Federal Practitioner

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued two guidance documents related to helping contain the spread of the coronavirus, primarily aimed at ensuring that health care providers are implementing proper infection control procedures.

The first guidance document, “Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention Concerning Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): FAQs and Considerations for Patient Triage, Placement and Hospital Discharge,” issued March 4, provides some basic guidance, including identifying which patients are at risk, how facilities should screen for COVID-19, how facilities should monitor or restrict health care facility staff, and other recommendations for infection prevention and control.

“Hospitals should identify visitors and patients at risk for having COVID-19 infection before or immediately upon arrival to the healthcare facility,” the guidance document notes. “For patients, implement respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette (i.e., placing a face mask over the patient’s nose and mouth if that has not already been done) and isolate the patient in an examination room with the door closed. If the patient cannot be immediately moved to an examination room, ensure they are not allowed to wait among other patients seeking care.”

The document offers further information regarding the care of patients and provides numerous links to existing guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The second document, “Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes,” issued the same day, provides information on how to limit and monitor visitors as well as monitor and restrict health staff. It details when to transfer residents with suspected or confirmed coronavirus infection, and when a nursing home should accept a resident diagnosed with COVID-19.

Facilities “should contact their local health department if they have questions or suspect a resident of a nursing home has COVID-19,” the document states. “Per CDC, prompt detection, triage and isolation of potentially infectious patients are essential to prevent unnecessary exposure among patients, healthcare personnel, and visitors at the facility.”

The CMS also announced that it is suspending all nonemergency survey activity.

“CMS is suspending nonemergency inspections across the country, allowing inspectors to turn their focus on the most serious health and safety threats like infectious diseases and abuse,” the agency stated in a March 4 memo. “This shift in approach will also allow inspectors to focus on addressing the spread of ... COVID-19. CMS is issuing this memorandum to State Survey Agencies to provide important guidelines for the inspection process in situations in which a COVID-19 is suspected.”

In a statement, CMS Administrator Seema Verma said these actions “represent a call to action across the health care system. All health care providers must immediately review their procedures to ensure compliance with CMS’ infection control requirements, as well as the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

[email protected]

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued two guidance documents related to helping contain the spread of the coronavirus, primarily aimed at ensuring that health care providers are implementing proper infection control procedures.

The first guidance document, “Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention Concerning Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): FAQs and Considerations for Patient Triage, Placement and Hospital Discharge,” issued March 4, provides some basic guidance, including identifying which patients are at risk, how facilities should screen for COVID-19, how facilities should monitor or restrict health care facility staff, and other recommendations for infection prevention and control.

“Hospitals should identify visitors and patients at risk for having COVID-19 infection before or immediately upon arrival to the healthcare facility,” the guidance document notes. “For patients, implement respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette (i.e., placing a face mask over the patient’s nose and mouth if that has not already been done) and isolate the patient in an examination room with the door closed. If the patient cannot be immediately moved to an examination room, ensure they are not allowed to wait among other patients seeking care.”

The document offers further information regarding the care of patients and provides numerous links to existing guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The second document, “Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes,” issued the same day, provides information on how to limit and monitor visitors as well as monitor and restrict health staff. It details when to transfer residents with suspected or confirmed coronavirus infection, and when a nursing home should accept a resident diagnosed with COVID-19.

Facilities “should contact their local health department if they have questions or suspect a resident of a nursing home has COVID-19,” the document states. “Per CDC, prompt detection, triage and isolation of potentially infectious patients are essential to prevent unnecessary exposure among patients, healthcare personnel, and visitors at the facility.”

The CMS also announced that it is suspending all nonemergency survey activity.

“CMS is suspending nonemergency inspections across the country, allowing inspectors to turn their focus on the most serious health and safety threats like infectious diseases and abuse,” the agency stated in a March 4 memo. “This shift in approach will also allow inspectors to focus on addressing the spread of ... COVID-19. CMS is issuing this memorandum to State Survey Agencies to provide important guidelines for the inspection process in situations in which a COVID-19 is suspected.”

In a statement, CMS Administrator Seema Verma said these actions “represent a call to action across the health care system. All health care providers must immediately review their procedures to ensure compliance with CMS’ infection control requirements, as well as the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

[email protected]

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued two guidance documents related to helping contain the spread of the coronavirus, primarily aimed at ensuring that health care providers are implementing proper infection control procedures.

The first guidance document, “Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention Concerning Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): FAQs and Considerations for Patient Triage, Placement and Hospital Discharge,” issued March 4, provides some basic guidance, including identifying which patients are at risk, how facilities should screen for COVID-19, how facilities should monitor or restrict health care facility staff, and other recommendations for infection prevention and control.

“Hospitals should identify visitors and patients at risk for having COVID-19 infection before or immediately upon arrival to the healthcare facility,” the guidance document notes. “For patients, implement respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette (i.e., placing a face mask over the patient’s nose and mouth if that has not already been done) and isolate the patient in an examination room with the door closed. If the patient cannot be immediately moved to an examination room, ensure they are not allowed to wait among other patients seeking care.”

The document offers further information regarding the care of patients and provides numerous links to existing guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The second document, “Guidance for Infection Control and Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes,” issued the same day, provides information on how to limit and monitor visitors as well as monitor and restrict health staff. It details when to transfer residents with suspected or confirmed coronavirus infection, and when a nursing home should accept a resident diagnosed with COVID-19.

Facilities “should contact their local health department if they have questions or suspect a resident of a nursing home has COVID-19,” the document states. “Per CDC, prompt detection, triage and isolation of potentially infectious patients are essential to prevent unnecessary exposure among patients, healthcare personnel, and visitors at the facility.”

The CMS also announced that it is suspending all nonemergency survey activity.

“CMS is suspending nonemergency inspections across the country, allowing inspectors to turn their focus on the most serious health and safety threats like infectious diseases and abuse,” the agency stated in a March 4 memo. “This shift in approach will also allow inspectors to focus on addressing the spread of ... COVID-19. CMS is issuing this memorandum to State Survey Agencies to provide important guidelines for the inspection process in situations in which a COVID-19 is suspected.”

In a statement, CMS Administrator Seema Verma said these actions “represent a call to action across the health care system. All health care providers must immediately review their procedures to ensure compliance with CMS’ infection control requirements, as well as the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

[email protected]

Two international phase 3 randomized trials of injections of long-acting suspensions of cabotegravir and rilpivirine show promise for the control of HIV, according to reports published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

© Dr. A. Harrison; Dr. P. Feorino / CDC

The Long-Acting Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine after Oral Induction for HIV-1 Infection (FLAIR) study and the Long-Acting Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine for Maintenance of HIV-1 Suppression (ATLAS) study looked at a separate facet of the use of a monthly therapeutic injection as a replacement for daily oral HIV therapy.

The FLAIR trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02938520) was a phase 3, randomized, open-label study in which adults with HIV-1 infection who had not previously received antiretroviral therapy were given 20 weeks of daily oral induction therapy with dolutegravir–abacavir–lamivudine. Those patients with an HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter after 16 weeks were then randomly assigned (1:1) to continue their current oral therapy or switch to oral cabotegravir plus rilpivirine for 1 month followed by monthly intramuscular injections of long-acting cabotegravir, an HIV-1 integrase strand-transfer inhibitor, and rilpivirine, a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor.

At week 48, an HIV-1 RNA level of 50 copies per milliliter or higher was found in 6 of 283 patients (2.1%) who received the long-acting therapy and in 7 of 283 (2.5%) who received oral therapy, which met the criterion for noninferiority for the primary endpoint. An HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48 was found in 93.6% of patients who received long-acting therapy and in 93.3% who received oral therapy, which also met the criterion for noninferiority, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Injection site reactions were reported in 86% of the long-acting therapy patients, 4 of whom withdrew from the trial for injection-related reasons. Grade 3 or higher adverse events and events that met liver-related stopping criteria occurred in 11% and 2%, respectively, of those who received long-acting therapy and in 4% and 1% of those who received oral therapy.

An assessment of treatment satisfaction at 48 weeks showed that 91% of the patients who switched to long-acting therapy preferred it to their daily oral therapy.

The ATLAS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02951052) was a phase 3, open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial involving patients who had plasma HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter for at least 6 months while taking standard oral antiretroviral therapy. These patients were randomized (308 in each group) to the long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine injection therapy or daily oral therapy.

At 48 weeks, HIV-1 RNA levels of 50 copies per milliliter or higher were found in five participants (1.6%) receiving long-acting therapy and in three (1.0%) receiving oral therapy, which met the criterion for noninferiority for the primary endpoint, according to a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48 occurred in 92.5% of patients on long-acting therapy and in 95.5% of those receiving oral therapy, which also met the criterion for noninferiority for this endpoint. Three patients in the long-acting therapy group had virologic failure, compared with four participants who received oral therapy.

Adverse events were more common in the long-acting–therapy group and included injection-site pain, which occurred in 231 recipients (75%) of long-acting therapy. This was mild or moderate in most cases, according to the authors. However, 1% of the participants in this group withdrew because of it. Overall, serious adverse events were reported in no more than 5% of participants in each group.

Together, the ATLAS and the FLAIR trials show that long-acting intramuscular injection therapy is noninferior to oral therapy as both an early regimen for HIV treatment, as well as for later, maintenance dosing. The use of long-acting therapy may improve patient adherence to treatment, according to both sets of study authors.

The ATLAS and FLAIR trials were funded by ViiV Healthcare and Janssen. The authors of both studies reported ties to pharmaceutical associations, and some authors are employees of the two funding sources.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Orkin C et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909512 and Swindells S et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1904398.

Two international phase 3 randomized trials of injections of long-acting suspensions of cabotegravir and rilpivirine show promise for the control of HIV, according to reports published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

© Dr. A. Harrison; Dr. P. Feorino / CDC

The Long-Acting Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine after Oral Induction for HIV-1 Infection (FLAIR) study and the Long-Acting Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine for Maintenance of HIV-1 Suppression (ATLAS) study looked at a separate facet of the use of a monthly therapeutic injection as a replacement for daily oral HIV therapy.

The FLAIR trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02938520) was a phase 3, randomized, open-label study in which adults with HIV-1 infection who had not previously received antiretroviral therapy were given 20 weeks of daily oral induction therapy with dolutegravir–abacavir–lamivudine. Those patients with an HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter after 16 weeks were then randomly assigned (1:1) to continue their current oral therapy or switch to oral cabotegravir plus rilpivirine for 1 month followed by monthly intramuscular injections of long-acting cabotegravir, an HIV-1 integrase strand-transfer inhibitor, and rilpivirine, a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor.

At week 48, an HIV-1 RNA level of 50 copies per milliliter or higher was found in 6 of 283 patients (2.1%) who received the long-acting therapy and in 7 of 283 (2.5%) who received oral therapy, which met the criterion for noninferiority for the primary endpoint. An HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48 was found in 93.6% of patients who received long-acting therapy and in 93.3% who received oral therapy, which also met the criterion for noninferiority, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Injection site reactions were reported in 86% of the long-acting therapy patients, 4 of whom withdrew from the trial for injection-related reasons. Grade 3 or higher adverse events and events that met liver-related stopping criteria occurred in 11% and 2%, respectively, of those who received long-acting therapy and in 4% and 1% of those who received oral therapy.

An assessment of treatment satisfaction at 48 weeks showed that 91% of the patients who switched to long-acting therapy preferred it to their daily oral therapy.

The ATLAS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02951052) was a phase 3, open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial involving patients who had plasma HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter for at least 6 months while taking standard oral antiretroviral therapy. These patients were randomized (308 in each group) to the long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine injection therapy or daily oral therapy.

At 48 weeks, HIV-1 RNA levels of 50 copies per milliliter or higher were found in five participants (1.6%) receiving long-acting therapy and in three (1.0%) receiving oral therapy, which met the criterion for noninferiority for the primary endpoint, according to a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48 occurred in 92.5% of patients on long-acting therapy and in 95.5% of those receiving oral therapy, which also met the criterion for noninferiority for this endpoint. Three patients in the long-acting therapy group had virologic failure, compared with four participants who received oral therapy.

Adverse events were more common in the long-acting–therapy group and included injection-site pain, which occurred in 231 recipients (75%) of long-acting therapy. This was mild or moderate in most cases, according to the authors. However, 1% of the participants in this group withdrew because of it. Overall, serious adverse events were reported in no more than 5% of participants in each group.

Together, the ATLAS and the FLAIR trials show that long-acting intramuscular injection therapy is noninferior to oral therapy as both an early regimen for HIV treatment, as well as for later, maintenance dosing. The use of long-acting therapy may improve patient adherence to treatment, according to both sets of study authors.

The ATLAS and FLAIR trials were funded by ViiV Healthcare and Janssen. The authors of both studies reported ties to pharmaceutical associations, and some authors are employees of the two funding sources.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Orkin C et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909512 and Swindells S et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1904398.

Two international phase 3 randomized trials of injections of long-acting suspensions of cabotegravir and rilpivirine show promise for the control of HIV, according to reports published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

© Dr. A. Harrison; Dr. P. Feorino / CDC

The Long-Acting Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine after Oral Induction for HIV-1 Infection (FLAIR) study and the Long-Acting Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine for Maintenance of HIV-1 Suppression (ATLAS) study looked at a separate facet of the use of a monthly therapeutic injection as a replacement for daily oral HIV therapy.

The FLAIR trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02938520) was a phase 3, randomized, open-label study in which adults with HIV-1 infection who had not previously received antiretroviral therapy were given 20 weeks of daily oral induction therapy with dolutegravir–abacavir–lamivudine. Those patients with an HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter after 16 weeks were then randomly assigned (1:1) to continue their current oral therapy or switch to oral cabotegravir plus rilpivirine for 1 month followed by monthly intramuscular injections of long-acting cabotegravir, an HIV-1 integrase strand-transfer inhibitor, and rilpivirine, a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor.

At week 48, an HIV-1 RNA level of 50 copies per milliliter or higher was found in 6 of 283 patients (2.1%) who received the long-acting therapy and in 7 of 283 (2.5%) who received oral therapy, which met the criterion for noninferiority for the primary endpoint. An HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48 was found in 93.6% of patients who received long-acting therapy and in 93.3% who received oral therapy, which also met the criterion for noninferiority, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Injection site reactions were reported in 86% of the long-acting therapy patients, 4 of whom withdrew from the trial for injection-related reasons. Grade 3 or higher adverse events and events that met liver-related stopping criteria occurred in 11% and 2%, respectively, of those who received long-acting therapy and in 4% and 1% of those who received oral therapy.

An assessment of treatment satisfaction at 48 weeks showed that 91% of the patients who switched to long-acting therapy preferred it to their daily oral therapy.

The ATLAS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02951052) was a phase 3, open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial involving patients who had plasma HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter for at least 6 months while taking standard oral antiretroviral therapy. These patients were randomized (308 in each group) to the long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine injection therapy or daily oral therapy.

At 48 weeks, HIV-1 RNA levels of 50 copies per milliliter or higher were found in five participants (1.6%) receiving long-acting therapy and in three (1.0%) receiving oral therapy, which met the criterion for noninferiority for the primary endpoint, according to a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48 occurred in 92.5% of patients on long-acting therapy and in 95.5% of those receiving oral therapy, which also met the criterion for noninferiority for this endpoint. Three patients in the long-acting therapy group had virologic failure, compared with four participants who received oral therapy.

Adverse events were more common in the long-acting–therapy group and included injection-site pain, which occurred in 231 recipients (75%) of long-acting therapy. This was mild or moderate in most cases, according to the authors. However, 1% of the participants in this group withdrew because of it. Overall, serious adverse events were reported in no more than 5% of participants in each group.

Together, the ATLAS and the FLAIR trials show that long-acting intramuscular injection therapy is noninferior to oral therapy as both an early regimen for HIV treatment, as well as for later, maintenance dosing. The use of long-acting therapy may improve patient adherence to treatment, according to both sets of study authors.

The ATLAS and FLAIR trials were funded by ViiV Healthcare and Janssen. The authors of both studies reported ties to pharmaceutical associations, and some authors are employees of the two funding sources.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Orkin C et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909512 and Swindells S et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1904398.

The combination of radiotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) leads to good disease control in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) in patients for whom cisplatin would prove to be too toxic, a phase 2 trial suggests.

“There are convincing arguments that radiation sensitizes patients to immunotherapy and can enhance its effects,” Jared Weiss, MD, associate professor of medicine, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, said in a statement.

“And the opposite direction also seems to be true – radiation therapy needs a functional immune system to work. Our hope was that pembrolizumab might be a radiation sensitizer for these patients,” he said.

The study was presented at the Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Cancer Symposium, sponsored by the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Both modalities have had some outstanding results in the past, observed Weiss. “If you look back to the historic studies, radiation alone often cures patients with this disease, while some of the first patients treated with pembrolizumab for recurrent/metastatic cancer are still alive many years out, with no evidence of disease,” he said.

“Our concept was that, in addition to whatever synergy the immunotherapy might provide with radiation, we also conceived of it as a ‘second shot on goal’ towards a cure, because there is durable control with drug alone,” he added.

Single-arm trial

The single-arm trial included 29 patients with locally advanced HNSCC.

Only about 10% of patients were current smokers, but more than half of the study group had a history of smoking. Of those, more than 55% had a history of 10 pack-years or more.

In slightly more than one third of patients, the primary site of the cancer was the base of the tongue. The tonsils were the primary site in slightly more than one third.

Platinum ineligibility was defined by provider and standard measures.

More than two thirds of patients were ineligible to receive cisplatin because of preexisting otopathy, including hearing impairment and tinnitus.

The combination of cisplatin and definitive-dose radiotherapy is standard treatment for locally advanced head and neck cancer, but contraindications to cisplatin are common in everyday clinical practice. Weiss noted that contraindications are present in about one third of his patients.

“We replaced standard, every-3-week cisplatin with pembrolizumab every 3 weeks,” Weiss explained, “and we hypothesized that with the ongoing effects of radiation therapy after completion, that additional adjuvant cycles could further sensitize patients [to the effects of radiation] without impairing recovery, so we added three adjuvant cycles as well,” he added.

With six cycles of an every-3-week drug, patients received 18 weeks of pembrolizumab in total.

Echoing results from the previously reported KEYNOTE-48 trial, pembrolizumab given with radiotherapy instead of chemotherapy led to an overall progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 76% at 1 year and an estimated PFS of 71% at 2 years.

At 1 year, 86% of patients were still alive, and at 2 years, an estimated 75% of patients were still alive, Weiss added.

For patients with human papillomavirus 16–positive cancer, rates of PFS and overall survival were slightly better, at 88% and 94%, respectively.

With regard to toxicities, “For the most part, this [treatment regimen] looks like radiation alone with one very notable exception, which was lymphopenia,” Weiss observed. Grade 3-4 lymphopenia affected 59% of patients.

Lymphocyte count hit bottom at week 4, he added, with only partial recovery at week 20 and no further recovery at 40 weeks. Lymphocyte count alone or any change in it was not predictive of early progression.

However, in comparing patients who experienced early disease progression to patients who did not experience progression, levels of baseline naive B cells in peripheral blood were higher and levels of circulating marginal zone B cells were lower in patients with progressive disease, Weiss reported.

Patient-reported outcomes indicated that common symptoms of treatment peaked at week 10, and there was relative recovery by week 20.

As reflected by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scores, which include social, emotional, and functional well-being, as well as the head and neck cancer scale, “we again see a nadir at 10 weeks with relative recovery at 20 weeks,” Weiss noted.

“We found that concurrent pembrolizumab with radiotherapy is a safe and feasible option for locally advanced head and neck cancer patients with cisplatin ineligibility,” Weiss concluded.

More research is being conducted in this area, and multiple ongoing studies will further elucidate the value of PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint blockade with definitive radiation therapy, he added.

The study was funded by Merck & Co. Weiss’ institution has received research funding from Celgene, Pfizer, Merck, AZ/Medimmmune, Amgen, Carefusion, G1 Therapeutics, Immunicum, Loxo/Lilly, and the Jimmy V Foundation. Weiss has received honoraria for consulting from AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Genentech, Inivata, Celgene, G1 Therapeutics, Jounce Therapeutics, Abbvie, Rakuten, Nanobiotix, Azitra, Loxo/Lilly, Pfizer, and Blueprint had has stock in Nektar and Vesselon.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The combination of radiotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) leads to good disease control in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) in patients for whom cisplatin would prove to be too toxic, a phase 2 trial suggests.

“There are convincing arguments that radiation sensitizes patients to immunotherapy and can enhance its effects,” Jared Weiss, MD, associate professor of medicine, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, said in a statement.

“And the opposite direction also seems to be true – radiation therapy needs a functional immune system to work. Our hope was that pembrolizumab might be a radiation sensitizer for these patients,” he said.

The study was presented at the Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Cancer Symposium, sponsored by the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Both modalities have had some outstanding results in the past, observed Weiss. “If you look back to the historic studies, radiation alone often cures patients with this disease, while some of the first patients treated with pembrolizumab for recurrent/metastatic cancer are still alive many years out, with no evidence of disease,” he said.

“Our concept was that, in addition to whatever synergy the immunotherapy might provide with radiation, we also conceived of it as a ‘second shot on goal’ towards a cure, because there is durable control with drug alone,” he added.

Single-arm trial

The single-arm trial included 29 patients with locally advanced HNSCC.

Only about 10% of patients were current smokers, but more than half of the study group had a history of smoking. Of those, more than 55% had a history of 10 pack-years or more.

In slightly more than one third of patients, the primary site of the cancer was the base of the tongue. The tonsils were the primary site in slightly more than one third.

Platinum ineligibility was defined by provider and standard measures.

More than two thirds of patients were ineligible to receive cisplatin because of preexisting otopathy, including hearing impairment and tinnitus.

The combination of cisplatin and definitive-dose radiotherapy is standard treatment for locally advanced head and neck cancer, but contraindications to cisplatin are common in everyday clinical practice. Weiss noted that contraindications are present in about one third of his patients.

“We replaced standard, every-3-week cisplatin with pembrolizumab every 3 weeks,” Weiss explained, “and we hypothesized that with the ongoing effects of radiation therapy after completion, that additional adjuvant cycles could further sensitize patients [to the effects of radiation] without impairing recovery, so we added three adjuvant cycles as well,” he added.

With six cycles of an every-3-week drug, patients received 18 weeks of pembrolizumab in total.

Echoing results from the previously reported KEYNOTE-48 trial, pembrolizumab given with radiotherapy instead of chemotherapy led to an overall progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 76% at 1 year and an estimated PFS of 71% at 2 years.

At 1 year, 86% of patients were still alive, and at 2 years, an estimated 75% of patients were still alive, Weiss added.

For patients with human papillomavirus 16–positive cancer, rates of PFS and overall survival were slightly better, at 88% and 94%, respectively.

With regard to toxicities, “For the most part, this [treatment regimen] looks like radiation alone with one very notable exception, which was lymphopenia,” Weiss observed. Grade 3-4 lymphopenia affected 59% of patients.

Lymphocyte count hit bottom at week 4, he added, with only partial recovery at week 20 and no further recovery at 40 weeks. Lymphocyte count alone or any change in it was not predictive of early progression.

However, in comparing patients who experienced early disease progression to patients who did not experience progression, levels of baseline naive B cells in peripheral blood were higher and levels of circulating marginal zone B cells were lower in patients with progressive disease, Weiss reported.

Patient-reported outcomes indicated that common symptoms of treatment peaked at week 10, and there was relative recovery by week 20.

As reflected by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scores, which include social, emotional, and functional well-being, as well as the head and neck cancer scale, “we again see a nadir at 10 weeks with relative recovery at 20 weeks,” Weiss noted.

“We found that concurrent pembrolizumab with radiotherapy is a safe and feasible option for locally advanced head and neck cancer patients with cisplatin ineligibility,” Weiss concluded.

More research is being conducted in this area, and multiple ongoing studies will further elucidate the value of PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint blockade with definitive radiation therapy, he added.

The study was funded by Merck & Co. Weiss’ institution has received research funding from Celgene, Pfizer, Merck, AZ/Medimmmune, Amgen, Carefusion, G1 Therapeutics, Immunicum, Loxo/Lilly, and the Jimmy V Foundation. Weiss has received honoraria for consulting from AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Genentech, Inivata, Celgene, G1 Therapeutics, Jounce Therapeutics, Abbvie, Rakuten, Nanobiotix, Azitra, Loxo/Lilly, Pfizer, and Blueprint had has stock in Nektar and Vesselon.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The combination of radiotherapy plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) leads to good disease control in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) in patients for whom cisplatin would prove to be too toxic, a phase 2 trial suggests.

“There are convincing arguments that radiation sensitizes patients to immunotherapy and can enhance its effects,” Jared Weiss, MD, associate professor of medicine, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, said in a statement.

“And the opposite direction also seems to be true – radiation therapy needs a functional immune system to work. Our hope was that pembrolizumab might be a radiation sensitizer for these patients,” he said.

The study was presented at the Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Cancer Symposium, sponsored by the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

Both modalities have had some outstanding results in the past, observed Weiss. “If you look back to the historic studies, radiation alone often cures patients with this disease, while some of the first patients treated with pembrolizumab for recurrent/metastatic cancer are still alive many years out, with no evidence of disease,” he said.

“Our concept was that, in addition to whatever synergy the immunotherapy might provide with radiation, we also conceived of it as a ‘second shot on goal’ towards a cure, because there is durable control with drug alone,” he added.

Single-arm trial

The single-arm trial included 29 patients with locally advanced HNSCC.

Only about 10% of patients were current smokers, but more than half of the study group had a history of smoking. Of those, more than 55% had a history of 10 pack-years or more.

In slightly more than one third of patients, the primary site of the cancer was the base of the tongue. The tonsils were the primary site in slightly more than one third.

Platinum ineligibility was defined by provider and standard measures.

More than two thirds of patients were ineligible to receive cisplatin because of preexisting otopathy, including hearing impairment and tinnitus.

The combination of cisplatin and definitive-dose radiotherapy is standard treatment for locally advanced head and neck cancer, but contraindications to cisplatin are common in everyday clinical practice. Weiss noted that contraindications are present in about one third of his patients.

“We replaced standard, every-3-week cisplatin with pembrolizumab every 3 weeks,” Weiss explained, “and we hypothesized that with the ongoing effects of radiation therapy after completion, that additional adjuvant cycles could further sensitize patients [to the effects of radiation] without impairing recovery, so we added three adjuvant cycles as well,” he added.

With six cycles of an every-3-week drug, patients received 18 weeks of pembrolizumab in total.

Echoing results from the previously reported KEYNOTE-48 trial, pembrolizumab given with radiotherapy instead of chemotherapy led to an overall progression-free survival (PFS) rate of 76% at 1 year and an estimated PFS of 71% at 2 years.

At 1 year, 86% of patients were still alive, and at 2 years, an estimated 75% of patients were still alive, Weiss added.

For patients with human papillomavirus 16–positive cancer, rates of PFS and overall survival were slightly better, at 88% and 94%, respectively.

With regard to toxicities, “For the most part, this [treatment regimen] looks like radiation alone with one very notable exception, which was lymphopenia,” Weiss observed. Grade 3-4 lymphopenia affected 59% of patients.

Lymphocyte count hit bottom at week 4, he added, with only partial recovery at week 20 and no further recovery at 40 weeks. Lymphocyte count alone or any change in it was not predictive of early progression.

However, in comparing patients who experienced early disease progression to patients who did not experience progression, levels of baseline naive B cells in peripheral blood were higher and levels of circulating marginal zone B cells were lower in patients with progressive disease, Weiss reported.

Patient-reported outcomes indicated that common symptoms of treatment peaked at week 10, and there was relative recovery by week 20.

As reflected by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scores, which include social, emotional, and functional well-being, as well as the head and neck cancer scale, “we again see a nadir at 10 weeks with relative recovery at 20 weeks,” Weiss noted.

“We found that concurrent pembrolizumab with radiotherapy is a safe and feasible option for locally advanced head and neck cancer patients with cisplatin ineligibility,” Weiss concluded.

More research is being conducted in this area, and multiple ongoing studies will further elucidate the value of PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint blockade with definitive radiation therapy, he added.

The study was funded by Merck & Co. Weiss’ institution has received research funding from Celgene, Pfizer, Merck, AZ/Medimmmune, Amgen, Carefusion, G1 Therapeutics, Immunicum, Loxo/Lilly, and the Jimmy V Foundation. Weiss has received honoraria for consulting from AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Genentech, Inivata, Celgene, G1 Therapeutics, Jounce Therapeutics, Abbvie, Rakuten, Nanobiotix, Azitra, Loxo/Lilly, Pfizer, and Blueprint had has stock in Nektar and Vesselon.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

We are in the healing profession. We practice a trade. We are doctors, therapists, counselors. We work with children, adults, and couples. We document the physical form of our patient after examination, setting the stage for interventions that heal and alleviate suffering. With those who we do not touch physically, we hold out our psychological arms to embrace them in a therapeutic relationship.

We are privileged to appreciate their deeper selves through voice, unsaid words, and body language. A trust evolves (or might not); deeper exploration where our intuition and technical skill discover what troubles the soul. Healing begins as a delicate dance: As trust is earned, our patients risk vulnerability by revealing their weakest selves.

As healers, we often find ourselves adrift with our own insecurities, our own histories that make us human; our styles may differ but training and the tenets and guidelines set by our professional societies keep us in safe waters. These guidelines are informed by the science of health care research and vetted through centuries of observation and experience of process. “Do no harm” is perhaps one of the major rules of engaging with patients. The scaffolding that our code of ethics provides healing professions trumps external pressures to deviate. If you violate these codes, the consequences are borne by the patient and the potential loss of your license.

Some of you may have read about Kevin Euceda, an adolescent who reportedly was waiting for his immigration interview and ordered to undergo mandatory therapy as part of the immigration protocol. Kevin revealed to his therapist the history of violence he experienced as a child growing up in Honduras. His subsequent initiation into a gang was the only option he had to escape a violent death. Those of us who work with youth from gang cultures know fully that allegiance to a gang is a means to find an identity and brotherhood with the payment by a lifestyle of violence. A therapist faced with this information does not judge but helps the person deal with PTSD, nightmares, and guilt that become part of an identity just as the memories of mines blowing up in the face of combat affect veterans.

But the therapist, who reportedly holds a master’s in rehabilitation counseling and was “a year away from passing her licensing exam,” according to an article published in the Washington Post, followed policy of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The therapist betrayed Kevin by reporting the information he shared with her confidentially to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The reason the therapist gave for the breach was that she was compelled do so because Kevin reported participating in gang activity in Honduras. Subsequently, Kevin was sent to a high-security detention center – and is now facing deportation.
 

Betraying a patient, profession

Therapy begins as a contract between patient and therapist. The contract stipulates that all that transpires in the process of therapy (usually a 50-minute block of time, usually weekly) is information held by the therapist and patient – and is not to be shared with anyone, including parents, guardians, legal entities, and health care agencies. This allows the gradual sharing of events, emotions, behaviors, and reactions akin to peeling an onion. Memories, reactions, and feelings assist the therapist as they start their quest of discovery of the conflict and how to resolve it. Trust is the central tenet of this journey. The patient thinks: “You will hear me; you will see me you will understand me and help me understand myself.” The doctor responds: “Even I don’t yet know fully what ails you; we will discover that together. … I will not fail your trust.”

So how does this interface with external pressures? The constitution of a free country provides some inviolable protections that prevent derailment of the codes of ethics based on science. The fine line between what are considered sacrosanct ethics of a field – be it health care, climatology, or architecture – and what could be sacrificed in the name of prevailing forces (political or otherwise) has to be under constant scrutiny by the members of the guild. In health care, when patients cannot trust the science, its implementation, or is let down by the clinician, they are unlikely to benefit from treatment. A foundation of distrust paves the way for future therapeutic relationships that are stained with distrust and noncompliance.

The ethics guidelines of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law specify that psychiatrists in forensic roles “should be clear about limitations on confidentiality in the treatment relationship and ensure that these limitations are communicated to the patient.” Again, the therapist in this case is not a psychiatrist, but I would argue that the same rules would apply.

It is reassuring to know that several key groups, including the American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychological Association, have all condemned the therapist’s actions. Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals must do no harm. We must not stand idly by and allow the kind of professional breach that happened to Kevin continue. Patients who confide in mental health professionals with the promise of confidentiality must be able to do so without fear. Only with confidentiality can the therapeutic relationship thrive.

Dr. Sood is professor of psychiatry and pediatrics, and senior professor of child mental health policy, at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

We are in the healing profession. We practice a trade. We are doctors, therapists, counselors. We work with children, adults, and couples. We document the physical form of our patient after examination, setting the stage for interventions that heal and alleviate suffering. With those who we do not touch physically, we hold out our psychological arms to embrace them in a therapeutic relationship.

We are privileged to appreciate their deeper selves through voice, unsaid words, and body language. A trust evolves (or might not); deeper exploration where our intuition and technical skill discover what troubles the soul. Healing begins as a delicate dance: As trust is earned, our patients risk vulnerability by revealing their weakest selves.

As healers, we often find ourselves adrift with our own insecurities, our own histories that make us human; our styles may differ but training and the tenets and guidelines set by our professional societies keep us in safe waters. These guidelines are informed by the science of health care research and vetted through centuries of observation and experience of process. “Do no harm” is perhaps one of the major rules of engaging with patients. The scaffolding that our code of ethics provides healing professions trumps external pressures to deviate. If you violate these codes, the consequences are borne by the patient and the potential loss of your license.

Some of you may have read about Kevin Euceda, an adolescent who reportedly was waiting for his immigration interview and ordered to undergo mandatory therapy as part of the immigration protocol. Kevin revealed to his therapist the history of violence he experienced as a child growing up in Honduras. His subsequent initiation into a gang was the only option he had to escape a violent death. Those of us who work with youth from gang cultures know fully that allegiance to a gang is a means to find an identity and brotherhood with the payment by a lifestyle of violence. A therapist faced with this information does not judge but helps the person deal with PTSD, nightmares, and guilt that become part of an identity just as the memories of mines blowing up in the face of combat affect veterans.

But the therapist, who reportedly holds a master’s in rehabilitation counseling and was “a year away from passing her licensing exam,” according to an article published in the Washington Post, followed policy of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The therapist betrayed Kevin by reporting the information he shared with her confidentially to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The reason the therapist gave for the breach was that she was compelled do so because Kevin reported participating in gang activity in Honduras. Subsequently, Kevin was sent to a high-security detention center – and is now facing deportation.
 

Betraying a patient, profession

Therapy begins as a contract between patient and therapist. The contract stipulates that all that transpires in the process of therapy (usually a 50-minute block of time, usually weekly) is information held by the therapist and patient – and is not to be shared with anyone, including parents, guardians, legal entities, and health care agencies. This allows the gradual sharing of events, emotions, behaviors, and reactions akin to peeling an onion. Memories, reactions, and feelings assist the therapist as they start their quest of discovery of the conflict and how to resolve it. Trust is the central tenet of this journey. The patient thinks: “You will hear me; you will see me you will understand me and help me understand myself.” The doctor responds: “Even I don’t yet know fully what ails you; we will discover that together. … I will not fail your trust.”

So how does this interface with external pressures? The constitution of a free country provides some inviolable protections that prevent derailment of the codes of ethics based on science. The fine line between what are considered sacrosanct ethics of a field – be it health care, climatology, or architecture – and what could be sacrificed in the name of prevailing forces (political or otherwise) has to be under constant scrutiny by the members of the guild. In health care, when patients cannot trust the science, its implementation, or is let down by the clinician, they are unlikely to benefit from treatment. A foundation of distrust paves the way for future therapeutic relationships that are stained with distrust and noncompliance.

The ethics guidelines of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law specify that psychiatrists in forensic roles “should be clear about limitations on confidentiality in the treatment relationship and ensure that these limitations are communicated to the patient.” Again, the therapist in this case is not a psychiatrist, but I would argue that the same rules would apply.

It is reassuring to know that several key groups, including the American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychological Association, have all condemned the therapist’s actions. Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals must do no harm. We must not stand idly by and allow the kind of professional breach that happened to Kevin continue. Patients who confide in mental health professionals with the promise of confidentiality must be able to do so without fear. Only with confidentiality can the therapeutic relationship thrive.

Dr. Sood is professor of psychiatry and pediatrics, and senior professor of child mental health policy, at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

We are in the healing profession. We practice a trade. We are doctors, therapists, counselors. We work with children, adults, and couples. We document the physical form of our patient after examination, setting the stage for interventions that heal and alleviate suffering. With those who we do not touch physically, we hold out our psychological arms to embrace them in a therapeutic relationship.

We are privileged to appreciate their deeper selves through voice, unsaid words, and body language. A trust evolves (or might not); deeper exploration where our intuition and technical skill discover what troubles the soul. Healing begins as a delicate dance: As trust is earned, our patients risk vulnerability by revealing their weakest selves.

As healers, we often find ourselves adrift with our own insecurities, our own histories that make us human; our styles may differ but training and the tenets and guidelines set by our professional societies keep us in safe waters. These guidelines are informed by the science of health care research and vetted through centuries of observation and experience of process. “Do no harm” is perhaps one of the major rules of engaging with patients. The scaffolding that our code of ethics provides healing professions trumps external pressures to deviate. If you violate these codes, the consequences are borne by the patient and the potential loss of your license.

Some of you may have read about Kevin Euceda, an adolescent who reportedly was waiting for his immigration interview and ordered to undergo mandatory therapy as part of the immigration protocol. Kevin revealed to his therapist the history of violence he experienced as a child growing up in Honduras. His subsequent initiation into a gang was the only option he had to escape a violent death. Those of us who work with youth from gang cultures know fully that allegiance to a gang is a means to find an identity and brotherhood with the payment by a lifestyle of violence. A therapist faced with this information does not judge but helps the person deal with PTSD, nightmares, and guilt that become part of an identity just as the memories of mines blowing up in the face of combat affect veterans.

But the therapist, who reportedly holds a master’s in rehabilitation counseling and was “a year away from passing her licensing exam,” according to an article published in the Washington Post, followed policy of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The therapist betrayed Kevin by reporting the information he shared with her confidentially to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The reason the therapist gave for the breach was that she was compelled do so because Kevin reported participating in gang activity in Honduras. Subsequently, Kevin was sent to a high-security detention center – and is now facing deportation.
 

Betraying a patient, profession

Therapy begins as a contract between patient and therapist. The contract stipulates that all that transpires in the process of therapy (usually a 50-minute block of time, usually weekly) is information held by the therapist and patient – and is not to be shared with anyone, including parents, guardians, legal entities, and health care agencies. This allows the gradual sharing of events, emotions, behaviors, and reactions akin to peeling an onion. Memories, reactions, and feelings assist the therapist as they start their quest of discovery of the conflict and how to resolve it. Trust is the central tenet of this journey. The patient thinks: “You will hear me; you will see me you will understand me and help me understand myself.” The doctor responds: “Even I don’t yet know fully what ails you; we will discover that together. … I will not fail your trust.”

So how does this interface with external pressures? The constitution of a free country provides some inviolable protections that prevent derailment of the codes of ethics based on science. The fine line between what are considered sacrosanct ethics of a field – be it health care, climatology, or architecture – and what could be sacrificed in the name of prevailing forces (political or otherwise) has to be under constant scrutiny by the members of the guild. In health care, when patients cannot trust the science, its implementation, or is let down by the clinician, they are unlikely to benefit from treatment. A foundation of distrust paves the way for future therapeutic relationships that are stained with distrust and noncompliance.

The ethics guidelines of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law specify that psychiatrists in forensic roles “should be clear about limitations on confidentiality in the treatment relationship and ensure that these limitations are communicated to the patient.” Again, the therapist in this case is not a psychiatrist, but I would argue that the same rules would apply.

It is reassuring to know that several key groups, including the American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychological Association, have all condemned the therapist’s actions. Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals must do no harm. We must not stand idly by and allow the kind of professional breach that happened to Kevin continue. Patients who confide in mental health professionals with the promise of confidentiality must be able to do so without fear. Only with confidentiality can the therapeutic relationship thrive.

Dr. Sood is professor of psychiatry and pediatrics, and senior professor of child mental health policy, at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

Health care systems need to take urgent action to address social isolation and loneliness among U.S. seniors, experts say.

A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) points out that social isolation in this population is a major public health concern that contributes to heart disease, depression, and premature death.

The report authors note that the health care system remains an underused partner in preventing, identifying, and intervening in social isolation and loneliness among adults over age 50.

For seniors who are homebound, have no family, or do not belong to community or faith groups, a medical appointment or home health visit may be one of the few social interactions they have, the report notes.

Health care providers and systems may be “first responders” in recognizing lonely or socially isolated patients, committee chair Dan Blazer, MD, from Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C., said during a press briefing.
 

As deadly as obesity, smoking

Committee member Julianne Holt-Lunstad, PhD, from Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, noted that social isolation and loneliness are “distinctly different.”

Social isolation is defined as an objective lack of (or limited) social connections, while loneliness is a subjective perception of social isolation or the subjective feeling of being lonely.

Not all older adults are isolated or lonely, but they are more likely to face predisposing factors such as living alone and the loss of loved ones, she explained.

The issue may be compounded for LGBT, minority, and immigrant older adults, who may already face barriers to care, stigma, and discrimination. Social isolation and loneliness may also directly stem from chronic illness, hearing or vision loss, or mobility issues. In these cases, health care providers might be able to help prevent or reduce social isolation and loneliness by directly addressing the underlying health-related causes.

Some evidence suggests that the magnitude of the effect of social isolation on premature mortality may be comparable to or greater than smoking, obesity, and physical inactivity, Holt-Lunstad told the briefing. The report offers a vision for how the health care system can identify people at risk of social isolation and loneliness, intervene, and engage other community partners.

It recommends that providers use validated tools to periodically assess patients who may be at risk for social isolation and loneliness and connect them to community resources for help.

The report also calls for greater education and training among health providers. Schools of health professions and training programs for direct care workers (eg, home health aides, nurse aides, and personal care aides) should incorporate social isolation and loneliness in their curricula, the report says.

It also offers recommendations for leveraging digital health and health technology, improving community partnerships, increasing funding for research, and creation of a national resource center under the Department of Health and Human Services.

Blazer said there remains “much to be learned” about what approaches to mitigating social isolation and loneliness work best in which populations.

The report, from the Committee on the Health and Medical Dimensions of Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults, was sponsored by the AARP Foundation.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Health care systems need to take urgent action to address social isolation and loneliness among U.S. seniors, experts say.

A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) points out that social isolation in this population is a major public health concern that contributes to heart disease, depression, and premature death.

The report authors note that the health care system remains an underused partner in preventing, identifying, and intervening in social isolation and loneliness among adults over age 50.

For seniors who are homebound, have no family, or do not belong to community or faith groups, a medical appointment or home health visit may be one of the few social interactions they have, the report notes.

Health care providers and systems may be “first responders” in recognizing lonely or socially isolated patients, committee chair Dan Blazer, MD, from Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C., said during a press briefing.
 

As deadly as obesity, smoking

Committee member Julianne Holt-Lunstad, PhD, from Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, noted that social isolation and loneliness are “distinctly different.”

Social isolation is defined as an objective lack of (or limited) social connections, while loneliness is a subjective perception of social isolation or the subjective feeling of being lonely.

Not all older adults are isolated or lonely, but they are more likely to face predisposing factors such as living alone and the loss of loved ones, she explained.

The issue may be compounded for LGBT, minority, and immigrant older adults, who may already face barriers to care, stigma, and discrimination. Social isolation and loneliness may also directly stem from chronic illness, hearing or vision loss, or mobility issues. In these cases, health care providers might be able to help prevent or reduce social isolation and loneliness by directly addressing the underlying health-related causes.

Some evidence suggests that the magnitude of the effect of social isolation on premature mortality may be comparable to or greater than smoking, obesity, and physical inactivity, Holt-Lunstad told the briefing. The report offers a vision for how the health care system can identify people at risk of social isolation and loneliness, intervene, and engage other community partners.

It recommends that providers use validated tools to periodically assess patients who may be at risk for social isolation and loneliness and connect them to community resources for help.

The report also calls for greater education and training among health providers. Schools of health professions and training programs for direct care workers (eg, home health aides, nurse aides, and personal care aides) should incorporate social isolation and loneliness in their curricula, the report says.

It also offers recommendations for leveraging digital health and health technology, improving community partnerships, increasing funding for research, and creation of a national resource center under the Department of Health and Human Services.

Blazer said there remains “much to be learned” about what approaches to mitigating social isolation and loneliness work best in which populations.

The report, from the Committee on the Health and Medical Dimensions of Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults, was sponsored by the AARP Foundation.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Health care systems need to take urgent action to address social isolation and loneliness among U.S. seniors, experts say.

A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) points out that social isolation in this population is a major public health concern that contributes to heart disease, depression, and premature death.

The report authors note that the health care system remains an underused partner in preventing, identifying, and intervening in social isolation and loneliness among adults over age 50.

For seniors who are homebound, have no family, or do not belong to community or faith groups, a medical appointment or home health visit may be one of the few social interactions they have, the report notes.

Health care providers and systems may be “first responders” in recognizing lonely or socially isolated patients, committee chair Dan Blazer, MD, from Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C., said during a press briefing.
 

As deadly as obesity, smoking

Committee member Julianne Holt-Lunstad, PhD, from Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, noted that social isolation and loneliness are “distinctly different.”

Social isolation is defined as an objective lack of (or limited) social connections, while loneliness is a subjective perception of social isolation or the subjective feeling of being lonely.

Not all older adults are isolated or lonely, but they are more likely to face predisposing factors such as living alone and the loss of loved ones, she explained.

The issue may be compounded for LGBT, minority, and immigrant older adults, who may already face barriers to care, stigma, and discrimination. Social isolation and loneliness may also directly stem from chronic illness, hearing or vision loss, or mobility issues. In these cases, health care providers might be able to help prevent or reduce social isolation and loneliness by directly addressing the underlying health-related causes.

Some evidence suggests that the magnitude of the effect of social isolation on premature mortality may be comparable to or greater than smoking, obesity, and physical inactivity, Holt-Lunstad told the briefing. The report offers a vision for how the health care system can identify people at risk of social isolation and loneliness, intervene, and engage other community partners.

It recommends that providers use validated tools to periodically assess patients who may be at risk for social isolation and loneliness and connect them to community resources for help.

The report also calls for greater education and training among health providers. Schools of health professions and training programs for direct care workers (eg, home health aides, nurse aides, and personal care aides) should incorporate social isolation and loneliness in their curricula, the report says.

It also offers recommendations for leveraging digital health and health technology, improving community partnerships, increasing funding for research, and creation of a national resource center under the Department of Health and Human Services.

Blazer said there remains “much to be learned” about what approaches to mitigating social isolation and loneliness work best in which populations.

The report, from the Committee on the Health and Medical Dimensions of Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults, was sponsored by the AARP Foundation.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Combining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy improved detection of prostate cancer among men with MRI-visible lesions in a single-center study.

Compared with either method alone, a combination of the two biopsy methods resulted in 9.9% more prostate cancer diagnoses, explained study author Michael Ahdoot, MD, of the National Institutes of Health and colleagues. Their report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“With the addition of MRI-targeted biopsy to systematic biopsy, we may have entered an era of increased diagnostic certainty in prostate cancer,” the researchers wrote.

Their single-center, comparative diagnostic study included 2,103 patients with MRI-visible prostate lesions who underwent both systematic and MRI-targeted biopsy. In cases of multiple biopsies, only the results of the initial biopsies were included.

Each individual specimen was assigned a Gleason score by a genitourinary pathologist and was subsequently categorized into a grade group on a scale of 1-5, with higher scores reflecting greater cancer risk. Grade group 1 was defined as clinically insignificant disease. Grade group 2 was defined as favorable intermediate-risk disease. Grade group 3 or higher was defined as unfavorable intermediate-risk disease or worse.

The primary endpoints were cancer detection rates for each biopsy method, based on grade group. “Among the men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, upgrading and downgrading of grade group from biopsy to whole-mount histopathological analysis of surgical specimens [was also assessed],” the researchers explained.

Among patients who underwent combined biopsy, prostate cancer was identified in 62.4% of patients, and 19.2% underwent radical prostatectomy.

For grade groups 3-5, rates of cancer detection were significantly higher with MRI-targeted biopsy than with systematic biopsy (P less than .01 for all). For grade group 1, detection rates were significantly lower with MRI-targeted biopsy (P less than .01).

“Although many of [the] benefits resulted from MRI-targeted biopsy alone, omission of systematic biopsy would have led to missing the diagnosis of 8.8% of clinically significant cancers,” the researchers reported.

In addition, among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, the rates of upgrading (grade group 3 or higher) on histopathological analysis were lower for combined biopsy (3.5%) than for MRI-targeted biopsy (8.7%) and systematic biopsy (16.8%).

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the single-center design. As a result, the findings may not be generalizable to other institutions.

However, the researchers concluded that “these findings suggest that combined biopsy provides improved diagnostic accuracy over either systematic or MRI-targeted biopsy alone and better predicts the results of final histopathological analysis.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Philips, and the Dr. Mildred Scheel Foundation for Cancer Research. The authors disclosed financial affiliations with Philips, Biocompatibles UK, Boston Scientific, Celsion, and other companies.

SOURCE: Ahdoot M et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038.

Combining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy improved detection of prostate cancer among men with MRI-visible lesions in a single-center study.

Compared with either method alone, a combination of the two biopsy methods resulted in 9.9% more prostate cancer diagnoses, explained study author Michael Ahdoot, MD, of the National Institutes of Health and colleagues. Their report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“With the addition of MRI-targeted biopsy to systematic biopsy, we may have entered an era of increased diagnostic certainty in prostate cancer,” the researchers wrote.

Their single-center, comparative diagnostic study included 2,103 patients with MRI-visible prostate lesions who underwent both systematic and MRI-targeted biopsy. In cases of multiple biopsies, only the results of the initial biopsies were included.

Each individual specimen was assigned a Gleason score by a genitourinary pathologist and was subsequently categorized into a grade group on a scale of 1-5, with higher scores reflecting greater cancer risk. Grade group 1 was defined as clinically insignificant disease. Grade group 2 was defined as favorable intermediate-risk disease. Grade group 3 or higher was defined as unfavorable intermediate-risk disease or worse.

The primary endpoints were cancer detection rates for each biopsy method, based on grade group. “Among the men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, upgrading and downgrading of grade group from biopsy to whole-mount histopathological analysis of surgical specimens [was also assessed],” the researchers explained.

Among patients who underwent combined biopsy, prostate cancer was identified in 62.4% of patients, and 19.2% underwent radical prostatectomy.

For grade groups 3-5, rates of cancer detection were significantly higher with MRI-targeted biopsy than with systematic biopsy (P less than .01 for all). For grade group 1, detection rates were significantly lower with MRI-targeted biopsy (P less than .01).

“Although many of [the] benefits resulted from MRI-targeted biopsy alone, omission of systematic biopsy would have led to missing the diagnosis of 8.8% of clinically significant cancers,” the researchers reported.

In addition, among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, the rates of upgrading (grade group 3 or higher) on histopathological analysis were lower for combined biopsy (3.5%) than for MRI-targeted biopsy (8.7%) and systematic biopsy (16.8%).

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the single-center design. As a result, the findings may not be generalizable to other institutions.

However, the researchers concluded that “these findings suggest that combined biopsy provides improved diagnostic accuracy over either systematic or MRI-targeted biopsy alone and better predicts the results of final histopathological analysis.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Philips, and the Dr. Mildred Scheel Foundation for Cancer Research. The authors disclosed financial affiliations with Philips, Biocompatibles UK, Boston Scientific, Celsion, and other companies.

SOURCE: Ahdoot M et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038.

Combining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy improved detection of prostate cancer among men with MRI-visible lesions in a single-center study.

Compared with either method alone, a combination of the two biopsy methods resulted in 9.9% more prostate cancer diagnoses, explained study author Michael Ahdoot, MD, of the National Institutes of Health and colleagues. Their report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“With the addition of MRI-targeted biopsy to systematic biopsy, we may have entered an era of increased diagnostic certainty in prostate cancer,” the researchers wrote.

Their single-center, comparative diagnostic study included 2,103 patients with MRI-visible prostate lesions who underwent both systematic and MRI-targeted biopsy. In cases of multiple biopsies, only the results of the initial biopsies were included.

Each individual specimen was assigned a Gleason score by a genitourinary pathologist and was subsequently categorized into a grade group on a scale of 1-5, with higher scores reflecting greater cancer risk. Grade group 1 was defined as clinically insignificant disease. Grade group 2 was defined as favorable intermediate-risk disease. Grade group 3 or higher was defined as unfavorable intermediate-risk disease or worse.

The primary endpoints were cancer detection rates for each biopsy method, based on grade group. “Among the men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, upgrading and downgrading of grade group from biopsy to whole-mount histopathological analysis of surgical specimens [was also assessed],” the researchers explained.

Among patients who underwent combined biopsy, prostate cancer was identified in 62.4% of patients, and 19.2% underwent radical prostatectomy.

For grade groups 3-5, rates of cancer detection were significantly higher with MRI-targeted biopsy than with systematic biopsy (P less than .01 for all). For grade group 1, detection rates were significantly lower with MRI-targeted biopsy (P less than .01).

“Although many of [the] benefits resulted from MRI-targeted biopsy alone, omission of systematic biopsy would have led to missing the diagnosis of 8.8% of clinically significant cancers,” the researchers reported.

In addition, among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, the rates of upgrading (grade group 3 or higher) on histopathological analysis were lower for combined biopsy (3.5%) than for MRI-targeted biopsy (8.7%) and systematic biopsy (16.8%).

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this study was the single-center design. As a result, the findings may not be generalizable to other institutions.

However, the researchers concluded that “these findings suggest that combined biopsy provides improved diagnostic accuracy over either systematic or MRI-targeted biopsy alone and better predicts the results of final histopathological analysis.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Philips, and the Dr. Mildred Scheel Foundation for Cancer Research. The authors disclosed financial affiliations with Philips, Biocompatibles UK, Boston Scientific, Celsion, and other companies.

SOURCE: Ahdoot M et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038.

Treatment with the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease or hospitalization for heart failure (CVD/HHF) in patients with diabetes, regardless of the duration of the disease, but had a greater protective benefit against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and renal events in patients with longer disease duration, according to new findings from a post hoc analysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial.

The positive effect of dapagliflozin in patients with MACE – which includes myocardial infarction (MI), CVD, and ischemic stroke – may have been driven by lower rates of MI and ischemic stroke with the drug, compared with placebo, in patients with longer disease duration, wrote Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, and colleagues. Their report is in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism (2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011).

It has been previously reported that the risk for complications in diabetes increases with increasing duration of the disease. Recent studies with SGLT-2 inhibitors have shown that the drugs improve cardiovascular and renal outcomes in diabetes, and they are recommended by the American Diabetes Association as second-line therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure. The European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend that patients with diabetes patients who have three or more risk factors, or those with a disease duration of more than 20 years, should be deemed very high risk and be considered for early treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors.

“The MACE benefit observed with dapagliflozin in this study in patients with diabetes duration of [more than] 20 years, clearly supports that notion,” the authors wrote.

In DECLARE-TIMI 58, 17,160 patients with type 2 diabetes received dapagliflozin or placebo and were followed for a median of 4.2 years. Of those patients, 22.4% had a disease duration of fewer than 5 years; 27.6%, a duration of 5-10 years; 23.0%, 10-15 years; 14.2%, 10-15 years; and 12.9%, more than 20 years. The median duration of disease was 11 years.

Patients in all the age groups had similar reductions in CVD/HHF, compared with placebo, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (disease duration of 5 or fewer years), 0.86, 0.92, 0.81, and 0.75 (duration of 20 years), respectively (interaction trend P = .760).

Treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the incidence of MACE, but the benefit was more apparent in patients with longer-term disease: HR, 1.08; 1.02; 0.94; 0.92; and 0.67, respectively (interaction trend P = .004). Similar trends were seen with MI (interaction trend P = .019) and ischemic stroke (interaction trend P = .015).

The researchers also reported improved benefits in renal-specific outcome with increasing disease duration, with HRs ranging from 0.79 in patients with diabetes duration of fewer than 5 years, to 0.42 in those with a duration of more than 20 years (interaction trend P = .084).

Limitations of the study include the fact that the information about diabetes duration relied on patient reports, and that the original trial was not powered for all subgroup interactions. This authors emphasized that this was a post hoc analysis and as such, should be considered hypothesis generating.

All but two of the authors reported relationships with Astra Zeneca, which funded the study, and other drug companies.

SOURCE: Bajaj HS et al. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011.

Treatment with the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease or hospitalization for heart failure (CVD/HHF) in patients with diabetes, regardless of the duration of the disease, but had a greater protective benefit against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and renal events in patients with longer disease duration, according to new findings from a post hoc analysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial.

The positive effect of dapagliflozin in patients with MACE – which includes myocardial infarction (MI), CVD, and ischemic stroke – may have been driven by lower rates of MI and ischemic stroke with the drug, compared with placebo, in patients with longer disease duration, wrote Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, and colleagues. Their report is in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism (2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011).

It has been previously reported that the risk for complications in diabetes increases with increasing duration of the disease. Recent studies with SGLT-2 inhibitors have shown that the drugs improve cardiovascular and renal outcomes in diabetes, and they are recommended by the American Diabetes Association as second-line therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure. The European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend that patients with diabetes patients who have three or more risk factors, or those with a disease duration of more than 20 years, should be deemed very high risk and be considered for early treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors.

“The MACE benefit observed with dapagliflozin in this study in patients with diabetes duration of [more than] 20 years, clearly supports that notion,” the authors wrote.

In DECLARE-TIMI 58, 17,160 patients with type 2 diabetes received dapagliflozin or placebo and were followed for a median of 4.2 years. Of those patients, 22.4% had a disease duration of fewer than 5 years; 27.6%, a duration of 5-10 years; 23.0%, 10-15 years; 14.2%, 10-15 years; and 12.9%, more than 20 years. The median duration of disease was 11 years.

Patients in all the age groups had similar reductions in CVD/HHF, compared with placebo, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (disease duration of 5 or fewer years), 0.86, 0.92, 0.81, and 0.75 (duration of 20 years), respectively (interaction trend P = .760).

Treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the incidence of MACE, but the benefit was more apparent in patients with longer-term disease: HR, 1.08; 1.02; 0.94; 0.92; and 0.67, respectively (interaction trend P = .004). Similar trends were seen with MI (interaction trend P = .019) and ischemic stroke (interaction trend P = .015).

The researchers also reported improved benefits in renal-specific outcome with increasing disease duration, with HRs ranging from 0.79 in patients with diabetes duration of fewer than 5 years, to 0.42 in those with a duration of more than 20 years (interaction trend P = .084).

Limitations of the study include the fact that the information about diabetes duration relied on patient reports, and that the original trial was not powered for all subgroup interactions. This authors emphasized that this was a post hoc analysis and as such, should be considered hypothesis generating.

All but two of the authors reported relationships with Astra Zeneca, which funded the study, and other drug companies.

SOURCE: Bajaj HS et al. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011.

Treatment with the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease or hospitalization for heart failure (CVD/HHF) in patients with diabetes, regardless of the duration of the disease, but had a greater protective benefit against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and renal events in patients with longer disease duration, according to new findings from a post hoc analysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial.

The positive effect of dapagliflozin in patients with MACE – which includes myocardial infarction (MI), CVD, and ischemic stroke – may have been driven by lower rates of MI and ischemic stroke with the drug, compared with placebo, in patients with longer disease duration, wrote Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, and colleagues. Their report is in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism (2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011).

It has been previously reported that the risk for complications in diabetes increases with increasing duration of the disease. Recent studies with SGLT-2 inhibitors have shown that the drugs improve cardiovascular and renal outcomes in diabetes, and they are recommended by the American Diabetes Association as second-line therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure. The European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend that patients with diabetes patients who have three or more risk factors, or those with a disease duration of more than 20 years, should be deemed very high risk and be considered for early treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors.

“The MACE benefit observed with dapagliflozin in this study in patients with diabetes duration of [more than] 20 years, clearly supports that notion,” the authors wrote.

In DECLARE-TIMI 58, 17,160 patients with type 2 diabetes received dapagliflozin or placebo and were followed for a median of 4.2 years. Of those patients, 22.4% had a disease duration of fewer than 5 years; 27.6%, a duration of 5-10 years; 23.0%, 10-15 years; 14.2%, 10-15 years; and 12.9%, more than 20 years. The median duration of disease was 11 years.

Patients in all the age groups had similar reductions in CVD/HHF, compared with placebo, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (disease duration of 5 or fewer years), 0.86, 0.92, 0.81, and 0.75 (duration of 20 years), respectively (interaction trend P = .760).

Treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the incidence of MACE, but the benefit was more apparent in patients with longer-term disease: HR, 1.08; 1.02; 0.94; 0.92; and 0.67, respectively (interaction trend P = .004). Similar trends were seen with MI (interaction trend P = .019) and ischemic stroke (interaction trend P = .015).

The researchers also reported improved benefits in renal-specific outcome with increasing disease duration, with HRs ranging from 0.79 in patients with diabetes duration of fewer than 5 years, to 0.42 in those with a duration of more than 20 years (interaction trend P = .084).

Limitations of the study include the fact that the information about diabetes duration relied on patient reports, and that the original trial was not powered for all subgroup interactions. This authors emphasized that this was a post hoc analysis and as such, should be considered hypothesis generating.

All but two of the authors reported relationships with Astra Zeneca, which funded the study, and other drug companies.

SOURCE: Bajaj HS et al. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011.

In late February, a soldier stationed at Camp Carroll near Daegu, South Korea, was the first military member to test positive for the coronavirus (COVID-19). Before being diagnosed, he visited other areas, including Camp Walker in Daegu, according to a statement released by US Forces Korea. More than 75,000 troops are stationed in countries with virus outbreaks, including Japan, Italy, and Bahrain.

Military research laboratories are working “feverishly around the horn” to come up with a vaccine, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley said in a March 2, 2020, news conference. At the same conference, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, MD, said US Department of Defense (DoD) civilian and military leadership are working together to prepare for short-and long-term scenarios.

The US Northern Command is the “global integrator,” Esper said, with the DoD communicating regularly with operational commanders to assess how the virus might impact exercises and ongoing operations around the world. For example, a command post exercise in South Korea has been postponed; Exercise Cobra Gold in Thailand is continuing.

Commanders are taking all necessary precautions because the virus is unique to every situation and every location, Esper said: “We’re relying on them to make good judgments.”

He emphasized that commanders at all levels have the authority and guidance they need to operate. In a late February video teleconference, Esper had told commanders deployed overseas that he wanted them to give him a heads-up before making decisions related to protecting their troops, according to The New York Times.

The New York Times article cited an exchange in which Gen. Robert Abrams, commander of American forces in South Korea, where > 4,000 coronavirus cases have been confirmed, discussed his options to protect American military personnel against the virus. Esper said he wanted advance notice, according to an official briefed on the call and quoted in the Times article. Gen. Abrams said although he would try to give Sec. Esper advance warning, he might have to make urgent health decisions before receiving final approval from Washington.

In a statement responding to the Times article, Jonathan Hoffman, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, said the Secretary of Defense has given the Global Combatant Commanders the “clear and unequivocal authority” to take any and all actions necessary to ensure the health and safety of US service members, civilian DoD personnel, families, and dependents.

In the video teleconference, Hoffman said, Secretary Espers “directed commanders to take all force health protection measures, and to notify their chain of command when actions are taken so that DoD leadership can inform the interagency—including US Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the White House—and the American people.” Esper “explicitly did not direct them to ‘clear’ their force health decisions in advance,” Hoffman said. “[T]hat is a dangerous and inaccurate mischaracterization.” 

In January, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense released a memorandum on force health protection guidance for the coronavirus outbreak. The DoD, it says, will follow the CDC guidance and will “closely coordinate with interagency partners to ensure accurate and timely information is available.”

“An informed, common-sense approach minimizes the chances of getting sick,” military health officials say. But, “due to the dynamic nature of this outbreak,” people should frequently check the CDC website for additional updates. Related Military Health System information and links to the CDC are available at https://www.health.mil/News/In-the-Spotlight/Coronavirus.

The CDC provides a summary of its latest recommendations and DoD health care providers can access COVID-19–specific guidance, including information on evaluating “persons under investigation,” at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/clinical-criteria.html.

Sec. Esper, in the Monday news conference, said, “My number-one priority remains to protect our forces and their families; second is to safeguard our mission capabilities and third [is] to support the interagency whole-of-government’s approach. We will continue to take all necessary precautions to ensure that our people are safe and able to continue their very important mission.”

In late February, a soldier stationed at Camp Carroll near Daegu, South Korea, was the first military member to test positive for the coronavirus (COVID-19). Before being diagnosed, he visited other areas, including Camp Walker in Daegu, according to a statement released by US Forces Korea. More than 75,000 troops are stationed in countries with virus outbreaks, including Japan, Italy, and Bahrain.

Military research laboratories are working “feverishly around the horn” to come up with a vaccine, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley said in a March 2, 2020, news conference. At the same conference, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, MD, said US Department of Defense (DoD) civilian and military leadership are working together to prepare for short-and long-term scenarios.

The US Northern Command is the “global integrator,” Esper said, with the DoD communicating regularly with operational commanders to assess how the virus might impact exercises and ongoing operations around the world. For example, a command post exercise in South Korea has been postponed; Exercise Cobra Gold in Thailand is continuing.

Commanders are taking all necessary precautions because the virus is unique to every situation and every location, Esper said: “We’re relying on them to make good judgments.”

He emphasized that commanders at all levels have the authority and guidance they need to operate. In a late February video teleconference, Esper had told commanders deployed overseas that he wanted them to give him a heads-up before making decisions related to protecting their troops, according to The New York Times.

The New York Times article cited an exchange in which Gen. Robert Abrams, commander of American forces in South Korea, where > 4,000 coronavirus cases have been confirmed, discussed his options to protect American military personnel against the virus. Esper said he wanted advance notice, according to an official briefed on the call and quoted in the Times article. Gen. Abrams said although he would try to give Sec. Esper advance warning, he might have to make urgent health decisions before receiving final approval from Washington.

In a statement responding to the Times article, Jonathan Hoffman, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, said the Secretary of Defense has given the Global Combatant Commanders the “clear and unequivocal authority” to take any and all actions necessary to ensure the health and safety of US service members, civilian DoD personnel, families, and dependents.

In the video teleconference, Hoffman said, Secretary Espers “directed commanders to take all force health protection measures, and to notify their chain of command when actions are taken so that DoD leadership can inform the interagency—including US Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the White House—and the American people.” Esper “explicitly did not direct them to ‘clear’ their force health decisions in advance,” Hoffman said. “[T]hat is a dangerous and inaccurate mischaracterization.” 

In January, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense released a memorandum on force health protection guidance for the coronavirus outbreak. The DoD, it says, will follow the CDC guidance and will “closely coordinate with interagency partners to ensure accurate and timely information is available.”

“An informed, common-sense approach minimizes the chances of getting sick,” military health officials say. But, “due to the dynamic nature of this outbreak,” people should frequently check the CDC website for additional updates. Related Military Health System information and links to the CDC are available at https://www.health.mil/News/In-the-Spotlight/Coronavirus.

The CDC provides a summary of its latest recommendations and DoD health care providers can access COVID-19–specific guidance, including information on evaluating “persons under investigation,” at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/clinical-criteria.html.

Sec. Esper, in the Monday news conference, said, “My number-one priority remains to protect our forces and their families; second is to safeguard our mission capabilities and third [is] to support the interagency whole-of-government’s approach. We will continue to take all necessary precautions to ensure that our people are safe and able to continue their very important mission.”

In late February, a soldier stationed at Camp Carroll near Daegu, South Korea, was the first military member to test positive for the coronavirus (COVID-19). Before being diagnosed, he visited other areas, including Camp Walker in Daegu, according to a statement released by US Forces Korea. More than 75,000 troops are stationed in countries with virus outbreaks, including Japan, Italy, and Bahrain.

Military research laboratories are working “feverishly around the horn” to come up with a vaccine, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley said in a March 2, 2020, news conference. At the same conference, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, MD, said US Department of Defense (DoD) civilian and military leadership are working together to prepare for short-and long-term scenarios.

The US Northern Command is the “global integrator,” Esper said, with the DoD communicating regularly with operational commanders to assess how the virus might impact exercises and ongoing operations around the world. For example, a command post exercise in South Korea has been postponed; Exercise Cobra Gold in Thailand is continuing.

Commanders are taking all necessary precautions because the virus is unique to every situation and every location, Esper said: “We’re relying on them to make good judgments.”

He emphasized that commanders at all levels have the authority and guidance they need to operate. In a late February video teleconference, Esper had told commanders deployed overseas that he wanted them to give him a heads-up before making decisions related to protecting their troops, according to The New York Times.

The New York Times article cited an exchange in which Gen. Robert Abrams, commander of American forces in South Korea, where > 4,000 coronavirus cases have been confirmed, discussed his options to protect American military personnel against the virus. Esper said he wanted advance notice, according to an official briefed on the call and quoted in the Times article. Gen. Abrams said although he would try to give Sec. Esper advance warning, he might have to make urgent health decisions before receiving final approval from Washington.

In a statement responding to the Times article, Jonathan Hoffman, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, said the Secretary of Defense has given the Global Combatant Commanders the “clear and unequivocal authority” to take any and all actions necessary to ensure the health and safety of US service members, civilian DoD personnel, families, and dependents.

In the video teleconference, Hoffman said, Secretary Espers “directed commanders to take all force health protection measures, and to notify their chain of command when actions are taken so that DoD leadership can inform the interagency—including US Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the White House—and the American people.” Esper “explicitly did not direct them to ‘clear’ their force health decisions in advance,” Hoffman said. “[T]hat is a dangerous and inaccurate mischaracterization.” 

In January, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense released a memorandum on force health protection guidance for the coronavirus outbreak. The DoD, it says, will follow the CDC guidance and will “closely coordinate with interagency partners to ensure accurate and timely information is available.”

“An informed, common-sense approach minimizes the chances of getting sick,” military health officials say. But, “due to the dynamic nature of this outbreak,” people should frequently check the CDC website for additional updates. Related Military Health System information and links to the CDC are available at https://www.health.mil/News/In-the-Spotlight/Coronavirus.

The CDC provides a summary of its latest recommendations and DoD health care providers can access COVID-19–specific guidance, including information on evaluating “persons under investigation,” at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/clinical-criteria.html.

Sec. Esper, in the Monday news conference, said, “My number-one priority remains to protect our forces and their families; second is to safeguard our mission capabilities and third [is] to support the interagency whole-of-government’s approach. We will continue to take all necessary precautions to ensure that our people are safe and able to continue their very important mission.”

MAUI, HAWAII – Comorbid rheumatoid arthritis is a force multiplier for fragility fracture risk in patients with end-stage renal disease, Renée Peterkin-McCalman, MD, reported at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Patients with RA and ESRD are at substantially increased risk of osteoporotic fragility fractures compared to the overall population of ESRD patients. So fracture prevention prior to initiation of dialysis should be a focus of care in patients with RA,” said Dr. Peterkin-McCalman, a rheumatology fellow at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

She presented a retrospective cohort study of 10,706 adults who initiated hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis for ESRD during 2005-2008, including 1,040 who also had RA. All subjects were drawn from the United States Renal Data System. The impetus for the study, Dr. Peterkin-McCalman explained in an interview, was that although prior studies have established that RA and ESRD are independent risk factors for osteoporotic fractures, the interplay between the two was previously unknown.

The risk of incident osteoporotic fractures during the first 3 years after going on renal dialysis was 14.7% in patients with ESRD only, vaulting to 25.6% in those with comorbid RA. Individuals with both RA and ESRD were at an adjusted 1.83-fold increased overall risk for new fragility fractures and at 1.85-fold increased risk for hip fracture, compared to those without RA.

Far and away the strongest risk factor for incident osteoporotic fractures in the group with RA plus ESRD was a history of a fracture sustained within 5 years prior to initiation of dialysis, with an associated 11.5-fold increased fracture risk overall and an 8.2-fold increased risk of hip fracture.

“The reason that’s important is we don’t really have any medications to reduce fracture risk once you get to ESRD. Of course, we have bisphosphonates and Prolia (denosumab) and things like that, but that’s in patients with milder CKD [chronic kidney disease] or no renal disease at all. So the goal is to identify the patients early who are at higher risk so that we can protect those bones before they get to ESRD and we have nothing left to treat them with,” she said.

In addition to a history of prevalent fracture prior to starting ESRD, the other risk factors for fracture in patients with ESRD and comorbid RA Dr. Peterkin-McCalman identified in her study included age greater than 50 years at the start of dialysis and female gender, which was associated with a twofold greater fracture risk than in men. Black patients with ESRD and RA were 64% less likely than whites to experience an incident fragility fracture. And the fracture risk was higher in patients on hemodialysis than with peritoneal dialysis.

Her study was supported by the Medical College of Georgia and a research grant from Dialysis Clinic Inc.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Peterkin-McCalman R et al. RWCS 2020.

MAUI, HAWAII – Comorbid rheumatoid arthritis is a force multiplier for fragility fracture risk in patients with end-stage renal disease, Renée Peterkin-McCalman, MD, reported at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Patients with RA and ESRD are at substantially increased risk of osteoporotic fragility fractures compared to the overall population of ESRD patients. So fracture prevention prior to initiation of dialysis should be a focus of care in patients with RA,” said Dr. Peterkin-McCalman, a rheumatology fellow at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

She presented a retrospective cohort study of 10,706 adults who initiated hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis for ESRD during 2005-2008, including 1,040 who also had RA. All subjects were drawn from the United States Renal Data System. The impetus for the study, Dr. Peterkin-McCalman explained in an interview, was that although prior studies have established that RA and ESRD are independent risk factors for osteoporotic fractures, the interplay between the two was previously unknown.

The risk of incident osteoporotic fractures during the first 3 years after going on renal dialysis was 14.7% in patients with ESRD only, vaulting to 25.6% in those with comorbid RA. Individuals with both RA and ESRD were at an adjusted 1.83-fold increased overall risk for new fragility fractures and at 1.85-fold increased risk for hip fracture, compared to those without RA.

Far and away the strongest risk factor for incident osteoporotic fractures in the group with RA plus ESRD was a history of a fracture sustained within 5 years prior to initiation of dialysis, with an associated 11.5-fold increased fracture risk overall and an 8.2-fold increased risk of hip fracture.

“The reason that’s important is we don’t really have any medications to reduce fracture risk once you get to ESRD. Of course, we have bisphosphonates and Prolia (denosumab) and things like that, but that’s in patients with milder CKD [chronic kidney disease] or no renal disease at all. So the goal is to identify the patients early who are at higher risk so that we can protect those bones before they get to ESRD and we have nothing left to treat them with,” she said.

In addition to a history of prevalent fracture prior to starting ESRD, the other risk factors for fracture in patients with ESRD and comorbid RA Dr. Peterkin-McCalman identified in her study included age greater than 50 years at the start of dialysis and female gender, which was associated with a twofold greater fracture risk than in men. Black patients with ESRD and RA were 64% less likely than whites to experience an incident fragility fracture. And the fracture risk was higher in patients on hemodialysis than with peritoneal dialysis.

Her study was supported by the Medical College of Georgia and a research grant from Dialysis Clinic Inc.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Peterkin-McCalman R et al. RWCS 2020.

MAUI, HAWAII – Comorbid rheumatoid arthritis is a force multiplier for fragility fracture risk in patients with end-stage renal disease, Renée Peterkin-McCalman, MD, reported at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Patients with RA and ESRD are at substantially increased risk of osteoporotic fragility fractures compared to the overall population of ESRD patients. So fracture prevention prior to initiation of dialysis should be a focus of care in patients with RA,” said Dr. Peterkin-McCalman, a rheumatology fellow at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

She presented a retrospective cohort study of 10,706 adults who initiated hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis for ESRD during 2005-2008, including 1,040 who also had RA. All subjects were drawn from the United States Renal Data System. The impetus for the study, Dr. Peterkin-McCalman explained in an interview, was that although prior studies have established that RA and ESRD are independent risk factors for osteoporotic fractures, the interplay between the two was previously unknown.

The risk of incident osteoporotic fractures during the first 3 years after going on renal dialysis was 14.7% in patients with ESRD only, vaulting to 25.6% in those with comorbid RA. Individuals with both RA and ESRD were at an adjusted 1.83-fold increased overall risk for new fragility fractures and at 1.85-fold increased risk for hip fracture, compared to those without RA.

Far and away the strongest risk factor for incident osteoporotic fractures in the group with RA plus ESRD was a history of a fracture sustained within 5 years prior to initiation of dialysis, with an associated 11.5-fold increased fracture risk overall and an 8.2-fold increased risk of hip fracture.

“The reason that’s important is we don’t really have any medications to reduce fracture risk once you get to ESRD. Of course, we have bisphosphonates and Prolia (denosumab) and things like that, but that’s in patients with milder CKD [chronic kidney disease] or no renal disease at all. So the goal is to identify the patients early who are at higher risk so that we can protect those bones before they get to ESRD and we have nothing left to treat them with,” she said.

In addition to a history of prevalent fracture prior to starting ESRD, the other risk factors for fracture in patients with ESRD and comorbid RA Dr. Peterkin-McCalman identified in her study included age greater than 50 years at the start of dialysis and female gender, which was associated with a twofold greater fracture risk than in men. Black patients with ESRD and RA were 64% less likely than whites to experience an incident fragility fracture. And the fracture risk was higher in patients on hemodialysis than with peritoneal dialysis.

Her study was supported by the Medical College of Georgia and a research grant from Dialysis Clinic Inc.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Peterkin-McCalman R et al. RWCS 2020.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.

At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy to expedite the process for some laboratories to develop new diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV2, the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.

Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.

“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.

On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.

“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.

The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.

“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.

“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*

Updated criteria

The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.

Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.

In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.

Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.

The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.

“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.

[email protected]

*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.

At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy to expedite the process for some laboratories to develop new diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV2, the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.

Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.

“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.

On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.

“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.

The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.

“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.

“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*

Updated criteria

The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.

Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.

In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.

Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.

The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.

“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.

[email protected]

*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.

At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy to expedite the process for some laboratories to develop new diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV2, the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.

Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.

“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.

On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.

“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.

The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.

“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.

“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*

Updated criteria

The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.

Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.

In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.

Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.

The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.

“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.

[email protected]

*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.