The Hospitalist

It’s been shown that hospitalized cancer patients and those undergoing active treatment are at high risk for severe COVID-19 complications. A new study shows that patients with cancer in remission are at higher risk, too.

For the study, investigators from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, analyzed 323 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a research database with more than 4,800 patients. About 20% of database patients were Black, but they accounted for almost 65% of the infections, reflecting previous reports of increased risk for COVID among Black people.

A total of 67 of the infected patients had cancer, including 18 patients with active cancer and 49 patients whose cancer was in remission. After adjusting for demographics, smoking status, and comorbidities, a diagnosis of cancer more than doubled the odds of hospitalization and increased the odds of 30-day mortality nearly sixfold.

Worse outcomes were more strongly associated with active cancer, but patients whose cancer was in remission were also at higher risk than patients who did not have cancer.

It’s not only “patients hospitalized or on treatment ... all oncology patients need to take significant precautions during the pandemic to protect themselves,” senior investigator Kara Maxwell, MD, PhD, hematologist/oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said in a press release.

The study was published online on Jan. 21 in JNCI Cancer Spectrum.

The good news is that steps to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection work, suggests a second report from the University of Pennsylvania. Among 124 cancer patients who underwent outpatient infusions from May to October 2020, not a single one experienced seroconversion over a median of 13 clinical visits. That second study was published on Jan. 16 in medRxiv and is pending peer review.

The zero seroconversion rate likely reflects “the success of transmission mitigation measures within health care facilities,” wrote investigators led by Lova Sun, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Pennsylvania.

Like many institutions, the University of Pennsylvania Health System (Penn Medicine) is aggressive in protecting outpatients against the virus, the authors wrote. Among other steps, patients are queried about symptoms and contacts before their office visit, and their temperature is taken when they come in. Masks are worn, check-in is contactless, the number of visitors is limited, and patients who test positive are treated in a separate space.

In addition, patients in the study also reported that they wore masks and practiced social distancing in their daily lives.

Approached for comment, hematologist/oncologist Charles Shapiro, MD, a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of translational breast cancer research at Mount Sinai Hospital, both in New York, said he wasn’t surprised that the prevention measures followed at Penn Medicine work. They are very similar to the measures followed at Mount Sinai oncology clinics, and “there’ve been very few COVID cases in our shop,” he added.

The bigger take-home message from both studies is that cancer patients, regardless of their age or if they are in remission, should be prioritized for vaccination against COVID-19, which is the best way to mitigate risk. “I strongly urge my patients to get it” if they can, he said.

The problem in New York is that immunizations are largely limited to people aged 65 years and older. Younger cancer patients are left out, and access has been spotty for all patients. “Vaccine is available one day, then not the next. It’s disheartening,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview. “Hopefully, with the new administration, this will smooth out,” and the age limit will drop.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, among other organizations. Dr. Lova, Dr. Maxwell, and Dr. Shapiro have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s been shown that hospitalized cancer patients and those undergoing active treatment are at high risk for severe COVID-19 complications. A new study shows that patients with cancer in remission are at higher risk, too.

For the study, investigators from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, analyzed 323 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a research database with more than 4,800 patients. About 20% of database patients were Black, but they accounted for almost 65% of the infections, reflecting previous reports of increased risk for COVID among Black people.

A total of 67 of the infected patients had cancer, including 18 patients with active cancer and 49 patients whose cancer was in remission. After adjusting for demographics, smoking status, and comorbidities, a diagnosis of cancer more than doubled the odds of hospitalization and increased the odds of 30-day mortality nearly sixfold.

Worse outcomes were more strongly associated with active cancer, but patients whose cancer was in remission were also at higher risk than patients who did not have cancer.

It’s not only “patients hospitalized or on treatment ... all oncology patients need to take significant precautions during the pandemic to protect themselves,” senior investigator Kara Maxwell, MD, PhD, hematologist/oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said in a press release.

The study was published online on Jan. 21 in JNCI Cancer Spectrum.

The good news is that steps to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection work, suggests a second report from the University of Pennsylvania. Among 124 cancer patients who underwent outpatient infusions from May to October 2020, not a single one experienced seroconversion over a median of 13 clinical visits. That second study was published on Jan. 16 in medRxiv and is pending peer review.

The zero seroconversion rate likely reflects “the success of transmission mitigation measures within health care facilities,” wrote investigators led by Lova Sun, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Pennsylvania.

Like many institutions, the University of Pennsylvania Health System (Penn Medicine) is aggressive in protecting outpatients against the virus, the authors wrote. Among other steps, patients are queried about symptoms and contacts before their office visit, and their temperature is taken when they come in. Masks are worn, check-in is contactless, the number of visitors is limited, and patients who test positive are treated in a separate space.

In addition, patients in the study also reported that they wore masks and practiced social distancing in their daily lives.

Approached for comment, hematologist/oncologist Charles Shapiro, MD, a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of translational breast cancer research at Mount Sinai Hospital, both in New York, said he wasn’t surprised that the prevention measures followed at Penn Medicine work. They are very similar to the measures followed at Mount Sinai oncology clinics, and “there’ve been very few COVID cases in our shop,” he added.

The bigger take-home message from both studies is that cancer patients, regardless of their age or if they are in remission, should be prioritized for vaccination against COVID-19, which is the best way to mitigate risk. “I strongly urge my patients to get it” if they can, he said.

The problem in New York is that immunizations are largely limited to people aged 65 years and older. Younger cancer patients are left out, and access has been spotty for all patients. “Vaccine is available one day, then not the next. It’s disheartening,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview. “Hopefully, with the new administration, this will smooth out,” and the age limit will drop.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, among other organizations. Dr. Lova, Dr. Maxwell, and Dr. Shapiro have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s been shown that hospitalized cancer patients and those undergoing active treatment are at high risk for severe COVID-19 complications. A new study shows that patients with cancer in remission are at higher risk, too.

For the study, investigators from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, analyzed 323 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a research database with more than 4,800 patients. About 20% of database patients were Black, but they accounted for almost 65% of the infections, reflecting previous reports of increased risk for COVID among Black people.

A total of 67 of the infected patients had cancer, including 18 patients with active cancer and 49 patients whose cancer was in remission. After adjusting for demographics, smoking status, and comorbidities, a diagnosis of cancer more than doubled the odds of hospitalization and increased the odds of 30-day mortality nearly sixfold.

Worse outcomes were more strongly associated with active cancer, but patients whose cancer was in remission were also at higher risk than patients who did not have cancer.

It’s not only “patients hospitalized or on treatment ... all oncology patients need to take significant precautions during the pandemic to protect themselves,” senior investigator Kara Maxwell, MD, PhD, hematologist/oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said in a press release.

The study was published online on Jan. 21 in JNCI Cancer Spectrum.

The good news is that steps to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection work, suggests a second report from the University of Pennsylvania. Among 124 cancer patients who underwent outpatient infusions from May to October 2020, not a single one experienced seroconversion over a median of 13 clinical visits. That second study was published on Jan. 16 in medRxiv and is pending peer review.

The zero seroconversion rate likely reflects “the success of transmission mitigation measures within health care facilities,” wrote investigators led by Lova Sun, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow at the University of Pennsylvania.

Like many institutions, the University of Pennsylvania Health System (Penn Medicine) is aggressive in protecting outpatients against the virus, the authors wrote. Among other steps, patients are queried about symptoms and contacts before their office visit, and their temperature is taken when they come in. Masks are worn, check-in is contactless, the number of visitors is limited, and patients who test positive are treated in a separate space.

In addition, patients in the study also reported that they wore masks and practiced social distancing in their daily lives.

Approached for comment, hematologist/oncologist Charles Shapiro, MD, a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of translational breast cancer research at Mount Sinai Hospital, both in New York, said he wasn’t surprised that the prevention measures followed at Penn Medicine work. They are very similar to the measures followed at Mount Sinai oncology clinics, and “there’ve been very few COVID cases in our shop,” he added.

The bigger take-home message from both studies is that cancer patients, regardless of their age or if they are in remission, should be prioritized for vaccination against COVID-19, which is the best way to mitigate risk. “I strongly urge my patients to get it” if they can, he said.

The problem in New York is that immunizations are largely limited to people aged 65 years and older. Younger cancer patients are left out, and access has been spotty for all patients. “Vaccine is available one day, then not the next. It’s disheartening,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview. “Hopefully, with the new administration, this will smooth out,” and the age limit will drop.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, among other organizations. Dr. Lova, Dr. Maxwell, and Dr. Shapiro have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A systematic review suggests at least one-third of SARS-CoV-2 infections occur in people who never develop symptoms, providing strong evidence for the prevalence of asymptomatic infections.

The finding that nearly one in three infected people remain symptom free suggests testing should be changed, the investigators noted.

“To reduce transmission from people who are presymptomatic or asymptomatic, we need to shift our testing focus to at-home screening,” lead author Daniel Oran, AM, said in an interview. “Inexpensive rapid antigen tests, provided to millions of people for frequent use, could help us significantly reduce the spread of the virus.”

The systematic review was published online Jan. 22 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The findings come at a dire time when the official number of COVID-19 cases in the United States exceeds 25 million for the first time. Public health officials have raised concerns about more transmissible, and possibly more deadly, variants of SARS-CoV-2, while a new presidential administration tries to meet the challenge of improving vaccine distribution and acceptance rates.

The results also build on earlier findings from the same research team – Mr. Oran and senior author Eric Topol, MD – that published a review article looking at asymptomatic COVID-19 cases. Even though initial data were more limited, they likewise suggested a broader scope of testing is warranted, pointing out that asymptomatic individuals can transmit SARS-CoV-2 for up to 14 days. Dr. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.

In the current systematic review, the highest-quality evidence comes from large studies in England and Spain. The nationally representative evidence included serologic surveys from more than 365,000 people in England and more than 61,000 in Spain. When analyzed separately, about the same proportion of asymptomatic cases emerged: 32.4% in England and 33% in Spain.

“It was really remarkable to find that nationwide antibody testing studies in England and Spain – including hundreds of thousands of people – produced nearly identical results: About one-third of the SARS-CoV-2 infections were completely asymptomatic,” said Mr. Oran, a researcher at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

The systematic review included 43 studies with PCR testing for active SARS-CoV-2 infection and another 18 with antibody results that indicated present or previous infection. The studies were published up until Nov. 17, 2020.

An appreciation for asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection has come a long way from initial dismissals about its importance, Dr. Topol noted via Twitter. “When Dr. @camilla_rothe reported an asymptomatic transmission a year ago, the @NEJM report was refuted and disparaged. She was later named a TIME 100 Person of the Year.”
 

Not symptomatic vs. never symptomatic

The term “asymptomatic” could be misleading because some people in this group do progress to develop signs of infection. This “presymptomatic” group of patients is likely a minority, the authors noted. Longitudinal studies indicate that about three-quarters of people who are asymptomatic with SARS-CoV-2 remain so.

Dr. Topol anticipated the one-third asymptomatic finding could draw some feedback about distinguishing asymptomatic from presymptomatic individuals. He tweeted, “Some will argue that there is admixture with presymptomatic cases, but review of all the data supports this estimate as being a conservative one.”

The heterogeneity of the settings, populations and other features of the studies prevented the authors from performing a meta-analysis of the findings.
 

Home is where the test is

Based on their findings, Mr. Oran and Dr. Topol believe “that COVID-19 control strategies must be altered, taking into account the prevalence and transmission risk of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.” They suggested frequent use of inexpensive, rapid home tests to identify people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic, along with programs and housing provided by the government to offer financial assistance and allow this group of people to isolate themselves.

Further research is warranted to determine if and how well vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 prevent asymptomatic infection.

Dr. Topol and Mr. Oran created a short video to highlight the findings from their systematic review.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A systematic review suggests at least one-third of SARS-CoV-2 infections occur in people who never develop symptoms, providing strong evidence for the prevalence of asymptomatic infections.

The finding that nearly one in three infected people remain symptom free suggests testing should be changed, the investigators noted.

“To reduce transmission from people who are presymptomatic or asymptomatic, we need to shift our testing focus to at-home screening,” lead author Daniel Oran, AM, said in an interview. “Inexpensive rapid antigen tests, provided to millions of people for frequent use, could help us significantly reduce the spread of the virus.”

The systematic review was published online Jan. 22 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The findings come at a dire time when the official number of COVID-19 cases in the United States exceeds 25 million for the first time. Public health officials have raised concerns about more transmissible, and possibly more deadly, variants of SARS-CoV-2, while a new presidential administration tries to meet the challenge of improving vaccine distribution and acceptance rates.

The results also build on earlier findings from the same research team – Mr. Oran and senior author Eric Topol, MD – that published a review article looking at asymptomatic COVID-19 cases. Even though initial data were more limited, they likewise suggested a broader scope of testing is warranted, pointing out that asymptomatic individuals can transmit SARS-CoV-2 for up to 14 days. Dr. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.

In the current systematic review, the highest-quality evidence comes from large studies in England and Spain. The nationally representative evidence included serologic surveys from more than 365,000 people in England and more than 61,000 in Spain. When analyzed separately, about the same proportion of asymptomatic cases emerged: 32.4% in England and 33% in Spain.

“It was really remarkable to find that nationwide antibody testing studies in England and Spain – including hundreds of thousands of people – produced nearly identical results: About one-third of the SARS-CoV-2 infections were completely asymptomatic,” said Mr. Oran, a researcher at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

The systematic review included 43 studies with PCR testing for active SARS-CoV-2 infection and another 18 with antibody results that indicated present or previous infection. The studies were published up until Nov. 17, 2020.

An appreciation for asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection has come a long way from initial dismissals about its importance, Dr. Topol noted via Twitter. “When Dr. @camilla_rothe reported an asymptomatic transmission a year ago, the @NEJM report was refuted and disparaged. She was later named a TIME 100 Person of the Year.”
 

Not symptomatic vs. never symptomatic

The term “asymptomatic” could be misleading because some people in this group do progress to develop signs of infection. This “presymptomatic” group of patients is likely a minority, the authors noted. Longitudinal studies indicate that about three-quarters of people who are asymptomatic with SARS-CoV-2 remain so.

Dr. Topol anticipated the one-third asymptomatic finding could draw some feedback about distinguishing asymptomatic from presymptomatic individuals. He tweeted, “Some will argue that there is admixture with presymptomatic cases, but review of all the data supports this estimate as being a conservative one.”

The heterogeneity of the settings, populations and other features of the studies prevented the authors from performing a meta-analysis of the findings.
 

Home is where the test is

Based on their findings, Mr. Oran and Dr. Topol believe “that COVID-19 control strategies must be altered, taking into account the prevalence and transmission risk of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.” They suggested frequent use of inexpensive, rapid home tests to identify people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic, along with programs and housing provided by the government to offer financial assistance and allow this group of people to isolate themselves.

Further research is warranted to determine if and how well vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 prevent asymptomatic infection.

Dr. Topol and Mr. Oran created a short video to highlight the findings from their systematic review.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A systematic review suggests at least one-third of SARS-CoV-2 infections occur in people who never develop symptoms, providing strong evidence for the prevalence of asymptomatic infections.

The finding that nearly one in three infected people remain symptom free suggests testing should be changed, the investigators noted.

“To reduce transmission from people who are presymptomatic or asymptomatic, we need to shift our testing focus to at-home screening,” lead author Daniel Oran, AM, said in an interview. “Inexpensive rapid antigen tests, provided to millions of people for frequent use, could help us significantly reduce the spread of the virus.”

The systematic review was published online Jan. 22 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The findings come at a dire time when the official number of COVID-19 cases in the United States exceeds 25 million for the first time. Public health officials have raised concerns about more transmissible, and possibly more deadly, variants of SARS-CoV-2, while a new presidential administration tries to meet the challenge of improving vaccine distribution and acceptance rates.

The results also build on earlier findings from the same research team – Mr. Oran and senior author Eric Topol, MD – that published a review article looking at asymptomatic COVID-19 cases. Even though initial data were more limited, they likewise suggested a broader scope of testing is warranted, pointing out that asymptomatic individuals can transmit SARS-CoV-2 for up to 14 days. Dr. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.

In the current systematic review, the highest-quality evidence comes from large studies in England and Spain. The nationally representative evidence included serologic surveys from more than 365,000 people in England and more than 61,000 in Spain. When analyzed separately, about the same proportion of asymptomatic cases emerged: 32.4% in England and 33% in Spain.

“It was really remarkable to find that nationwide antibody testing studies in England and Spain – including hundreds of thousands of people – produced nearly identical results: About one-third of the SARS-CoV-2 infections were completely asymptomatic,” said Mr. Oran, a researcher at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

The systematic review included 43 studies with PCR testing for active SARS-CoV-2 infection and another 18 with antibody results that indicated present or previous infection. The studies were published up until Nov. 17, 2020.

An appreciation for asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection has come a long way from initial dismissals about its importance, Dr. Topol noted via Twitter. “When Dr. @camilla_rothe reported an asymptomatic transmission a year ago, the @NEJM report was refuted and disparaged. She was later named a TIME 100 Person of the Year.”
 

Not symptomatic vs. never symptomatic

The term “asymptomatic” could be misleading because some people in this group do progress to develop signs of infection. This “presymptomatic” group of patients is likely a minority, the authors noted. Longitudinal studies indicate that about three-quarters of people who are asymptomatic with SARS-CoV-2 remain so.

Dr. Topol anticipated the one-third asymptomatic finding could draw some feedback about distinguishing asymptomatic from presymptomatic individuals. He tweeted, “Some will argue that there is admixture with presymptomatic cases, but review of all the data supports this estimate as being a conservative one.”

The heterogeneity of the settings, populations and other features of the studies prevented the authors from performing a meta-analysis of the findings.
 

Home is where the test is

Based on their findings, Mr. Oran and Dr. Topol believe “that COVID-19 control strategies must be altered, taking into account the prevalence and transmission risk of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.” They suggested frequent use of inexpensive, rapid home tests to identify people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic, along with programs and housing provided by the government to offer financial assistance and allow this group of people to isolate themselves.

Further research is warranted to determine if and how well vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 prevent asymptomatic infection.

Dr. Topol and Mr. Oran created a short video to highlight the findings from their systematic review.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The current COVID-19 vaccines may not be as effective against new coronavirus variants, but they should be powerful enough to still be beneficial, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during a news briefing on Jan. 21.

Both vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have such high efficacy rates that it creates a “cushion effect,” he said, meaning that new variants will likely only diminish vaccine efficacy slightly. To slow the spread of the new strains, Dr. Fauci said, people should get vaccinated as soon as possible. If viruses can’t spread as far or as quickly, they won’t mutate as much.

“Bottom line: We’re paying very close attention to it,” he said. “There are alternative plans if we ever have to modify the vaccine.”

The U.S. has reported 144 cases of the B.1.1.7 variant, which was first identified in the United Kingdom, according to the latest update from the CDC. So far, no cases of the variant strain identified in South Africa have been reported in the U.S., but Dr. Fauci said public health officials are looking for it.

“We’re following very carefully the one in South Africa, which is a little bit more concerning, but nonetheless not something that we don’t think we can handle,” he said.

Despite challenges with vaccine distribution and administration, the U.S. “can and should” vaccinate 70% to 85% of adults by the end of the summer, Dr. Fauci told CNN. If that happens, people could begin to return to some sense of normalcy by the fall, he added.

“When you put ... the pedal to the floor, you can get it done,” he said.

If the U.S. administered one million shots per day, it would take until the end of 2021 to fully vaccine 75% of adults, according to a CNN analysis. Dr. Fauci said he believes the U.S. can give more than one million shots per day. An updated tally from the CDC showed that 1.6 million shots were given in the past 24 hours, which was the largest single-day increase yet reported.

“I’d like it to be a lot more,” Dr. Fauci told CNN. “If we can do better than that, which I personally think we likely will, then great.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The current COVID-19 vaccines may not be as effective against new coronavirus variants, but they should be powerful enough to still be beneficial, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during a news briefing on Jan. 21.

Both vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have such high efficacy rates that it creates a “cushion effect,” he said, meaning that new variants will likely only diminish vaccine efficacy slightly. To slow the spread of the new strains, Dr. Fauci said, people should get vaccinated as soon as possible. If viruses can’t spread as far or as quickly, they won’t mutate as much.

“Bottom line: We’re paying very close attention to it,” he said. “There are alternative plans if we ever have to modify the vaccine.”

The U.S. has reported 144 cases of the B.1.1.7 variant, which was first identified in the United Kingdom, according to the latest update from the CDC. So far, no cases of the variant strain identified in South Africa have been reported in the U.S., but Dr. Fauci said public health officials are looking for it.

“We’re following very carefully the one in South Africa, which is a little bit more concerning, but nonetheless not something that we don’t think we can handle,” he said.

Despite challenges with vaccine distribution and administration, the U.S. “can and should” vaccinate 70% to 85% of adults by the end of the summer, Dr. Fauci told CNN. If that happens, people could begin to return to some sense of normalcy by the fall, he added.

“When you put ... the pedal to the floor, you can get it done,” he said.

If the U.S. administered one million shots per day, it would take until the end of 2021 to fully vaccine 75% of adults, according to a CNN analysis. Dr. Fauci said he believes the U.S. can give more than one million shots per day. An updated tally from the CDC showed that 1.6 million shots were given in the past 24 hours, which was the largest single-day increase yet reported.

“I’d like it to be a lot more,” Dr. Fauci told CNN. “If we can do better than that, which I personally think we likely will, then great.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The current COVID-19 vaccines may not be as effective against new coronavirus variants, but they should be powerful enough to still be beneficial, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during a news briefing on Jan. 21.

Both vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have such high efficacy rates that it creates a “cushion effect,” he said, meaning that new variants will likely only diminish vaccine efficacy slightly. To slow the spread of the new strains, Dr. Fauci said, people should get vaccinated as soon as possible. If viruses can’t spread as far or as quickly, they won’t mutate as much.

“Bottom line: We’re paying very close attention to it,” he said. “There are alternative plans if we ever have to modify the vaccine.”

The U.S. has reported 144 cases of the B.1.1.7 variant, which was first identified in the United Kingdom, according to the latest update from the CDC. So far, no cases of the variant strain identified in South Africa have been reported in the U.S., but Dr. Fauci said public health officials are looking for it.

“We’re following very carefully the one in South Africa, which is a little bit more concerning, but nonetheless not something that we don’t think we can handle,” he said.

Despite challenges with vaccine distribution and administration, the U.S. “can and should” vaccinate 70% to 85% of adults by the end of the summer, Dr. Fauci told CNN. If that happens, people could begin to return to some sense of normalcy by the fall, he added.

“When you put ... the pedal to the floor, you can get it done,” he said.

If the U.S. administered one million shots per day, it would take until the end of 2021 to fully vaccine 75% of adults, according to a CNN analysis. Dr. Fauci said he believes the U.S. can give more than one million shots per day. An updated tally from the CDC showed that 1.6 million shots were given in the past 24 hours, which was the largest single-day increase yet reported.

“I’d like it to be a lot more,” Dr. Fauci told CNN. “If we can do better than that, which I personally think we likely will, then great.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The oral, anti-inflammatory drug colchicine can prevent complications and hospitalizations in nonhospitalized patients newly diagnosed with COVID-19, according to a press release from the ColCORONA trial investigators.

After 1 month of therapy, there was a 21% risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint of death or hospitalizations that missed statistical significance, compared with placebo among 4,488 outpatients enrolled in the global, phase 3 trial.

After excluding 329 patients without a confirmatory polymerase chain reaction test, however, the use of colchicine was reported to significantly reduce hospitalizations by 25%, the need for mechanical ventilation by 50%, and deaths by 44%.

“We believe that this is a medical breakthrough. There’s no approved therapy to prevent complications of COVID-19 in outpatients, to prevent them from reaching the hospital,” lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, from the Montreal Heart Institute, said in an interview.

“I know that several countries will be reviewing the data very rapidly and that Greece approved it today,” he said. “So this is providing hope for patients.”

Having been burned by hydroxychloroquine and other treatments brought forth without peer review, the response to the announcement was tempered by a desire for more details.

Asked for comment, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, was cautious. “The press release about the trial is vague and lacks details such as hazard ratios, confidence intervals, and P values,” he said in an interview.

“It is impossible to evaluate the results of this trial without these details. It is also uncertain how rigorously data were collected,” he added. “We’ll need to see the manuscript to adequately interpret the results.”

The evidence in the press release is hard to interpret, but early intervention with anti-inflammatory therapy has considerable biologic appeal in COVID, said Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, who led the pivotal CANTOS trial of the anti-inflammatory drug canakinumab in the post-MI setting, and is also chair of the ACTIV-4B trial currently investigating anticoagulants and antithrombotics in outpatient COVID-19.

“Colchicine is both inexpensive and generally well tolerated, and the apparent benefits so far reported are substantial,” Dr. Ridker, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “We are eager to see the full data as rapidly as possible.”

The commonly used gout and rheumatic disease agent costs about 26 cents in Canada and between $4 and $6 in the United States. As previously reported, it reduced the time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay but not mortality in the 105-patient Greek Study in the Effects of Colchicine in COVID-19 Complications Prevention (GRECCO-19) study.

Dr. Tardif said he’s looking forward to having the data in the public domain and that they acted swiftly because the evidence was “clinically persuasive” and “the health system is congested now.”

“We received the results Friday, Jan. 22 at 5 p.m., an hour later we were in meetings with our data safety monitoring board [DSMB], 2 hours later we issued a press release, and a day later we’re submitting a full manuscript to a major scientific journal, so I don’t know if anyone has done this at this speed,” he said. “So we are actually very proud of what we did.”

ColCORONA was designed to enroll 6,000 outpatients, at least 40 years of age, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection within the previous 24 hours, and had a least one high-risk criterion, including age at least 70 years, body mass index of at least 30 kg/m², diabetes mellitus, uncontrolled hypertension, known respiratory disease, heart failure or coronary disease, fever of at least 38.4° C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea at presentation, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or the combination of high neutrophil count and low lymphocyte count.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then once daily for another 27 days.

The number needed to prevent one COVID-19 complication is about 60 patients, Dr. Tardif said.

Colchicine was well tolerated and resulted in fewer serious adverse events than with placebo, he said. Diarrhea occurred more often with colchicine, but there was no increase in pneumonia. Caution should be used, however, in treating patients with severe renal disease.

Dr. Tardif said he would not prescribe colchicine to an 18-year-old COVID outpatient who doesn’t have any concomitant diseases, but would for those meeting the study protocol.

“As long as a patient appears to me to be at risk of a complication, I would prescribe it, without a doubt,” he said. “I can tell you that when we held the meeting with the DSMB Friday evening, I actually put each member on the spot and asked them: ‘If it were you – not even treating a patient, but if you had COVID today, would you take it based on the data you’ve seen?’ and all of the DSMB members said they would.

“So we’ll have that debate in the public domain when the paper is out, but I believe most physicians will use it to treat their patients.”

The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais; and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The oral, anti-inflammatory drug colchicine can prevent complications and hospitalizations in nonhospitalized patients newly diagnosed with COVID-19, according to a press release from the ColCORONA trial investigators.

After 1 month of therapy, there was a 21% risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint of death or hospitalizations that missed statistical significance, compared with placebo among 4,488 outpatients enrolled in the global, phase 3 trial.

After excluding 329 patients without a confirmatory polymerase chain reaction test, however, the use of colchicine was reported to significantly reduce hospitalizations by 25%, the need for mechanical ventilation by 50%, and deaths by 44%.

“We believe that this is a medical breakthrough. There’s no approved therapy to prevent complications of COVID-19 in outpatients, to prevent them from reaching the hospital,” lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, from the Montreal Heart Institute, said in an interview.

“I know that several countries will be reviewing the data very rapidly and that Greece approved it today,” he said. “So this is providing hope for patients.”

Having been burned by hydroxychloroquine and other treatments brought forth without peer review, the response to the announcement was tempered by a desire for more details.

Asked for comment, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, was cautious. “The press release about the trial is vague and lacks details such as hazard ratios, confidence intervals, and P values,” he said in an interview.

“It is impossible to evaluate the results of this trial without these details. It is also uncertain how rigorously data were collected,” he added. “We’ll need to see the manuscript to adequately interpret the results.”

The evidence in the press release is hard to interpret, but early intervention with anti-inflammatory therapy has considerable biologic appeal in COVID, said Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, who led the pivotal CANTOS trial of the anti-inflammatory drug canakinumab in the post-MI setting, and is also chair of the ACTIV-4B trial currently investigating anticoagulants and antithrombotics in outpatient COVID-19.

“Colchicine is both inexpensive and generally well tolerated, and the apparent benefits so far reported are substantial,” Dr. Ridker, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “We are eager to see the full data as rapidly as possible.”

The commonly used gout and rheumatic disease agent costs about 26 cents in Canada and between $4 and $6 in the United States. As previously reported, it reduced the time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay but not mortality in the 105-patient Greek Study in the Effects of Colchicine in COVID-19 Complications Prevention (GRECCO-19) study.

Dr. Tardif said he’s looking forward to having the data in the public domain and that they acted swiftly because the evidence was “clinically persuasive” and “the health system is congested now.”

“We received the results Friday, Jan. 22 at 5 p.m., an hour later we were in meetings with our data safety monitoring board [DSMB], 2 hours later we issued a press release, and a day later we’re submitting a full manuscript to a major scientific journal, so I don’t know if anyone has done this at this speed,” he said. “So we are actually very proud of what we did.”

ColCORONA was designed to enroll 6,000 outpatients, at least 40 years of age, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection within the previous 24 hours, and had a least one high-risk criterion, including age at least 70 years, body mass index of at least 30 kg/m², diabetes mellitus, uncontrolled hypertension, known respiratory disease, heart failure or coronary disease, fever of at least 38.4° C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea at presentation, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or the combination of high neutrophil count and low lymphocyte count.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then once daily for another 27 days.

The number needed to prevent one COVID-19 complication is about 60 patients, Dr. Tardif said.

Colchicine was well tolerated and resulted in fewer serious adverse events than with placebo, he said. Diarrhea occurred more often with colchicine, but there was no increase in pneumonia. Caution should be used, however, in treating patients with severe renal disease.

Dr. Tardif said he would not prescribe colchicine to an 18-year-old COVID outpatient who doesn’t have any concomitant diseases, but would for those meeting the study protocol.

“As long as a patient appears to me to be at risk of a complication, I would prescribe it, without a doubt,” he said. “I can tell you that when we held the meeting with the DSMB Friday evening, I actually put each member on the spot and asked them: ‘If it were you – not even treating a patient, but if you had COVID today, would you take it based on the data you’ve seen?’ and all of the DSMB members said they would.

“So we’ll have that debate in the public domain when the paper is out, but I believe most physicians will use it to treat their patients.”

The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais; and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The oral, anti-inflammatory drug colchicine can prevent complications and hospitalizations in nonhospitalized patients newly diagnosed with COVID-19, according to a press release from the ColCORONA trial investigators.

After 1 month of therapy, there was a 21% risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint of death or hospitalizations that missed statistical significance, compared with placebo among 4,488 outpatients enrolled in the global, phase 3 trial.

After excluding 329 patients without a confirmatory polymerase chain reaction test, however, the use of colchicine was reported to significantly reduce hospitalizations by 25%, the need for mechanical ventilation by 50%, and deaths by 44%.

“We believe that this is a medical breakthrough. There’s no approved therapy to prevent complications of COVID-19 in outpatients, to prevent them from reaching the hospital,” lead investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, from the Montreal Heart Institute, said in an interview.

“I know that several countries will be reviewing the data very rapidly and that Greece approved it today,” he said. “So this is providing hope for patients.”

Having been burned by hydroxychloroquine and other treatments brought forth without peer review, the response to the announcement was tempered by a desire for more details.

Asked for comment, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, was cautious. “The press release about the trial is vague and lacks details such as hazard ratios, confidence intervals, and P values,” he said in an interview.

“It is impossible to evaluate the results of this trial without these details. It is also uncertain how rigorously data were collected,” he added. “We’ll need to see the manuscript to adequately interpret the results.”

The evidence in the press release is hard to interpret, but early intervention with anti-inflammatory therapy has considerable biologic appeal in COVID, said Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, who led the pivotal CANTOS trial of the anti-inflammatory drug canakinumab in the post-MI setting, and is also chair of the ACTIV-4B trial currently investigating anticoagulants and antithrombotics in outpatient COVID-19.

“Colchicine is both inexpensive and generally well tolerated, and the apparent benefits so far reported are substantial,” Dr. Ridker, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “We are eager to see the full data as rapidly as possible.”

The commonly used gout and rheumatic disease agent costs about 26 cents in Canada and between $4 and $6 in the United States. As previously reported, it reduced the time to clinical deterioration and hospital stay but not mortality in the 105-patient Greek Study in the Effects of Colchicine in COVID-19 Complications Prevention (GRECCO-19) study.

Dr. Tardif said he’s looking forward to having the data in the public domain and that they acted swiftly because the evidence was “clinically persuasive” and “the health system is congested now.”

“We received the results Friday, Jan. 22 at 5 p.m., an hour later we were in meetings with our data safety monitoring board [DSMB], 2 hours later we issued a press release, and a day later we’re submitting a full manuscript to a major scientific journal, so I don’t know if anyone has done this at this speed,” he said. “So we are actually very proud of what we did.”

ColCORONA was designed to enroll 6,000 outpatients, at least 40 years of age, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection within the previous 24 hours, and had a least one high-risk criterion, including age at least 70 years, body mass index of at least 30 kg/m², diabetes mellitus, uncontrolled hypertension, known respiratory disease, heart failure or coronary disease, fever of at least 38.4° C within the last 48 hours, dyspnea at presentation, bicytopenia, pancytopenia, or the combination of high neutrophil count and low lymphocyte count.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or colchicine 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and then once daily for another 27 days.

The number needed to prevent one COVID-19 complication is about 60 patients, Dr. Tardif said.

Colchicine was well tolerated and resulted in fewer serious adverse events than with placebo, he said. Diarrhea occurred more often with colchicine, but there was no increase in pneumonia. Caution should be used, however, in treating patients with severe renal disease.

Dr. Tardif said he would not prescribe colchicine to an 18-year-old COVID outpatient who doesn’t have any concomitant diseases, but would for those meeting the study protocol.

“As long as a patient appears to me to be at risk of a complication, I would prescribe it, without a doubt,” he said. “I can tell you that when we held the meeting with the DSMB Friday evening, I actually put each member on the spot and asked them: ‘If it were you – not even treating a patient, but if you had COVID today, would you take it based on the data you’ve seen?’ and all of the DSMB members said they would.

“So we’ll have that debate in the public domain when the paper is out, but I believe most physicians will use it to treat their patients.”

The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Heart Institute and funded by the government of Quebec; the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Montreal philanthropist Sophie Desmarais; and the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard. CGI, Dacima, and Pharmascience of Montreal were also collaborators.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Full-dose anticoagulation was superior to low, prophylactic doses in reducing the need for vital organ support such as ventilation in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, according to a report released Jan. 22 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

“This is a major advance for patients hospitalized with COVID. Full dose of anticoagulation in these non-ICU patients improved outcomes and there’s a trend toward a reduction in mortality,” Judith Hochman, MD, director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Research Center at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

“We have treatments that are improving outcomes but not as many that reduce mortality, so we’re hopeful when the full dataset comes in that will be confirmed,” she said.

The observation of increased rates of blood clots and inflammation among COVID-19 patients, which can lead to complications such as lung failure, heart attack, and stroke, has given rise to various anticoagulant treatment protocols and a need for randomized data on routinely administering increased doses of anticoagulation to hospitalized patients.

Today’s top-line findings come from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – examining the safety and efficacy of full-dose anticoagulation to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with a lower dose typically used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In December 2020, all three trials paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup after results showed that full-dose anticoagulation started in the intensive care unit (ICU) was not beneficial and may have been harmful in some patients.

Moderately ill patients with COVID-19, defined as those who did not require ICU care or organ support, made up 80% of participants at enrollment in the three trials, Dr. Hochman said.

Among more than 1,000 moderately ill patients reviewed as of the data cut with the data safety monitoring board, full doses of low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin were superior to low prophylactic doses for the primary endpoint of need for ventilation or other organ supportive interventions at 21 days after randomization.

This met the predefined threshold for 99% probability of superiority and recruitment was stopped, Dr. Hochman reported. “Obviously safety figured into this decision. The risk/benefit ratio was very clear.”

The results do not pertain to patients with a previous indication for anticoagulation, who were excluded from the trials.

Data from an additional 1,000 patients will be reviewed and the data published sometime in the next 2-3 months, she said.

With large numbers of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization, the outcomes could help reduce the overload on intensive care units around the world, the NIH noted.

The results also highlight the critical role of timing in the course of COVID-19.

“We believe that full anticoagulation is effective early in the disease course,” Dr. Hochman said. “Based on the results so far from these three platform trials, those that were very, very sick at the time of enrollment really didn’t benefit and we needed to have caught them at an earlier stage.

“It’s possible that the people in the ICU are just different and the minute they get sick they need the ICU; so we haven’t clearly demonstrated this time course and when to intervene, but that’s the implication of the findings.”

The question of even earlier treatment is being examined in the partner ACTIV-4B trial, which is enrolling patients with COVID-19 illness not requiring hospitalization and randomizing them to the direct oral anticoagulant apixaban or aspirin or placebo.

“It’s a very important trial and we really want to get the message out that patients should volunteer for it,” said Dr. Hochman, principal investigator of the ACTIV-4 trial.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.

The REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC study platforms span five continents in more than 300 hospitals and are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Full-dose anticoagulation was superior to low, prophylactic doses in reducing the need for vital organ support such as ventilation in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, according to a report released Jan. 22 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

“This is a major advance for patients hospitalized with COVID. Full dose of anticoagulation in these non-ICU patients improved outcomes and there’s a trend toward a reduction in mortality,” Judith Hochman, MD, director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Research Center at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

“We have treatments that are improving outcomes but not as many that reduce mortality, so we’re hopeful when the full dataset comes in that will be confirmed,” she said.

The observation of increased rates of blood clots and inflammation among COVID-19 patients, which can lead to complications such as lung failure, heart attack, and stroke, has given rise to various anticoagulant treatment protocols and a need for randomized data on routinely administering increased doses of anticoagulation to hospitalized patients.

Today’s top-line findings come from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – examining the safety and efficacy of full-dose anticoagulation to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with a lower dose typically used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In December 2020, all three trials paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup after results showed that full-dose anticoagulation started in the intensive care unit (ICU) was not beneficial and may have been harmful in some patients.

Moderately ill patients with COVID-19, defined as those who did not require ICU care or organ support, made up 80% of participants at enrollment in the three trials, Dr. Hochman said.

Among more than 1,000 moderately ill patients reviewed as of the data cut with the data safety monitoring board, full doses of low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin were superior to low prophylactic doses for the primary endpoint of need for ventilation or other organ supportive interventions at 21 days after randomization.

This met the predefined threshold for 99% probability of superiority and recruitment was stopped, Dr. Hochman reported. “Obviously safety figured into this decision. The risk/benefit ratio was very clear.”

The results do not pertain to patients with a previous indication for anticoagulation, who were excluded from the trials.

Data from an additional 1,000 patients will be reviewed and the data published sometime in the next 2-3 months, she said.

With large numbers of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization, the outcomes could help reduce the overload on intensive care units around the world, the NIH noted.

The results also highlight the critical role of timing in the course of COVID-19.

“We believe that full anticoagulation is effective early in the disease course,” Dr. Hochman said. “Based on the results so far from these three platform trials, those that were very, very sick at the time of enrollment really didn’t benefit and we needed to have caught them at an earlier stage.

“It’s possible that the people in the ICU are just different and the minute they get sick they need the ICU; so we haven’t clearly demonstrated this time course and when to intervene, but that’s the implication of the findings.”

The question of even earlier treatment is being examined in the partner ACTIV-4B trial, which is enrolling patients with COVID-19 illness not requiring hospitalization and randomizing them to the direct oral anticoagulant apixaban or aspirin or placebo.

“It’s a very important trial and we really want to get the message out that patients should volunteer for it,” said Dr. Hochman, principal investigator of the ACTIV-4 trial.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.

The REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC study platforms span five continents in more than 300 hospitals and are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Full-dose anticoagulation was superior to low, prophylactic doses in reducing the need for vital organ support such as ventilation in moderately ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, according to a report released Jan. 22 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

“This is a major advance for patients hospitalized with COVID. Full dose of anticoagulation in these non-ICU patients improved outcomes and there’s a trend toward a reduction in mortality,” Judith Hochman, MD, director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Research Center at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

“We have treatments that are improving outcomes but not as many that reduce mortality, so we’re hopeful when the full dataset comes in that will be confirmed,” she said.

The observation of increased rates of blood clots and inflammation among COVID-19 patients, which can lead to complications such as lung failure, heart attack, and stroke, has given rise to various anticoagulant treatment protocols and a need for randomized data on routinely administering increased doses of anticoagulation to hospitalized patients.

Today’s top-line findings come from three linked clinical trials – REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC – examining the safety and efficacy of full-dose anticoagulation to treat moderately ill or critically ill adults hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with a lower dose typically used to prevent blood clots in hospitalized patients.

In December 2020, all three trials paused enrollment of the critically ill subgroup after results showed that full-dose anticoagulation started in the intensive care unit (ICU) was not beneficial and may have been harmful in some patients.

Moderately ill patients with COVID-19, defined as those who did not require ICU care or organ support, made up 80% of participants at enrollment in the three trials, Dr. Hochman said.

Among more than 1,000 moderately ill patients reviewed as of the data cut with the data safety monitoring board, full doses of low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin were superior to low prophylactic doses for the primary endpoint of need for ventilation or other organ supportive interventions at 21 days after randomization.

This met the predefined threshold for 99% probability of superiority and recruitment was stopped, Dr. Hochman reported. “Obviously safety figured into this decision. The risk/benefit ratio was very clear.”

The results do not pertain to patients with a previous indication for anticoagulation, who were excluded from the trials.

Data from an additional 1,000 patients will be reviewed and the data published sometime in the next 2-3 months, she said.

With large numbers of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization, the outcomes could help reduce the overload on intensive care units around the world, the NIH noted.

The results also highlight the critical role of timing in the course of COVID-19.

“We believe that full anticoagulation is effective early in the disease course,” Dr. Hochman said. “Based on the results so far from these three platform trials, those that were very, very sick at the time of enrollment really didn’t benefit and we needed to have caught them at an earlier stage.

“It’s possible that the people in the ICU are just different and the minute they get sick they need the ICU; so we haven’t clearly demonstrated this time course and when to intervene, but that’s the implication of the findings.”

The question of even earlier treatment is being examined in the partner ACTIV-4B trial, which is enrolling patients with COVID-19 illness not requiring hospitalization and randomizing them to the direct oral anticoagulant apixaban or aspirin or placebo.

“It’s a very important trial and we really want to get the message out that patients should volunteer for it,” said Dr. Hochman, principal investigator of the ACTIV-4 trial.

In the United States, the ACTIV-4 trial is being led by a collaborative effort involving a number of universities, including the University of Pittsburgh and New York University.

The REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4, and ATTACC study platforms span five continents in more than 300 hospitals and are supported by multiple international funding organizations including the National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and the PREPARE and RECOVER consortia (European Union).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

To improve the pediatric data in the State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report, the Practice Analysis Committee (PAC) developed a pediatric task force to recommend content specific to pediatric practice and garner support for survey participation. The pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) community responded with its usual enthusiasm, resulting in a threefold increase in PHM participation (99 groups), making the data from 2020 SoHM Report the most meaningful ever for pediatric practices.

However, data collection for the 2020 SoHM Report concluded in February, just before the face of medical practice and hospital care changed dramatically. A recent report at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting stated that pre–COVID-19 hospital operating margins had already taken a significant decline (from 5% to 2%-3%), putting pressure on pediatric programs in community settings that typically do not generate much revenue. After COVID-19, hospital revenues took an even greater downturn, affecting many hospital-based pediatric programs. While the future direction of many PHM programs remains unclear, the robust nature of the pediatric data in the 2020 SoHM Report defines where we were and where we once again hope to be. In addition, the PAC conducted a supplemental survey designed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the practice of hospital medicine. Here’s a quick review of PHM highlights from the 2020 SoHM Report, with preliminary findings from the supplemental survey.

Diversity of service and scope of practice: pediatric hospitalist programs continue to provide a wide variety of services beyond care on inpatient wards, with the most common being procedure performance (56.6%), care of healthy newborns (51.5%), and rapid response team (38.4%) coverage. In addition, most PHM programs have a role in comanagement of a wide variety of patient populations, with the greatest presence among the surgical specialties. Approximately 90% of programs report some role in the care of patients admitted to general surgery, orthopedic surgery, and other surgical subspecialties. The role for comanagement with medical specialties remains diverse, with PHM programs routinely having some role in caring for patients hospitalized for neurologic, gastroenterological, cardiac concerns, and others. With the recent decline in hospital revenues affecting PHM practices, one way to ensure program value is to continue to diversify. Based on data from the 2020 SoHM report, broadening of clinical coverage will not require a significant change in practice for most PHM programs.

PHM board certification: With the first certifying exam for PHM taking place just months before SoHM data collection, the survey sought to establish a baseline percentage of providers board certified in PHM. With 98 groups responding, an average of 26.4% of PHM practitioners per group were reported to be board certified. While no difference was seen based on academic status, practitioners in PHM programs employed by a hospital, health system, or integrated delivery system were much more likely to be board certified than those employed by a university or medical school (31% vs. 20%). Regional differences were noted as well, with the East region reporting a much higher median proportion of PHM-certified physicians. It will be interesting to watch the trend in board certification status evolve over the upcoming years.

Anticipated change of budgeted full-time equivalents in the next year/post–COVID-19 analysis: Of the PHM programs responding to the SoHM Survey, 46.5% predicted an increase in budgeted full-time equivalents in the next year, while only 5.1% anticipated a decrease. Expecting this to change in response to COVID-19, the supplemental survey sought to update this information. Of the 30 PHM respondents to the supplemental survey, 41% instituted a temporary hiring freeze because of COVID-19, while 8.3% instituted a hiring freeze felt likely to be permanent. As PHM programs gear up for the next viral season, we wait to see whether the impact of COVID-19 will continue to be reflected in the volume and variety of patients admitted. It is clear that PHM programs will need to remain nimble to stay ahead of the changing landscape of practice in the days ahead. View all data by obtaining access to the 2020 SoHM Report at hospitalmedicine.org/sohm.

Many thanks to pediatric task force members Jack Percelay, MD; Vivien Kon-Ea Sun, MD; Marcos Mestre, MD; Ann Allen, MD; Dimple Khona, MD; Jeff Grill, MD; and Michelle Marks, MD.

Dr. Gage is director of faculty development, pediatric hospital medicine, at Phoenix Children’s Hospital, and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Arizona, Phoenix.

To improve the pediatric data in the State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report, the Practice Analysis Committee (PAC) developed a pediatric task force to recommend content specific to pediatric practice and garner support for survey participation. The pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) community responded with its usual enthusiasm, resulting in a threefold increase in PHM participation (99 groups), making the data from 2020 SoHM Report the most meaningful ever for pediatric practices.

However, data collection for the 2020 SoHM Report concluded in February, just before the face of medical practice and hospital care changed dramatically. A recent report at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting stated that pre–COVID-19 hospital operating margins had already taken a significant decline (from 5% to 2%-3%), putting pressure on pediatric programs in community settings that typically do not generate much revenue. After COVID-19, hospital revenues took an even greater downturn, affecting many hospital-based pediatric programs. While the future direction of many PHM programs remains unclear, the robust nature of the pediatric data in the 2020 SoHM Report defines where we were and where we once again hope to be. In addition, the PAC conducted a supplemental survey designed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the practice of hospital medicine. Here’s a quick review of PHM highlights from the 2020 SoHM Report, with preliminary findings from the supplemental survey.

Diversity of service and scope of practice: pediatric hospitalist programs continue to provide a wide variety of services beyond care on inpatient wards, with the most common being procedure performance (56.6%), care of healthy newborns (51.5%), and rapid response team (38.4%) coverage. In addition, most PHM programs have a role in comanagement of a wide variety of patient populations, with the greatest presence among the surgical specialties. Approximately 90% of programs report some role in the care of patients admitted to general surgery, orthopedic surgery, and other surgical subspecialties. The role for comanagement with medical specialties remains diverse, with PHM programs routinely having some role in caring for patients hospitalized for neurologic, gastroenterological, cardiac concerns, and others. With the recent decline in hospital revenues affecting PHM practices, one way to ensure program value is to continue to diversify. Based on data from the 2020 SoHM report, broadening of clinical coverage will not require a significant change in practice for most PHM programs.

PHM board certification: With the first certifying exam for PHM taking place just months before SoHM data collection, the survey sought to establish a baseline percentage of providers board certified in PHM. With 98 groups responding, an average of 26.4% of PHM practitioners per group were reported to be board certified. While no difference was seen based on academic status, practitioners in PHM programs employed by a hospital, health system, or integrated delivery system were much more likely to be board certified than those employed by a university or medical school (31% vs. 20%). Regional differences were noted as well, with the East region reporting a much higher median proportion of PHM-certified physicians. It will be interesting to watch the trend in board certification status evolve over the upcoming years.

Anticipated change of budgeted full-time equivalents in the next year/post–COVID-19 analysis: Of the PHM programs responding to the SoHM Survey, 46.5% predicted an increase in budgeted full-time equivalents in the next year, while only 5.1% anticipated a decrease. Expecting this to change in response to COVID-19, the supplemental survey sought to update this information. Of the 30 PHM respondents to the supplemental survey, 41% instituted a temporary hiring freeze because of COVID-19, while 8.3% instituted a hiring freeze felt likely to be permanent. As PHM programs gear up for the next viral season, we wait to see whether the impact of COVID-19 will continue to be reflected in the volume and variety of patients admitted. It is clear that PHM programs will need to remain nimble to stay ahead of the changing landscape of practice in the days ahead. View all data by obtaining access to the 2020 SoHM Report at hospitalmedicine.org/sohm.

Many thanks to pediatric task force members Jack Percelay, MD; Vivien Kon-Ea Sun, MD; Marcos Mestre, MD; Ann Allen, MD; Dimple Khona, MD; Jeff Grill, MD; and Michelle Marks, MD.

Dr. Gage is director of faculty development, pediatric hospital medicine, at Phoenix Children’s Hospital, and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Arizona, Phoenix.

To improve the pediatric data in the State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report, the Practice Analysis Committee (PAC) developed a pediatric task force to recommend content specific to pediatric practice and garner support for survey participation. The pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) community responded with its usual enthusiasm, resulting in a threefold increase in PHM participation (99 groups), making the data from 2020 SoHM Report the most meaningful ever for pediatric practices.

However, data collection for the 2020 SoHM Report concluded in February, just before the face of medical practice and hospital care changed dramatically. A recent report at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting stated that pre–COVID-19 hospital operating margins had already taken a significant decline (from 5% to 2%-3%), putting pressure on pediatric programs in community settings that typically do not generate much revenue. After COVID-19, hospital revenues took an even greater downturn, affecting many hospital-based pediatric programs. While the future direction of many PHM programs remains unclear, the robust nature of the pediatric data in the 2020 SoHM Report defines where we were and where we once again hope to be. In addition, the PAC conducted a supplemental survey designed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the practice of hospital medicine. Here’s a quick review of PHM highlights from the 2020 SoHM Report, with preliminary findings from the supplemental survey.

Diversity of service and scope of practice: pediatric hospitalist programs continue to provide a wide variety of services beyond care on inpatient wards, with the most common being procedure performance (56.6%), care of healthy newborns (51.5%), and rapid response team (38.4%) coverage. In addition, most PHM programs have a role in comanagement of a wide variety of patient populations, with the greatest presence among the surgical specialties. Approximately 90% of programs report some role in the care of patients admitted to general surgery, orthopedic surgery, and other surgical subspecialties. The role for comanagement with medical specialties remains diverse, with PHM programs routinely having some role in caring for patients hospitalized for neurologic, gastroenterological, cardiac concerns, and others. With the recent decline in hospital revenues affecting PHM practices, one way to ensure program value is to continue to diversify. Based on data from the 2020 SoHM report, broadening of clinical coverage will not require a significant change in practice for most PHM programs.

PHM board certification: With the first certifying exam for PHM taking place just months before SoHM data collection, the survey sought to establish a baseline percentage of providers board certified in PHM. With 98 groups responding, an average of 26.4% of PHM practitioners per group were reported to be board certified. While no difference was seen based on academic status, practitioners in PHM programs employed by a hospital, health system, or integrated delivery system were much more likely to be board certified than those employed by a university or medical school (31% vs. 20%). Regional differences were noted as well, with the East region reporting a much higher median proportion of PHM-certified physicians. It will be interesting to watch the trend in board certification status evolve over the upcoming years.

Anticipated change of budgeted full-time equivalents in the next year/post–COVID-19 analysis: Of the PHM programs responding to the SoHM Survey, 46.5% predicted an increase in budgeted full-time equivalents in the next year, while only 5.1% anticipated a decrease. Expecting this to change in response to COVID-19, the supplemental survey sought to update this information. Of the 30 PHM respondents to the supplemental survey, 41% instituted a temporary hiring freeze because of COVID-19, while 8.3% instituted a hiring freeze felt likely to be permanent. As PHM programs gear up for the next viral season, we wait to see whether the impact of COVID-19 will continue to be reflected in the volume and variety of patients admitted. It is clear that PHM programs will need to remain nimble to stay ahead of the changing landscape of practice in the days ahead. View all data by obtaining access to the 2020 SoHM Report at hospitalmedicine.org/sohm.

Many thanks to pediatric task force members Jack Percelay, MD; Vivien Kon-Ea Sun, MD; Marcos Mestre, MD; Ann Allen, MD; Dimple Khona, MD; Jeff Grill, MD; and Michelle Marks, MD.

Dr. Gage is director of faculty development, pediatric hospital medicine, at Phoenix Children’s Hospital, and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Arizona, Phoenix.

Physician burnout remains at a critical level, at 42% overall – the same percentage as last year – but COVID-19 has changed the specialties hit hardest, according to Medscape’s Death by 1,000 Cuts: Physician Burnout & Suicide Report.

Critical care physicians now top the list of those experiencing burnout, at 51%, up from 44% last year, followed by rheumatologists (50%, up from 46%) and infectious disease specialists (49%, up from 45%). Forty-nine percent of urologists reported burnout, but that was a reduction from 54% last year.

Last year, the specialties burdened most by burnout were urology, neurology, nephrology, endocrinology, and family medicine.
 

Women hit particularly hard

Women in medicine traditionally have experienced higher levels of burnout than men, and the pandemic seems to have widened that gap, with the divide now at 51% for women and 36% for men.

“Many women physicians are in families with children at home,” said Carol Bernstein, MD, psychiatrist at Montefiore Medical Center, New York. “It’s already known that women assume more responsibilities in the home than do men. The pressures have increased during COVID-19 – having to be their child’s teacher during home schooling, no child care, and the grandparents can’t babysit. In addition, all doctors and nurses are worried about bringing the virus home to their families.”

Data were collected from Aug. 30 through Nov. 5, 2020. More than 12,000 physicians from 29 specialties responded.

For many, (79%) burnout has been building over years, but for some (21%), it started with the pandemic. Factors cited include lack of adequate personal protective equipment, grief from losing patients, watching families suffer, long hours, and difficult working conditions.

More than 70% of those who responded feel that burnout has had at least a moderate impact on their lives.

“One-tenth consider it severe enough to consider leaving medicine,” survey authors wrote, “an unexpected outcome after having spent so many years in training to become a physician.”

Tragically, an estimated 300 physicians each year in the United States are consumed by the struggle and take their own lives.
 

One percent have attempted suicide

In this survey, 13% of physicians had thoughts of suicide, and 1% have attempted it; 81% said they had no thoughts of suicide; and 5% preferred not to answer.

By specialty, obstetricians/gynecologists were most likely to have thoughts of suicide (19%), followed by orthopedists (18%) and otolaryngologists and plastic surgeons (17%).

“I yell all the time, I am angry and frustrated all the time. I think about quitting all the time,” said an internist who admitted having suicidal thoughts. “No one in my organization cares about doing the right things for patients as much as I do.”

Yet, many with such thoughts tell no one. By age group, 32% of millennials, 40% of generation X physicians, and 41% of baby boomer physicians who had had thoughts of suicide said they had told no one about those thoughts.

Fear of being reported to the medical board, fear of colleagues finding out, and other factors perpetuate a cycle of burnout and depression, and most don’t seek help.

Top reasons physicians listed for not seeking help for burnout and depression include “symptoms are not severe enough” (52%); “I can deal with without help from a professional” (46%); and feeling “too busy” (40%).
 

Administrative tasks fuel burnout

The top driver of burnout continues to be “too many administrative tasks.” This year, 58% put it at the top. The next highest categories (named by 37%) were “spending too many hours at work” and “lack of respect from administrators/employers, colleagues or staff.” Others mentioned lack of control or insufficient compensation and government regulations.

Notably, only 8% said stress from treating COVID-19 patients was the top driver.

An internist said, “I’m working 6 days a week, nights, weekends, holidays!”

A general surgeon said, “Being forced to see four patients an hour when complicated patients and procedures are involved” was the biggest contributor to burnout.

One physician in the survey summarized it: “It’s all of these causes; it’s death by 1,000 cuts.”
 

Exercise tops coping list

Asked how they cope with stress and burnout, physicians put exercise at the top (48%). Next was talking with family and friends (43%), though 43% said they cope by isolating themselves.

Drinking alcohol and overeating junk food were up slightly in the past year: for alcohol, 26%, up from 24%; for junk food, 35%, up from 33%.

The action respondents said would help most to reduce burnout was “increased compensation to avoid financial stress,” chosen by 45%. Next, at 42%, was “more manageable work and schedule,” followed by greater respect from employers, colleagues, and staff (39%).

Asked whether their workplace offered programs to reduce stress and/or burnout, almost half (47%) of physicians said no; 35% said yes; and 18% didn’t know.

Participation in such programs has been low. Almost half (42%) of physicians in this survey said they would be unlikely to attend such a program. Thirty percent they would be likely to participate; 28% said they were neutral on the idea.

“Anti-stress/burnout programs focus on individual approaches to much larger problems,” Wendy K. Dean, MD, psychiatrist and president of Moral Injury of Healthcare, said in an interview. “The programs offer temporary symptomatic relief rather than lasting systemic change. Many physicians are frustrated by these approaches.”

A study last year by the Mayo Clinic found that “the most efficacious strategy to alleviate physician burnout will target organization-directed changes rather than the level of the individual.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician burnout remains at a critical level, at 42% overall – the same percentage as last year – but COVID-19 has changed the specialties hit hardest, according to Medscape’s Death by 1,000 Cuts: Physician Burnout & Suicide Report.

Critical care physicians now top the list of those experiencing burnout, at 51%, up from 44% last year, followed by rheumatologists (50%, up from 46%) and infectious disease specialists (49%, up from 45%). Forty-nine percent of urologists reported burnout, but that was a reduction from 54% last year.

Last year, the specialties burdened most by burnout were urology, neurology, nephrology, endocrinology, and family medicine.
 

Women hit particularly hard

Women in medicine traditionally have experienced higher levels of burnout than men, and the pandemic seems to have widened that gap, with the divide now at 51% for women and 36% for men.

“Many women physicians are in families with children at home,” said Carol Bernstein, MD, psychiatrist at Montefiore Medical Center, New York. “It’s already known that women assume more responsibilities in the home than do men. The pressures have increased during COVID-19 – having to be their child’s teacher during home schooling, no child care, and the grandparents can’t babysit. In addition, all doctors and nurses are worried about bringing the virus home to their families.”

Data were collected from Aug. 30 through Nov. 5, 2020. More than 12,000 physicians from 29 specialties responded.

For many, (79%) burnout has been building over years, but for some (21%), it started with the pandemic. Factors cited include lack of adequate personal protective equipment, grief from losing patients, watching families suffer, long hours, and difficult working conditions.

More than 70% of those who responded feel that burnout has had at least a moderate impact on their lives.

“One-tenth consider it severe enough to consider leaving medicine,” survey authors wrote, “an unexpected outcome after having spent so many years in training to become a physician.”

Tragically, an estimated 300 physicians each year in the United States are consumed by the struggle and take their own lives.
 

One percent have attempted suicide

In this survey, 13% of physicians had thoughts of suicide, and 1% have attempted it; 81% said they had no thoughts of suicide; and 5% preferred not to answer.

By specialty, obstetricians/gynecologists were most likely to have thoughts of suicide (19%), followed by orthopedists (18%) and otolaryngologists and plastic surgeons (17%).

“I yell all the time, I am angry and frustrated all the time. I think about quitting all the time,” said an internist who admitted having suicidal thoughts. “No one in my organization cares about doing the right things for patients as much as I do.”

Yet, many with such thoughts tell no one. By age group, 32% of millennials, 40% of generation X physicians, and 41% of baby boomer physicians who had had thoughts of suicide said they had told no one about those thoughts.

Fear of being reported to the medical board, fear of colleagues finding out, and other factors perpetuate a cycle of burnout and depression, and most don’t seek help.

Top reasons physicians listed for not seeking help for burnout and depression include “symptoms are not severe enough” (52%); “I can deal with without help from a professional” (46%); and feeling “too busy” (40%).
 

Administrative tasks fuel burnout

The top driver of burnout continues to be “too many administrative tasks.” This year, 58% put it at the top. The next highest categories (named by 37%) were “spending too many hours at work” and “lack of respect from administrators/employers, colleagues or staff.” Others mentioned lack of control or insufficient compensation and government regulations.

Notably, only 8% said stress from treating COVID-19 patients was the top driver.

An internist said, “I’m working 6 days a week, nights, weekends, holidays!”

A general surgeon said, “Being forced to see four patients an hour when complicated patients and procedures are involved” was the biggest contributor to burnout.

One physician in the survey summarized it: “It’s all of these causes; it’s death by 1,000 cuts.”
 

Exercise tops coping list

Asked how they cope with stress and burnout, physicians put exercise at the top (48%). Next was talking with family and friends (43%), though 43% said they cope by isolating themselves.

Drinking alcohol and overeating junk food were up slightly in the past year: for alcohol, 26%, up from 24%; for junk food, 35%, up from 33%.

The action respondents said would help most to reduce burnout was “increased compensation to avoid financial stress,” chosen by 45%. Next, at 42%, was “more manageable work and schedule,” followed by greater respect from employers, colleagues, and staff (39%).

Asked whether their workplace offered programs to reduce stress and/or burnout, almost half (47%) of physicians said no; 35% said yes; and 18% didn’t know.

Participation in such programs has been low. Almost half (42%) of physicians in this survey said they would be unlikely to attend such a program. Thirty percent they would be likely to participate; 28% said they were neutral on the idea.

“Anti-stress/burnout programs focus on individual approaches to much larger problems,” Wendy K. Dean, MD, psychiatrist and president of Moral Injury of Healthcare, said in an interview. “The programs offer temporary symptomatic relief rather than lasting systemic change. Many physicians are frustrated by these approaches.”

A study last year by the Mayo Clinic found that “the most efficacious strategy to alleviate physician burnout will target organization-directed changes rather than the level of the individual.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician burnout remains at a critical level, at 42% overall – the same percentage as last year – but COVID-19 has changed the specialties hit hardest, according to Medscape’s Death by 1,000 Cuts: Physician Burnout & Suicide Report.

Critical care physicians now top the list of those experiencing burnout, at 51%, up from 44% last year, followed by rheumatologists (50%, up from 46%) and infectious disease specialists (49%, up from 45%). Forty-nine percent of urologists reported burnout, but that was a reduction from 54% last year.

Last year, the specialties burdened most by burnout were urology, neurology, nephrology, endocrinology, and family medicine.
 

Women hit particularly hard

Women in medicine traditionally have experienced higher levels of burnout than men, and the pandemic seems to have widened that gap, with the divide now at 51% for women and 36% for men.

“Many women physicians are in families with children at home,” said Carol Bernstein, MD, psychiatrist at Montefiore Medical Center, New York. “It’s already known that women assume more responsibilities in the home than do men. The pressures have increased during COVID-19 – having to be their child’s teacher during home schooling, no child care, and the grandparents can’t babysit. In addition, all doctors and nurses are worried about bringing the virus home to their families.”

Data were collected from Aug. 30 through Nov. 5, 2020. More than 12,000 physicians from 29 specialties responded.

For many, (79%) burnout has been building over years, but for some (21%), it started with the pandemic. Factors cited include lack of adequate personal protective equipment, grief from losing patients, watching families suffer, long hours, and difficult working conditions.

More than 70% of those who responded feel that burnout has had at least a moderate impact on their lives.

“One-tenth consider it severe enough to consider leaving medicine,” survey authors wrote, “an unexpected outcome after having spent so many years in training to become a physician.”

Tragically, an estimated 300 physicians each year in the United States are consumed by the struggle and take their own lives.
 

One percent have attempted suicide

In this survey, 13% of physicians had thoughts of suicide, and 1% have attempted it; 81% said they had no thoughts of suicide; and 5% preferred not to answer.

By specialty, obstetricians/gynecologists were most likely to have thoughts of suicide (19%), followed by orthopedists (18%) and otolaryngologists and plastic surgeons (17%).

“I yell all the time, I am angry and frustrated all the time. I think about quitting all the time,” said an internist who admitted having suicidal thoughts. “No one in my organization cares about doing the right things for patients as much as I do.”

Yet, many with such thoughts tell no one. By age group, 32% of millennials, 40% of generation X physicians, and 41% of baby boomer physicians who had had thoughts of suicide said they had told no one about those thoughts.

Fear of being reported to the medical board, fear of colleagues finding out, and other factors perpetuate a cycle of burnout and depression, and most don’t seek help.

Top reasons physicians listed for not seeking help for burnout and depression include “symptoms are not severe enough” (52%); “I can deal with without help from a professional” (46%); and feeling “too busy” (40%).
 

Administrative tasks fuel burnout

The top driver of burnout continues to be “too many administrative tasks.” This year, 58% put it at the top. The next highest categories (named by 37%) were “spending too many hours at work” and “lack of respect from administrators/employers, colleagues or staff.” Others mentioned lack of control or insufficient compensation and government regulations.

Notably, only 8% said stress from treating COVID-19 patients was the top driver.

An internist said, “I’m working 6 days a week, nights, weekends, holidays!”

A general surgeon said, “Being forced to see four patients an hour when complicated patients and procedures are involved” was the biggest contributor to burnout.

One physician in the survey summarized it: “It’s all of these causes; it’s death by 1,000 cuts.”
 

Exercise tops coping list

Asked how they cope with stress and burnout, physicians put exercise at the top (48%). Next was talking with family and friends (43%), though 43% said they cope by isolating themselves.

Drinking alcohol and overeating junk food were up slightly in the past year: for alcohol, 26%, up from 24%; for junk food, 35%, up from 33%.

The action respondents said would help most to reduce burnout was “increased compensation to avoid financial stress,” chosen by 45%. Next, at 42%, was “more manageable work and schedule,” followed by greater respect from employers, colleagues, and staff (39%).

Asked whether their workplace offered programs to reduce stress and/or burnout, almost half (47%) of physicians said no; 35% said yes; and 18% didn’t know.

Participation in such programs has been low. Almost half (42%) of physicians in this survey said they would be unlikely to attend such a program. Thirty percent they would be likely to participate; 28% said they were neutral on the idea.

“Anti-stress/burnout programs focus on individual approaches to much larger problems,” Wendy K. Dean, MD, psychiatrist and president of Moral Injury of Healthcare, said in an interview. “The programs offer temporary symptomatic relief rather than lasting systemic change. Many physicians are frustrated by these approaches.”

A study last year by the Mayo Clinic found that “the most efficacious strategy to alleviate physician burnout will target organization-directed changes rather than the level of the individual.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Income inequality corresponds to higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality beyond the effects of race and ethnicity, according to an analysis of U.S. county-level data.

Courtesy NIAID

The study, published in JAMA Network Open (2021 Jan 20. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.34578), was led by Tim F. Liao, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Fernando de Maio, of DePaul University, Chicago. They wrote: “This analysis confirms the association between racial/ethnic composition and COVID-19 incidence and mortality. A higher level of Black or Hispanic composition in a county is associated with a higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality; a higher level of economic inequality is also associated with a higher level of incidence and mortality.”

The analysis, which examined data from the first 200 days of the pandemic from January to August 2020, examined the joint associations between income inequality and racial and ethnic composition. Researchers mined data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Census Bureau, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and other sources for 3,142 U.S. counties.

Income inequality was measured with the Gini index, on a 0-100 scale, with zero meaning perfect income equality (everyone has the same income) and 100 meaning perfect inequality (only one person or group has all of the income). The average Gini score across all the counties was 44.5, with a range of 25.6-66.5.

Researchers found that, for every 1.0% increase in a county’s Black population, there was a 1.9% increase in COVID-19 incidence (risk ratio, 1.019; 95% confidence interval, 1.016-1.022) and a 2.6% increase in COVID-19 mortality (RR, 1.026; 95% CI, 1.020-1.033). For every 1.0% increase in a county’s Hispanic population, there was a 2.4% increase in incidence (RR, 1.024; 95% CI, 1.012-1.025) and a 1.9% increase in mortality (RR, 1.019; 95% CI, 1.012-1.025).

Income inequality had an even greater effect on COVID-19 incidence and mortality. For each 1.0% rise in a county’s income inequality, there was a 2.0% rise in incidence (RR, 1.020; 95% CI, 1.012-1.027), and a 3.0% rise in mortality (RR, 1.030; 95% CI, 1.012-1.047).

In counties with lower percentages of Black and Hispanic population – up to about 50% for blacks and about 20%-30% for Hispanics – greater income inequality was correlated with higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality. But as the proportion of the Black and Hispanic population increased, race and ethnic population became the much more dominant predictive factor. In other words, the researchers said, income inequality seems to become less of a factor in COVID-related health as the minority population number grows in a given county.

“This finding implies that counties with relatively low proportions of Black or Hispanic residents may experience health effects of income inequality associated with the neomaterial pathway, which connects income inequality to population health through the breakdown of public infrastructure,” such as education, transportation and health care, the researchers said.

The study also examined the interaction between these factors and political attributes of a county, such as whether a governor faced a term limit, was Republican, or was male, and these were found to have no effect on COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Counties in states participating in Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act had a 32% lower COVID-19 incidence rate, researchers found, but there was no correlation with mortality rates.

“This analysis found racial/ethnic composition, while important, does not reveal the full complexity of the story,” the researchers wrote. “Income inequality – a measure not typically included in public health county-level surveillance – also needs to be considered as a driver of the disproportionate burden borne by minoritized communities across the United States.”

The findings, they said, support using composite variables that “measure both income inequality and racial/ethnic composition simultaneously.”

The investigators had no disclosures.

Income inequality corresponds to higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality beyond the effects of race and ethnicity, according to an analysis of U.S. county-level data.

Courtesy NIAID

The study, published in JAMA Network Open (2021 Jan 20. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.34578), was led by Tim F. Liao, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Fernando de Maio, of DePaul University, Chicago. They wrote: “This analysis confirms the association between racial/ethnic composition and COVID-19 incidence and mortality. A higher level of Black or Hispanic composition in a county is associated with a higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality; a higher level of economic inequality is also associated with a higher level of incidence and mortality.”

The analysis, which examined data from the first 200 days of the pandemic from January to August 2020, examined the joint associations between income inequality and racial and ethnic composition. Researchers mined data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Census Bureau, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and other sources for 3,142 U.S. counties.

Income inequality was measured with the Gini index, on a 0-100 scale, with zero meaning perfect income equality (everyone has the same income) and 100 meaning perfect inequality (only one person or group has all of the income). The average Gini score across all the counties was 44.5, with a range of 25.6-66.5.

Researchers found that, for every 1.0% increase in a county’s Black population, there was a 1.9% increase in COVID-19 incidence (risk ratio, 1.019; 95% confidence interval, 1.016-1.022) and a 2.6% increase in COVID-19 mortality (RR, 1.026; 95% CI, 1.020-1.033). For every 1.0% increase in a county’s Hispanic population, there was a 2.4% increase in incidence (RR, 1.024; 95% CI, 1.012-1.025) and a 1.9% increase in mortality (RR, 1.019; 95% CI, 1.012-1.025).

Income inequality had an even greater effect on COVID-19 incidence and mortality. For each 1.0% rise in a county’s income inequality, there was a 2.0% rise in incidence (RR, 1.020; 95% CI, 1.012-1.027), and a 3.0% rise in mortality (RR, 1.030; 95% CI, 1.012-1.047).

In counties with lower percentages of Black and Hispanic population – up to about 50% for blacks and about 20%-30% for Hispanics – greater income inequality was correlated with higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality. But as the proportion of the Black and Hispanic population increased, race and ethnic population became the much more dominant predictive factor. In other words, the researchers said, income inequality seems to become less of a factor in COVID-related health as the minority population number grows in a given county.

“This finding implies that counties with relatively low proportions of Black or Hispanic residents may experience health effects of income inequality associated with the neomaterial pathway, which connects income inequality to population health through the breakdown of public infrastructure,” such as education, transportation and health care, the researchers said.

The study also examined the interaction between these factors and political attributes of a county, such as whether a governor faced a term limit, was Republican, or was male, and these were found to have no effect on COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Counties in states participating in Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act had a 32% lower COVID-19 incidence rate, researchers found, but there was no correlation with mortality rates.

“This analysis found racial/ethnic composition, while important, does not reveal the full complexity of the story,” the researchers wrote. “Income inequality – a measure not typically included in public health county-level surveillance – also needs to be considered as a driver of the disproportionate burden borne by minoritized communities across the United States.”

The findings, they said, support using composite variables that “measure both income inequality and racial/ethnic composition simultaneously.”

The investigators had no disclosures.

Income inequality corresponds to higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality beyond the effects of race and ethnicity, according to an analysis of U.S. county-level data.

Courtesy NIAID

The study, published in JAMA Network Open (2021 Jan 20. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.34578), was led by Tim F. Liao, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Fernando de Maio, of DePaul University, Chicago. They wrote: “This analysis confirms the association between racial/ethnic composition and COVID-19 incidence and mortality. A higher level of Black or Hispanic composition in a county is associated with a higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality; a higher level of economic inequality is also associated with a higher level of incidence and mortality.”

The analysis, which examined data from the first 200 days of the pandemic from January to August 2020, examined the joint associations between income inequality and racial and ethnic composition. Researchers mined data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Census Bureau, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and other sources for 3,142 U.S. counties.

Income inequality was measured with the Gini index, on a 0-100 scale, with zero meaning perfect income equality (everyone has the same income) and 100 meaning perfect inequality (only one person or group has all of the income). The average Gini score across all the counties was 44.5, with a range of 25.6-66.5.

Researchers found that, for every 1.0% increase in a county’s Black population, there was a 1.9% increase in COVID-19 incidence (risk ratio, 1.019; 95% confidence interval, 1.016-1.022) and a 2.6% increase in COVID-19 mortality (RR, 1.026; 95% CI, 1.020-1.033). For every 1.0% increase in a county’s Hispanic population, there was a 2.4% increase in incidence (RR, 1.024; 95% CI, 1.012-1.025) and a 1.9% increase in mortality (RR, 1.019; 95% CI, 1.012-1.025).

Income inequality had an even greater effect on COVID-19 incidence and mortality. For each 1.0% rise in a county’s income inequality, there was a 2.0% rise in incidence (RR, 1.020; 95% CI, 1.012-1.027), and a 3.0% rise in mortality (RR, 1.030; 95% CI, 1.012-1.047).

In counties with lower percentages of Black and Hispanic population – up to about 50% for blacks and about 20%-30% for Hispanics – greater income inequality was correlated with higher COVID-19 incidence and mortality. But as the proportion of the Black and Hispanic population increased, race and ethnic population became the much more dominant predictive factor. In other words, the researchers said, income inequality seems to become less of a factor in COVID-related health as the minority population number grows in a given county.

“This finding implies that counties with relatively low proportions of Black or Hispanic residents may experience health effects of income inequality associated with the neomaterial pathway, which connects income inequality to population health through the breakdown of public infrastructure,” such as education, transportation and health care, the researchers said.

The study also examined the interaction between these factors and political attributes of a county, such as whether a governor faced a term limit, was Republican, or was male, and these were found to have no effect on COVID-19 incidence and mortality. Counties in states participating in Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act had a 32% lower COVID-19 incidence rate, researchers found, but there was no correlation with mortality rates.

“This analysis found racial/ethnic composition, while important, does not reveal the full complexity of the story,” the researchers wrote. “Income inequality – a measure not typically included in public health county-level surveillance – also needs to be considered as a driver of the disproportionate burden borne by minoritized communities across the United States.”

The findings, they said, support using composite variables that “measure both income inequality and racial/ethnic composition simultaneously.”

The investigators had no disclosures.

About 20 states across the country have detected the more transmissible B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant to date. Given the unknowns of the emerging situation, experts with the Infectious Diseases Society of America addressed vaccine effectiveness, how well equipped the United States is to track new mutations, and shared their impressions of President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 executive orders.

One of the major concerns remains the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to work on new strains. “All of our vaccines target the spike protein and try to elicit neutralizing antibodies that bind to that protein,” Mirella Salvatore, MD, assistant professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said during an IDSA press briefing on Thursday.

The B.1.1.7 mutation occurs in the “very important” spike protein, a component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus necessary for binding, which allows the virus to enter cells, added Dr. Salvatore, an IDSA fellow.

The evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 should be capable of producing one or two mutations per month. However, the B.1.1.7 variant surprised investigators in the United Kingdom when they first discovered the strain had 17 mutations, Dr. Salvatore said.

It’s still unknown why this particular strain is more transmissible, but Dr. Salvatore speculated that the mutation gives the virus an advantage and increases binding, allowing it to enter cells more easily. She added that the mutations might have arisen among immunocompromised people infected with SARS-CoV-2, but “that is just a hypothesis.”

On a positive note, Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, another IDSA fellow, explained at the briefing that the existing vaccines target more than one location on the virus’ spike protein. Therefore, “if there is a mutation that changes one structure of the spike protein, there will be other areas where the binding can occur.”

This polyclonal response “is why the vaccine can still be effective against this virus,” added Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Dr. Salvatore emphasized that, although the new variant is more transmissible, it doesn’t appear to be more lethal. “This might affect overall mortality but not for the individual who gets the infection.”
 

Staying one step ahead

When asked for assurance that COVID-19 vaccines will work against emerging variants, Dr. Edwards said, “It may be we will have to change the vaccine so it is more responsive to new variants, but at this point that does not seem to be the case.”

Should the vaccines require an update, the messenger RNA vaccines have an advantage – researchers can rapidly revise them. “All you need to do is put all the little nucleotides together,” Dr. Edwards said.

“A number of us are looking at how this will work, and we look to influenza,” she added. Dr. Edwards drew an analogy to choosing – and sometimes updating – the influenza strains each year for the annual flu vaccine. With appropriate funding, the same system could be replicated to address any evolving changes to SARS-CoV-2.

On funding, Dr. Salvatore said more money would be required to optimize the surveillance system for emerging strains in the United States.

“We actually have this system – there is a wonderful network that sequences the influenza strains,” she said. “The structure exists, we just need the funding.”

“The CDC is getting the system tooled up to get more viruses to be sequenced,” Dr. Edwards said.

Both experts praised the CDC for its website with up-to-date surveillance information on emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2.
 

President Biden’s backing of science

A reporter asked each infectious disease expert to share their impression of President Biden’s newly signed COVID-19 executive orders.

“The biggest takeaway is the role of science and the lessons we’ve learned from masks, handwashing, and distancing,” Dr. Edwards said. “We need to heed the advice ... [especially] with a variant that is more contagious.

“It is encouraging that science will be listened to – that is the overall message,” she added.

Dr. Salvatore agreed, saying that the orders give “the feeling that we can now act by following science.”

“We have plenty of papers that show the effectiveness of masking,” for example, she said. Dr. Salvatore acknowledged that there are “a lot of contrasting ideas about masking” across the United States but stressed their importance.

“We should follow measures that we know work,” she said.

Both experts said more research is needed to stay ahead of this evolving scenario. “We still need a lot of basic science showing how this virus replicates in the cell,” Dr. Salvatore said. “We need to really characterize all these mutations and their functions.”

“We need to be concerned, do follow-up studies,” she added, “but we don’t need to panic.”

This article was based on an Infectious Diseases Society of America Media Briefing on Jan. 21, 2021. Dr. Salvatore disclosed that she is a site principal investigator on a study from Verily Life Sciences/Brin Foundation on Predictors of Severe COVID-19 Outcomes and principal investigator for an investigator-initiated study sponsored by Genentech on combination therapy in influenza. Dr. Edwards disclosed National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants; consulting for Bionet and IBM; and being a member of data safety and monitoring committees for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, and Merck.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About 20 states across the country have detected the more transmissible B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant to date. Given the unknowns of the emerging situation, experts with the Infectious Diseases Society of America addressed vaccine effectiveness, how well equipped the United States is to track new mutations, and shared their impressions of President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 executive orders.

One of the major concerns remains the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to work on new strains. “All of our vaccines target the spike protein and try to elicit neutralizing antibodies that bind to that protein,” Mirella Salvatore, MD, assistant professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said during an IDSA press briefing on Thursday.

The B.1.1.7 mutation occurs in the “very important” spike protein, a component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus necessary for binding, which allows the virus to enter cells, added Dr. Salvatore, an IDSA fellow.

The evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 should be capable of producing one or two mutations per month. However, the B.1.1.7 variant surprised investigators in the United Kingdom when they first discovered the strain had 17 mutations, Dr. Salvatore said.

It’s still unknown why this particular strain is more transmissible, but Dr. Salvatore speculated that the mutation gives the virus an advantage and increases binding, allowing it to enter cells more easily. She added that the mutations might have arisen among immunocompromised people infected with SARS-CoV-2, but “that is just a hypothesis.”

On a positive note, Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, another IDSA fellow, explained at the briefing that the existing vaccines target more than one location on the virus’ spike protein. Therefore, “if there is a mutation that changes one structure of the spike protein, there will be other areas where the binding can occur.”

This polyclonal response “is why the vaccine can still be effective against this virus,” added Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Dr. Salvatore emphasized that, although the new variant is more transmissible, it doesn’t appear to be more lethal. “This might affect overall mortality but not for the individual who gets the infection.”
 

Staying one step ahead

When asked for assurance that COVID-19 vaccines will work against emerging variants, Dr. Edwards said, “It may be we will have to change the vaccine so it is more responsive to new variants, but at this point that does not seem to be the case.”

Should the vaccines require an update, the messenger RNA vaccines have an advantage – researchers can rapidly revise them. “All you need to do is put all the little nucleotides together,” Dr. Edwards said.

“A number of us are looking at how this will work, and we look to influenza,” she added. Dr. Edwards drew an analogy to choosing – and sometimes updating – the influenza strains each year for the annual flu vaccine. With appropriate funding, the same system could be replicated to address any evolving changes to SARS-CoV-2.

On funding, Dr. Salvatore said more money would be required to optimize the surveillance system for emerging strains in the United States.

“We actually have this system – there is a wonderful network that sequences the influenza strains,” she said. “The structure exists, we just need the funding.”

“The CDC is getting the system tooled up to get more viruses to be sequenced,” Dr. Edwards said.

Both experts praised the CDC for its website with up-to-date surveillance information on emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2.
 

President Biden’s backing of science

A reporter asked each infectious disease expert to share their impression of President Biden’s newly signed COVID-19 executive orders.

“The biggest takeaway is the role of science and the lessons we’ve learned from masks, handwashing, and distancing,” Dr. Edwards said. “We need to heed the advice ... [especially] with a variant that is more contagious.

“It is encouraging that science will be listened to – that is the overall message,” she added.

Dr. Salvatore agreed, saying that the orders give “the feeling that we can now act by following science.”

“We have plenty of papers that show the effectiveness of masking,” for example, she said. Dr. Salvatore acknowledged that there are “a lot of contrasting ideas about masking” across the United States but stressed their importance.

“We should follow measures that we know work,” she said.

Both experts said more research is needed to stay ahead of this evolving scenario. “We still need a lot of basic science showing how this virus replicates in the cell,” Dr. Salvatore said. “We need to really characterize all these mutations and their functions.”

“We need to be concerned, do follow-up studies,” she added, “but we don’t need to panic.”

This article was based on an Infectious Diseases Society of America Media Briefing on Jan. 21, 2021. Dr. Salvatore disclosed that she is a site principal investigator on a study from Verily Life Sciences/Brin Foundation on Predictors of Severe COVID-19 Outcomes and principal investigator for an investigator-initiated study sponsored by Genentech on combination therapy in influenza. Dr. Edwards disclosed National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants; consulting for Bionet and IBM; and being a member of data safety and monitoring committees for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, and Merck.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About 20 states across the country have detected the more transmissible B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant to date. Given the unknowns of the emerging situation, experts with the Infectious Diseases Society of America addressed vaccine effectiveness, how well equipped the United States is to track new mutations, and shared their impressions of President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 executive orders.

One of the major concerns remains the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to work on new strains. “All of our vaccines target the spike protein and try to elicit neutralizing antibodies that bind to that protein,” Mirella Salvatore, MD, assistant professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said during an IDSA press briefing on Thursday.

The B.1.1.7 mutation occurs in the “very important” spike protein, a component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus necessary for binding, which allows the virus to enter cells, added Dr. Salvatore, an IDSA fellow.

The evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 should be capable of producing one or two mutations per month. However, the B.1.1.7 variant surprised investigators in the United Kingdom when they first discovered the strain had 17 mutations, Dr. Salvatore said.

It’s still unknown why this particular strain is more transmissible, but Dr. Salvatore speculated that the mutation gives the virus an advantage and increases binding, allowing it to enter cells more easily. She added that the mutations might have arisen among immunocompromised people infected with SARS-CoV-2, but “that is just a hypothesis.”

On a positive note, Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, another IDSA fellow, explained at the briefing that the existing vaccines target more than one location on the virus’ spike protein. Therefore, “if there is a mutation that changes one structure of the spike protein, there will be other areas where the binding can occur.”

This polyclonal response “is why the vaccine can still be effective against this virus,” added Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Dr. Salvatore emphasized that, although the new variant is more transmissible, it doesn’t appear to be more lethal. “This might affect overall mortality but not for the individual who gets the infection.”
 

Staying one step ahead

When asked for assurance that COVID-19 vaccines will work against emerging variants, Dr. Edwards said, “It may be we will have to change the vaccine so it is more responsive to new variants, but at this point that does not seem to be the case.”

Should the vaccines require an update, the messenger RNA vaccines have an advantage – researchers can rapidly revise them. “All you need to do is put all the little nucleotides together,” Dr. Edwards said.

“A number of us are looking at how this will work, and we look to influenza,” she added. Dr. Edwards drew an analogy to choosing – and sometimes updating – the influenza strains each year for the annual flu vaccine. With appropriate funding, the same system could be replicated to address any evolving changes to SARS-CoV-2.

On funding, Dr. Salvatore said more money would be required to optimize the surveillance system for emerging strains in the United States.

“We actually have this system – there is a wonderful network that sequences the influenza strains,” she said. “The structure exists, we just need the funding.”

“The CDC is getting the system tooled up to get more viruses to be sequenced,” Dr. Edwards said.

Both experts praised the CDC for its website with up-to-date surveillance information on emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2.
 

President Biden’s backing of science

A reporter asked each infectious disease expert to share their impression of President Biden’s newly signed COVID-19 executive orders.

“The biggest takeaway is the role of science and the lessons we’ve learned from masks, handwashing, and distancing,” Dr. Edwards said. “We need to heed the advice ... [especially] with a variant that is more contagious.

“It is encouraging that science will be listened to – that is the overall message,” she added.

Dr. Salvatore agreed, saying that the orders give “the feeling that we can now act by following science.”

“We have plenty of papers that show the effectiveness of masking,” for example, she said. Dr. Salvatore acknowledged that there are “a lot of contrasting ideas about masking” across the United States but stressed their importance.

“We should follow measures that we know work,” she said.

Both experts said more research is needed to stay ahead of this evolving scenario. “We still need a lot of basic science showing how this virus replicates in the cell,” Dr. Salvatore said. “We need to really characterize all these mutations and their functions.”

“We need to be concerned, do follow-up studies,” she added, “but we don’t need to panic.”

This article was based on an Infectious Diseases Society of America Media Briefing on Jan. 21, 2021. Dr. Salvatore disclosed that she is a site principal investigator on a study from Verily Life Sciences/Brin Foundation on Predictors of Severe COVID-19 Outcomes and principal investigator for an investigator-initiated study sponsored by Genentech on combination therapy in influenza. Dr. Edwards disclosed National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants; consulting for Bionet and IBM; and being a member of data safety and monitoring committees for Sanofi, X-4 Pharma, Seqirus, Moderna, Pfizer, and Merck.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Institutes of Health has dropped its recommendation against the inexpensive antiparasitic drug ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19, and the agency now advises it can’t recommend for or against its use, leaving the decision to physicians and their patients.

“Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19,” according to new NIH guidance released last week.

Passionate arguments have been waged for and against the drug’s use.

The NIH update disappointed members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which outlined its case for endorsing ivermectin in a public statement Jan. 18. Point by point, the group of 10 physicians argued against each limitation that drove the NIH’s ruling.

The group’s members said that, although grateful the recommendation against the drug was dropped, a neutral approach is not acceptable as total U.S. deaths surpassed 400,000 since last spring – and currently approach 4,000 a day. Results from research are enough to support its use, and the drug will immediately save lives, they say.

“Patients do not have time to wait,” they write, “and we as health care providers in society do not have that time either.”

NIH, which in August had recommended against ivermectin’s use, invited the group to present evidence to its treatment guidance panel on Jan. 6 to detail the emerging science surrounding ivermectin. The group cited rapidly growing evidence of the drug’s effectiveness.

Pierre Kory, MD, president/cofounder of FLCCC and a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee, also spoke before a Senate panel on Dec. 8 in a widely shared impassioned video, touting ivermectin as a COVID-19 “miracle” drug, a term he said he doesn’t use lightly.

Dr. Kory pleaded with the NIH to consider the emerging data. “Please, I’m just asking that they review our manuscript,” he told the senators.

“We have immense amounts of data to show that ivermectin must be implemented and implemented now,” he said.
 

Some draw parallels to hydroxychloroquine

Critics have said there’s not enough data to institute a protocol, and some draw parallels to another repurposed drug – hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) – which was once considered a promising treatment for COVID-19, based on flawed and incomplete evidence, and now is not recommended.

Paul Sax, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard and clinical director of the HIV program and division of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, wrote in a blog post earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medicine Journal Watch that ivermectin has more robust evidence for it than HCQ ever did.

“But we’re not quite yet at the ‘practice changing’ level,” he writes. “Results from at least five randomized clinical trials are expected soon that might further inform the decision.”

He said the best argument for the drug is seen in this explanation of a meta-analysis of studies of between 100 and 500 patients by Andrew Hill, MD, with the department of pharmacology, University of Liverpool (England).

Dr. Sax advises against two biases in considering ivermectin. One is assuming that because HCQ failed, other antiparasitic drugs will too.

The second bias to avoid, he says, is discounting studies done in low- and middle-income countries because “they weren’t done in the right places.”

“That’s not just bias,” he says. “It’s also snobbery.”

Ivermectin has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of onchocerciasis (river blindness) and strongyloidiasis, but is not FDA-approved for the treatment of any viral infection. It also is sometimes used to treat animals.

In dropping the recommendation against ivermectin, the NIH gave it the same neutral declaration as monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma.
 

Some physicians say they won’t prescribe it

Some physicians say they won’t be recommending it to their COVID-19 patients.

Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease expert and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security in Baltimore,said in an interview that the NIH update hasn’t changed his mind and he isn’t prescribing it for his patients.

He said although “there’s enough of a signal” that he would like to see more data, “we haven’t seen anything in terms of a really robust study.”

He noted that the Infectious Diseases Society of America has 15 recommendations for COVID-19 treatment “and not one of them has to do with ivermectin.”

He added, “It’s not enough to see if it works, but we need to see who it works in and when it works in them.”

He also acknowledged that “some prominent physicians” are recommending it.

Among them is Paul Marik, MD, endowed professor of medicine and chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk. A cofounder of FLCCC, Dr. Marik has championed ivermectin and developed a protocol for its use to prevent and treat COVID-19.

The data surrounding ivermectin have met with hope, criticism, and warnings.

Australian researchers published a study ahead of print in Antiviral Research that found ivermectin inhibited the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory setting.

The study concluded that the drug resulted post infection in a 5,000-fold reduction in viral RNA at 48 hours. After that study, however, the FDA in April warned consumers not to self-medicate with ivermectin products intended for animals.

The NIH acknowledged that several randomized trials and retrospective studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have now been published in peer-reviewed journals or on preprint servers.

“Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use, whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory markers, shorter time to viral clearance, or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo,” the NIH guidance reads.

The NIH acknowledges limitations: the studies have been small; doses of ivermectin have varied; some patients were taking other medications at the same time (including doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, and corticosteroids, which may be potential confounders); and patients’ severity of COVID was not always clearly described in the studies.

Nasia Safdar, MD, medical director of infection prevention at the University of Wisconsin Hospital in Madison, told this news organization she agrees more research is needed before ivermectin is recommended by regulatory bodies for COVID-19.

That said, Dr. Safdar added, “in individual circumstances if a physician is confronted with a patient in dire straits and you’re not sure what to do, might you consider it? I think after a discussion with the patient, perhaps, but the level of evidence certainly doesn’t rise to the level of a policy.”

A downside of recommending a treatment without conclusive data, even if harm isn’t the primary concern, she said, is that supplies could dwindle for its intended use in other diseases. Also, premature approval can limit the robust research needed to see not only whether it works better for prevention or treatment, but also if it’s effective depending on patient populations and the severity of COVID-19.

Dr. Adalja and Dr. Safdar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Institutes of Health has dropped its recommendation against the inexpensive antiparasitic drug ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19, and the agency now advises it can’t recommend for or against its use, leaving the decision to physicians and their patients.

“Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19,” according to new NIH guidance released last week.

Passionate arguments have been waged for and against the drug’s use.

The NIH update disappointed members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which outlined its case for endorsing ivermectin in a public statement Jan. 18. Point by point, the group of 10 physicians argued against each limitation that drove the NIH’s ruling.

The group’s members said that, although grateful the recommendation against the drug was dropped, a neutral approach is not acceptable as total U.S. deaths surpassed 400,000 since last spring – and currently approach 4,000 a day. Results from research are enough to support its use, and the drug will immediately save lives, they say.

“Patients do not have time to wait,” they write, “and we as health care providers in society do not have that time either.”

NIH, which in August had recommended against ivermectin’s use, invited the group to present evidence to its treatment guidance panel on Jan. 6 to detail the emerging science surrounding ivermectin. The group cited rapidly growing evidence of the drug’s effectiveness.

Pierre Kory, MD, president/cofounder of FLCCC and a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee, also spoke before a Senate panel on Dec. 8 in a widely shared impassioned video, touting ivermectin as a COVID-19 “miracle” drug, a term he said he doesn’t use lightly.

Dr. Kory pleaded with the NIH to consider the emerging data. “Please, I’m just asking that they review our manuscript,” he told the senators.

“We have immense amounts of data to show that ivermectin must be implemented and implemented now,” he said.
 

Some draw parallels to hydroxychloroquine

Critics have said there’s not enough data to institute a protocol, and some draw parallels to another repurposed drug – hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) – which was once considered a promising treatment for COVID-19, based on flawed and incomplete evidence, and now is not recommended.

Paul Sax, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard and clinical director of the HIV program and division of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, wrote in a blog post earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medicine Journal Watch that ivermectin has more robust evidence for it than HCQ ever did.

“But we’re not quite yet at the ‘practice changing’ level,” he writes. “Results from at least five randomized clinical trials are expected soon that might further inform the decision.”

He said the best argument for the drug is seen in this explanation of a meta-analysis of studies of between 100 and 500 patients by Andrew Hill, MD, with the department of pharmacology, University of Liverpool (England).

Dr. Sax advises against two biases in considering ivermectin. One is assuming that because HCQ failed, other antiparasitic drugs will too.

The second bias to avoid, he says, is discounting studies done in low- and middle-income countries because “they weren’t done in the right places.”

“That’s not just bias,” he says. “It’s also snobbery.”

Ivermectin has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of onchocerciasis (river blindness) and strongyloidiasis, but is not FDA-approved for the treatment of any viral infection. It also is sometimes used to treat animals.

In dropping the recommendation against ivermectin, the NIH gave it the same neutral declaration as monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma.
 

Some physicians say they won’t prescribe it

Some physicians say they won’t be recommending it to their COVID-19 patients.

Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease expert and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security in Baltimore,said in an interview that the NIH update hasn’t changed his mind and he isn’t prescribing it for his patients.

He said although “there’s enough of a signal” that he would like to see more data, “we haven’t seen anything in terms of a really robust study.”

He noted that the Infectious Diseases Society of America has 15 recommendations for COVID-19 treatment “and not one of them has to do with ivermectin.”

He added, “It’s not enough to see if it works, but we need to see who it works in and when it works in them.”

He also acknowledged that “some prominent physicians” are recommending it.

Among them is Paul Marik, MD, endowed professor of medicine and chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk. A cofounder of FLCCC, Dr. Marik has championed ivermectin and developed a protocol for its use to prevent and treat COVID-19.

The data surrounding ivermectin have met with hope, criticism, and warnings.

Australian researchers published a study ahead of print in Antiviral Research that found ivermectin inhibited the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory setting.

The study concluded that the drug resulted post infection in a 5,000-fold reduction in viral RNA at 48 hours. After that study, however, the FDA in April warned consumers not to self-medicate with ivermectin products intended for animals.

The NIH acknowledged that several randomized trials and retrospective studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have now been published in peer-reviewed journals or on preprint servers.

“Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use, whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory markers, shorter time to viral clearance, or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo,” the NIH guidance reads.

The NIH acknowledges limitations: the studies have been small; doses of ivermectin have varied; some patients were taking other medications at the same time (including doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, and corticosteroids, which may be potential confounders); and patients’ severity of COVID was not always clearly described in the studies.

Nasia Safdar, MD, medical director of infection prevention at the University of Wisconsin Hospital in Madison, told this news organization she agrees more research is needed before ivermectin is recommended by regulatory bodies for COVID-19.

That said, Dr. Safdar added, “in individual circumstances if a physician is confronted with a patient in dire straits and you’re not sure what to do, might you consider it? I think after a discussion with the patient, perhaps, but the level of evidence certainly doesn’t rise to the level of a policy.”

A downside of recommending a treatment without conclusive data, even if harm isn’t the primary concern, she said, is that supplies could dwindle for its intended use in other diseases. Also, premature approval can limit the robust research needed to see not only whether it works better for prevention or treatment, but also if it’s effective depending on patient populations and the severity of COVID-19.

Dr. Adalja and Dr. Safdar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Institutes of Health has dropped its recommendation against the inexpensive antiparasitic drug ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19, and the agency now advises it can’t recommend for or against its use, leaving the decision to physicians and their patients.

“Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19,” according to new NIH guidance released last week.

Passionate arguments have been waged for and against the drug’s use.

The NIH update disappointed members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which outlined its case for endorsing ivermectin in a public statement Jan. 18. Point by point, the group of 10 physicians argued against each limitation that drove the NIH’s ruling.

The group’s members said that, although grateful the recommendation against the drug was dropped, a neutral approach is not acceptable as total U.S. deaths surpassed 400,000 since last spring – and currently approach 4,000 a day. Results from research are enough to support its use, and the drug will immediately save lives, they say.

“Patients do not have time to wait,” they write, “and we as health care providers in society do not have that time either.”

NIH, which in August had recommended against ivermectin’s use, invited the group to present evidence to its treatment guidance panel on Jan. 6 to detail the emerging science surrounding ivermectin. The group cited rapidly growing evidence of the drug’s effectiveness.

Pierre Kory, MD, president/cofounder of FLCCC and a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee, also spoke before a Senate panel on Dec. 8 in a widely shared impassioned video, touting ivermectin as a COVID-19 “miracle” drug, a term he said he doesn’t use lightly.

Dr. Kory pleaded with the NIH to consider the emerging data. “Please, I’m just asking that they review our manuscript,” he told the senators.

“We have immense amounts of data to show that ivermectin must be implemented and implemented now,” he said.
 

Some draw parallels to hydroxychloroquine

Critics have said there’s not enough data to institute a protocol, and some draw parallels to another repurposed drug – hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) – which was once considered a promising treatment for COVID-19, based on flawed and incomplete evidence, and now is not recommended.

Paul Sax, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard and clinical director of the HIV program and division of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, wrote in a blog post earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medicine Journal Watch that ivermectin has more robust evidence for it than HCQ ever did.

“But we’re not quite yet at the ‘practice changing’ level,” he writes. “Results from at least five randomized clinical trials are expected soon that might further inform the decision.”

He said the best argument for the drug is seen in this explanation of a meta-analysis of studies of between 100 and 500 patients by Andrew Hill, MD, with the department of pharmacology, University of Liverpool (England).

Dr. Sax advises against two biases in considering ivermectin. One is assuming that because HCQ failed, other antiparasitic drugs will too.

The second bias to avoid, he says, is discounting studies done in low- and middle-income countries because “they weren’t done in the right places.”

“That’s not just bias,” he says. “It’s also snobbery.”

Ivermectin has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of onchocerciasis (river blindness) and strongyloidiasis, but is not FDA-approved for the treatment of any viral infection. It also is sometimes used to treat animals.

In dropping the recommendation against ivermectin, the NIH gave it the same neutral declaration as monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma.
 

Some physicians say they won’t prescribe it

Some physicians say they won’t be recommending it to their COVID-19 patients.

Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease expert and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security in Baltimore,said in an interview that the NIH update hasn’t changed his mind and he isn’t prescribing it for his patients.

He said although “there’s enough of a signal” that he would like to see more data, “we haven’t seen anything in terms of a really robust study.”

He noted that the Infectious Diseases Society of America has 15 recommendations for COVID-19 treatment “and not one of them has to do with ivermectin.”

He added, “It’s not enough to see if it works, but we need to see who it works in and when it works in them.”

He also acknowledged that “some prominent physicians” are recommending it.

Among them is Paul Marik, MD, endowed professor of medicine and chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk. A cofounder of FLCCC, Dr. Marik has championed ivermectin and developed a protocol for its use to prevent and treat COVID-19.

The data surrounding ivermectin have met with hope, criticism, and warnings.

Australian researchers published a study ahead of print in Antiviral Research that found ivermectin inhibited the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory setting.

The study concluded that the drug resulted post infection in a 5,000-fold reduction in viral RNA at 48 hours. After that study, however, the FDA in April warned consumers not to self-medicate with ivermectin products intended for animals.

The NIH acknowledged that several randomized trials and retrospective studies of ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 have now been published in peer-reviewed journals or on preprint servers.

“Some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use, whereas others reported shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory markers, shorter time to viral clearance, or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo,” the NIH guidance reads.

The NIH acknowledges limitations: the studies have been small; doses of ivermectin have varied; some patients were taking other medications at the same time (including doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, and corticosteroids, which may be potential confounders); and patients’ severity of COVID was not always clearly described in the studies.

Nasia Safdar, MD, medical director of infection prevention at the University of Wisconsin Hospital in Madison, told this news organization she agrees more research is needed before ivermectin is recommended by regulatory bodies for COVID-19.

That said, Dr. Safdar added, “in individual circumstances if a physician is confronted with a patient in dire straits and you’re not sure what to do, might you consider it? I think after a discussion with the patient, perhaps, but the level of evidence certainly doesn’t rise to the level of a policy.”

A downside of recommending a treatment without conclusive data, even if harm isn’t the primary concern, she said, is that supplies could dwindle for its intended use in other diseases. Also, premature approval can limit the robust research needed to see not only whether it works better for prevention or treatment, but also if it’s effective depending on patient populations and the severity of COVID-19.

Dr. Adalja and Dr. Safdar have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.