, MD, an internist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City (@DhruvKhullar): “One possible consequence of cancelling so many meetings due to #COVID19 is that we realize we probably don’t need most of them.”

The tweet was liked 1.9K times, which is high for a medical post. Comments were mostly in agreement, with some skepticism.

Michaela West, MD, PhD, a surgeon at North Memorial Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, responded (@MichaelaWst): “Agree. COVID-19 may forever change our perspective regarding medical professional meetings.”

Nwando Olayiwola, MD, chair of family medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, strongly agreed (@DrNwando): “This is the tweet I wish I tweeted.”

However, Kelly Swords, MD, MPH, urologist, University of California, San Diego, in a dissenting opinion, stated the obvious (@k_dagger): “Except there is no substitute for human interaction.”
 

Worth the Effort?

The cancellation of medical meetings has given those who regularly attend an opportunity to reassess their value and to question the worth of the effort involved in attending in person.

David Steensma, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston, (@DavidSteensma) tweeted that he would like to scale back: “The present crisis is an opportunity to reassess what is actually necessary and rebalance [in terms of meetings].”

Travel to meetings is often unpleasant, said others.

Chris Palatucci, life sciences executive recruiter, Coulter Partners, Boston, tweeted (@LifeSciRcruitr): “I will die a happy man if I never get on another plane. Glorified bus travel.” He also believes that once the coronavirus crisis is over, its “silver lining” will be the realization that “40% of all meetings are unnecessary.”

Many professionals have welcomed the announcements that major conferences have been canceled and will be conducted virtually.

The latest change is from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), whose annual meeting was to be held in Chicago at the end of May but will now be held online.

Virtual ASCO will be more manageable – and comfy, said Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD, radiation oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

She (@fumikochino) explained why in a recent tweet: “1) I will be finally able to see ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS I wanted to see instead of wandering around feeling overwhelmed. 2) I will be able to FOCUS on the presentations and not searching for a power outlet. 3) PAJAMAS.”

Virtual meetings already beat real meetings, added Adriana Scheliga, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Brazilian National Cancer Institute (@linfopedia): “I’ve been saying this for a while. For me the best ASCO Meetings, for example, are the “virtual meetings!”

However, meetings in place are also very much about professional community and mutual support, reminds Susan E. Sedory, MA, executive director, Society of Interventional Radiology, which canceled its meeting March 6 in a multifaceted process described by Medscape Medical News.
 

Is This the Time to Evaluate Meetings?

Coming up soon is the first major conference to go virtual after being canceled – the American College of Cardiology (ACC), which has been one of the top 20 largest meetings in the United States by attendance.

This meeting, which was to have taken place in Chicago on March 28–30, will now occur online on those days. The ACC says it will stream all “live” sessions on demand and provide access to additional videos, abstracts, and slides for at least 90 days after the meeting. And it will be free to anyone with an Internet connection.

Medical meetings in distant locales may bounce back, as they have grown into a very big business. ASCO is illustrative.

The group’s first scientific annual meeting was held in 1965 in Philadelphia, with about 70 members and invited guests in attendance. Fast forward 50-plus years to 2019: there were 42,500 attendees, a 4.4% increase from 2018. Notably, the top countries in attendance in 2019 were the United States and China.

Not everyone is happy that canceled meetings are being held online in the middle of a pandemic.

“In a COVID-19 world, the brain cannot focus on nonviral topics,” said commentator John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, in his regular column for Medscape Cardiology/theheart.org.

The virtual ACC meeting should be canceled or delayed – to mirror what is happening in the world, he argues. “In hospitals, we have postponed the elective to make room for the coming surge. Shouldn’t ACC do the same? After the crisis passes, we can have a virtual meeting with a proper discussion of the science,” he writes.

But #MedTwitter, with its collective constructive criticism of medical meetings, is perhaps proof that the brain can function – and arrive at clarity – when under pandemic duress.

“Am I the only one experiencing a certain relief at the cancellation of multiple trips and meetings, and vowing to let this revelation affect my decision making in the future,” tweeted Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (@Steve Joffe).

Louise Perkins King, MD, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, responded to Joffe. Hoping not to “belittle” the suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, she (@louise_p_king) addressed her healthcare colleagues: “...there is potential for us all to learn what is essential travel and burden and what is not from this. I hope it leads to lasting change.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Current risk factors used to screen for hepatitis C should be updated, according to study results of 106,842 pregnant women who underwent screening.

Courtesy NIH

“Because risk-factor screening has obvious limitations, universal screening in pregnancy has been suggested to allow for linkage to postpartum care and identification of children for future testing and treatment,” wrote Mona Prasad, DO, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from women with singleton pregnancies presenting for prenatal care prior to 23 weeks’ gestation during 2012-2015. Of these, 254 tested positive for the hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody, for a seroprevalence rate of 2.4 cases per 1,000 women.

The researchers conducted a case-control analysis of 131 women who tested positive and 251 controls to identify HCV infection risk factors based on interviews and chart reviews. They found that risk factors significantly associated with positive HCV antibodies included injection drug use (adjusted odds ratio, 22.9), a history of blood transfusion (aOR, 3.7), having an HCV-infected partner (aOR, 6.3), having had more than three sexual partners (aOR, 5.3), and smoking during pregnancy (aOR, 2.4).

In an unadjusted analysis, the researchers confirmed two of the risk factors currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for screening for HCV: injection drug use and being born to a mother with HCV infection, but not dialysis, organ transplantation, or HIV infection.

“Our results demonstrate that current risk factors could be contemporized,” Dr. Prasad and colleagues noted. “The currently accepted risk factors such as exposure to clotting factors, dialysis, and organ transplants are unlikely to be found. A thorough assessment of injection drug use history, smoking, transfusions, number of sexual partners, and partners with HCV infection is more sensitive in an obstetric population.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including possible selection bias and inclusion of only 65% of eligible women who were HCV positive, as well as a lack of screening data from 2016 to the present, which may not reflect the impact of the recent opioid epidemic, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and the generalizability of the study population.

“Our results regarding prevalence rates and risk factors of HCV antibody among pregnant women in the United States will be valuable to policymakers as they weigh the costs and benefits of universal screening,” Dr. Prasad and associates concluded.

Although universal screening has the potential to be more cost effective, given the small population of pregnant women eligible for treatment and lack of an available treatment, “the rationale is weaker for unique universal HCV screening recommendations for pregnant women,” they said.

By contrast, Sammy Saab, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles; Ravina Kullar, PharmD, MPH, of Gilead Sciences, Foster City, Calif.; and Prabhu Gounder, MD, MPH, of the Los Angeles Department of Public Health, wrote an accompanying commentary in favor of universal HCV screening for pregnant women, in part because of the increase in HCV in the younger population overall.

“For many women of reproductive age, pregnancy is one of their few points of contact with their health care provider; therefore, pregnancy could provide a crucial time for targeting this population,” they noted.

Risk-based screening is of limited effectiveness because patients are not identified by way of current screening tools or they decline to reveal risk factors that providers might miss, the editorialists said. Pregnancy has not been shown to affect the accuracy of HCV tests, and identifying infections in mothers allows for screening in children as well.

“The perinatal hepatitis B virus infection program, which has been implemented in several state and local public health departments, could serve as an example for how to conduct surveillance for mothers with HCV infection and to ensure that HCV-exposed children receive appropriate follow-up testing and linkage to care,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported in part by multiple grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Prasad disclosed funding from Ohio State University and from Gilead. Coauthors had links with pharmaceutical companies, associations, and organizations – most unrelated to this study. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Prasad M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:778-88; Saab S et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:773-7.

Current risk factors used to screen for hepatitis C should be updated, according to study results of 106,842 pregnant women who underwent screening.

Courtesy NIH

“Because risk-factor screening has obvious limitations, universal screening in pregnancy has been suggested to allow for linkage to postpartum care and identification of children for future testing and treatment,” wrote Mona Prasad, DO, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from women with singleton pregnancies presenting for prenatal care prior to 23 weeks’ gestation during 2012-2015. Of these, 254 tested positive for the hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody, for a seroprevalence rate of 2.4 cases per 1,000 women.

The researchers conducted a case-control analysis of 131 women who tested positive and 251 controls to identify HCV infection risk factors based on interviews and chart reviews. They found that risk factors significantly associated with positive HCV antibodies included injection drug use (adjusted odds ratio, 22.9), a history of blood transfusion (aOR, 3.7), having an HCV-infected partner (aOR, 6.3), having had more than three sexual partners (aOR, 5.3), and smoking during pregnancy (aOR, 2.4).

In an unadjusted analysis, the researchers confirmed two of the risk factors currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for screening for HCV: injection drug use and being born to a mother with HCV infection, but not dialysis, organ transplantation, or HIV infection.

“Our results demonstrate that current risk factors could be contemporized,” Dr. Prasad and colleagues noted. “The currently accepted risk factors such as exposure to clotting factors, dialysis, and organ transplants are unlikely to be found. A thorough assessment of injection drug use history, smoking, transfusions, number of sexual partners, and partners with HCV infection is more sensitive in an obstetric population.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including possible selection bias and inclusion of only 65% of eligible women who were HCV positive, as well as a lack of screening data from 2016 to the present, which may not reflect the impact of the recent opioid epidemic, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and the generalizability of the study population.

“Our results regarding prevalence rates and risk factors of HCV antibody among pregnant women in the United States will be valuable to policymakers as they weigh the costs and benefits of universal screening,” Dr. Prasad and associates concluded.

Although universal screening has the potential to be more cost effective, given the small population of pregnant women eligible for treatment and lack of an available treatment, “the rationale is weaker for unique universal HCV screening recommendations for pregnant women,” they said.

By contrast, Sammy Saab, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles; Ravina Kullar, PharmD, MPH, of Gilead Sciences, Foster City, Calif.; and Prabhu Gounder, MD, MPH, of the Los Angeles Department of Public Health, wrote an accompanying commentary in favor of universal HCV screening for pregnant women, in part because of the increase in HCV in the younger population overall.

“For many women of reproductive age, pregnancy is one of their few points of contact with their health care provider; therefore, pregnancy could provide a crucial time for targeting this population,” they noted.

Risk-based screening is of limited effectiveness because patients are not identified by way of current screening tools or they decline to reveal risk factors that providers might miss, the editorialists said. Pregnancy has not been shown to affect the accuracy of HCV tests, and identifying infections in mothers allows for screening in children as well.

“The perinatal hepatitis B virus infection program, which has been implemented in several state and local public health departments, could serve as an example for how to conduct surveillance for mothers with HCV infection and to ensure that HCV-exposed children receive appropriate follow-up testing and linkage to care,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported in part by multiple grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Prasad disclosed funding from Ohio State University and from Gilead. Coauthors had links with pharmaceutical companies, associations, and organizations – most unrelated to this study. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Prasad M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:778-88; Saab S et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:773-7.

Current risk factors used to screen for hepatitis C should be updated, according to study results of 106,842 pregnant women who underwent screening.

Courtesy NIH

“Because risk-factor screening has obvious limitations, universal screening in pregnancy has been suggested to allow for linkage to postpartum care and identification of children for future testing and treatment,” wrote Mona Prasad, DO, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed data from women with singleton pregnancies presenting for prenatal care prior to 23 weeks’ gestation during 2012-2015. Of these, 254 tested positive for the hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody, for a seroprevalence rate of 2.4 cases per 1,000 women.

The researchers conducted a case-control analysis of 131 women who tested positive and 251 controls to identify HCV infection risk factors based on interviews and chart reviews. They found that risk factors significantly associated with positive HCV antibodies included injection drug use (adjusted odds ratio, 22.9), a history of blood transfusion (aOR, 3.7), having an HCV-infected partner (aOR, 6.3), having had more than three sexual partners (aOR, 5.3), and smoking during pregnancy (aOR, 2.4).

In an unadjusted analysis, the researchers confirmed two of the risk factors currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for screening for HCV: injection drug use and being born to a mother with HCV infection, but not dialysis, organ transplantation, or HIV infection.

“Our results demonstrate that current risk factors could be contemporized,” Dr. Prasad and colleagues noted. “The currently accepted risk factors such as exposure to clotting factors, dialysis, and organ transplants are unlikely to be found. A thorough assessment of injection drug use history, smoking, transfusions, number of sexual partners, and partners with HCV infection is more sensitive in an obstetric population.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including possible selection bias and inclusion of only 65% of eligible women who were HCV positive, as well as a lack of screening data from 2016 to the present, which may not reflect the impact of the recent opioid epidemic, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and the generalizability of the study population.

“Our results regarding prevalence rates and risk factors of HCV antibody among pregnant women in the United States will be valuable to policymakers as they weigh the costs and benefits of universal screening,” Dr. Prasad and associates concluded.

Although universal screening has the potential to be more cost effective, given the small population of pregnant women eligible for treatment and lack of an available treatment, “the rationale is weaker for unique universal HCV screening recommendations for pregnant women,” they said.

By contrast, Sammy Saab, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles; Ravina Kullar, PharmD, MPH, of Gilead Sciences, Foster City, Calif.; and Prabhu Gounder, MD, MPH, of the Los Angeles Department of Public Health, wrote an accompanying commentary in favor of universal HCV screening for pregnant women, in part because of the increase in HCV in the younger population overall.

“For many women of reproductive age, pregnancy is one of their few points of contact with their health care provider; therefore, pregnancy could provide a crucial time for targeting this population,” they noted.

Risk-based screening is of limited effectiveness because patients are not identified by way of current screening tools or they decline to reveal risk factors that providers might miss, the editorialists said. Pregnancy has not been shown to affect the accuracy of HCV tests, and identifying infections in mothers allows for screening in children as well.

“The perinatal hepatitis B virus infection program, which has been implemented in several state and local public health departments, could serve as an example for how to conduct surveillance for mothers with HCV infection and to ensure that HCV-exposed children receive appropriate follow-up testing and linkage to care,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported in part by multiple grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Prasad disclosed funding from Ohio State University and from Gilead. Coauthors had links with pharmaceutical companies, associations, and organizations – most unrelated to this study. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Prasad M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:778-88; Saab S et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:773-7.

Physicians and pharmacists are reporting shortages of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine following President Trump’s promotion of the medications as potential COVID-19 treatments, leaving patients with rheumatic diseases wondering how it will impact their access.

The American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, issued a joint statement that strongly opposed prophylactic prescribing of these medications for COVID-19 or stockpiling them in anticipation of use for COVID-19. The concerns over shortages have also prompted the American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Arthritis Foundation, and Lupus Foundation of America to send a joint statement to the Trump administration and the nation’s governors highlighting critical hydroxychloroquine access issues and asking policymakers to work together with health care providers and patient communities to ensure continued availability of these drugs.

Now rheumatologists are trying to reassure patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases who take the antimalarials that they will be available and are relatively easy for manufacturers to produce.

In a Q and A interview, NYU Langone Health rheumatology division director and Lupus Center director Jill P. Buyon, MD, and associate professor of rheumatology, Peter M. Izmirly, MD, noted that, while shortages have been reported across the United States because of large increases in off-label prescribing, many of the drugs’ manufacturers have committed to donating millions of doses and/or stepping up production to meet demand.

Later in this article, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Langone Health, New York, answered questions about a new multicenter study called COLCORONA getting underway to test the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine. The answers in this Q&A have been edited for length and clarity. 
 

Questions about hydroxychloroquine shortage

Q: What is the current situation with hydroxychloroquine in your practice?

A: We have been getting calls from our patients asking about getting refills for hydroxychloroquine. Our group has been calling local pharmacies asking about the availability of hydroxychloroquine, and we are compiling a list of pharmacies in New York with current availabilities to share with patients. We are somewhat limited by our electronic health record system, Epic, which can only send a prescription to one pharmacy, so that has placed some limitations on knowing where it is available. Some pharmacies have not had hydroxychloroquine available, while others have. We have also been encouraging patients to check online and look for mail-order possibilities for 90-day supplies.

Nearly all prescriptions are for generic hydroxychloroquine. Branded hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) is much more expensive, and we can run into obstacles with getting it approved by insurers, too.
 

Q: What are you telling patients who seek to refill their prescription or call with concerns? Is it feasible for patients to stop hydroxychloroquine or cut their dosage if necessary?

A: If someone’s been on hydroxychloroquine and has benefited from its use there’s no reason to come off it at this time, and given the possibility that it may have an effect on COVID-19, that is all the better. But we want to reassure patients that they can get the drug and that it is not difficult to manufacture.

Given the significantly higher risk of disease flare that was first described in lupus patients who discontinued hydroxychloroquine in the Canadian Hydroxychloroquine Study Group’s 1991 randomized, controlled trial, it is not advisable for patients to stop the drug.

Some patients do split their dosage day-to-day if they are taking less than 400 mg daily, such that someone taking 300 mg daily may take two 200-mg tablets one day and just one 200-mg tablet the next day, and so on. To avoid eye toxicity that can occur after years of taking the drug, hydroxychloroquine is generally prescribed based on weight at 5 mg/kg.

The drug also stays in the body for quite a while [often up to 3 months and even longer], so that is helpful for patients to know.

Given the current situation and the possibility of its effectiveness against COVID-19, it is ironic that we are actually trying to recruit older lupus patients who have had long-term stable disease while on hydroxychloroquine to a trial of stopping the drug to reduce the risk of developing the side effect of retinopathy. We want to see if patients can safely withdraw hydroxychloroquine without flaring, so we hope to not run into enrollment difficulties based on the current situation with COVID-19.
 

Q: How do you view the balance between having enough hydroxychloroquine for patients with lupus or other rheumatic diseases and its use in COVID-19 patients?

A: We want to reassure patients that hydroxychloroquine will be available, and there is no reason to hoard the drug or to worry excessively about being unable to obtain it. Efforts to increase production by Mylan, Teva, Sanofi, Novartis, and other manufacturers of hydroxychloroquine should really help out.

Q: Are there pharmacy restrictions on prescription amounts?

A: This is not universal at this time, but some institutions are cutting back and offering only 1-month supplies.
 

Colchicine COVID-19 trial underway

Dr. Pillinger, of NYU Langone Health, explored the COLCORONA study of colchicine as a treatment for people infected with COVID-19 and the worry that shortage concerns may arise for it, too. 

Q: What is the general availability of colchicine and its susceptibility to shortage?

A: There are two major manufacturers of colchicine in the United States, Takeda and Hikma, who together manufacture the majority of the drug.