The Hospitalist

Editors in chief at 10 leading family medicine journals have banded together to address systemic racism in research, health care, and the medical profession.

Sumi Sexton, MD, editor in chief of American Family Physician (AFP), said in an interview she had been working on changes at her journal that would answer the need for action that was made clear by this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests and realized the issue was much bigger than one journal. She proposed the collaboration with the other editors.

The editors wrote a joint statement explaining what they plan to do collectively. It was published online Oct. 15 ahead of print and will be published in all 10 journals at the beginning of the year.

Following the action by family medicine editors, the American College of Physicians issued a statement expressing commitment to being an antiracist organization. It calls on all doctors to speak out against hate and discrimination and to act against institutional and systemic racism. The statement also apologizes for the organization’s own past actions: “ACP acknowledges and regrets its own historical organizational injustices and inequities, and past racism, discrimination and exclusionary practices throughout its history, whether intentional or unintentional, by act or omission.”


 

Family medicine journals plan changes

Changes will differ at each family medicine publication, according to Sexton and other interviewees. Some specific changes at AFP, for example, include creating a medical editor role dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure that content is not only accurate but also that more content addresses racism, Dr. Sexton said.

AFP is creating a Web page dedicated to diversity and will now capitalize the word “Black” in racial and cultural references. Recent calls for papers have included emphasis on finding authors from underrepresented groups and on mentoring new authors.

“We really need to enable our colleagues,” Dr. Sexton said.

The journals are also pooling their published research on topics of racism and inclusion and have established a joint bibliography.

The steps are important, Dr. Sexton said, because reform in research will start a “cascade of action” that will result in better patient care.

“Our mission is to care for the individual as a whole person,” Dr. Sexton said. “This is part of that mission.”
 

Increasing diversity on editorial boards

Family physician Kameron Leigh Matthews, MD, chief medical officer for the Veterans Health Administration, praised the journals’ plan.

She noted that the groups are addressing diversity on their editorial boards, as well as evaluating content. Effective change must also happen regarding the people reviewing the content, she said in an interview. “It has to be both.

“I’m very proud as a family physician that our editors came together and are giving the right response. It’s not enough to say we stand against racism. They’re actually offering concrete actions that they will take as editors, and that will influence health care,” she said.

Dr. Matthews pointed to an example of what can happen when the editorial process fails and racism is introduced in research.

She cited the retraction of an article in the Journal of the American Heart Association entitled, “Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce.” The article advocated for ending racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate and medical school admissions.

The American Heart Association said the article concluded “incorrectly that Black and Hispanic trainees in medicine are less qualified than White and Asian trainees.” The article had “rightfully drawn criticism for its misrepresentations and conclusions,” the AHA said, adding that it would launch an investigation into how the article came to be published.

Dr. Matthews says that’s why it’s so important that, in their statement, the family medicine editors vow to address not only the content but also the editing process to avoid similar systemic lapses.

Dr. Matthews added that, because the proportion of physicians from underrepresented groups is small – only 5% of physicians are Black and 6% are Hispanic – it is vital, as recommended in the editors’ statement, to mentor researchers from underrepresented groups and to reach out to students and residents to be coauthors.

“To sit back and say there’s not enough to recruit from is not sufficient,” Dr. Matthews said. “You need to recognize that you need to assist with expanding the pool.”

She also said she would like to see the journals focus more heavily on solutions to racial disparities in health care rather than on pointing them out.

At the Journal of Family Practice (JFP), Editor in Chief John Hickner, MD, said adding diversity to the editorial board is a top priority. He also reiterated that diversity in top leadership is a concern across all the journals, inasmuch as only 1 of the 10 editors in chief is a person of color.

As an editor, he said, he will personally, as well as through family medicine department chairs, be seeking authors who are members of underrepresented groups and that he will be assisting those who need help.

“I’m committed to giving them special attention in the editorial process,” he said.

Dr. Hickner said the 10 journals have also committed to periodically evaluate whether their approaches are making substantial changes. He said the editors have vowed to meet at least once a year to review progress “and hold each other accountable.”

Statement authors, in addition to Dr. Sexton and Dr. Hickner, include these editors in chief: Caroline R. Richardson, MD, Annals of Family Medicine; Sarina B. Schrager, MD, FPM; Marjorie A. Bowman, MD, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine; Christopher P. Morley, PhD, PRiMER; Nicholas Pimlott, MD, PhD, Canadian Family Physician; John W. Saultz, MD, Family Medicine; and Barry D. Weiss, MD, FP Essentials.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The Journal of Family Practice is owned by the same news organization as this publication.
 

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

Editors in chief at 10 leading family medicine journals have banded together to address systemic racism in research, health care, and the medical profession.

Sumi Sexton, MD, editor in chief of American Family Physician (AFP), said in an interview she had been working on changes at her journal that would answer the need for action that was made clear by this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests and realized the issue was much bigger than one journal. She proposed the collaboration with the other editors.

The editors wrote a joint statement explaining what they plan to do collectively. It was published online Oct. 15 ahead of print and will be published in all 10 journals at the beginning of the year.

Following the action by family medicine editors, the American College of Physicians issued a statement expressing commitment to being an antiracist organization. It calls on all doctors to speak out against hate and discrimination and to act against institutional and systemic racism. The statement also apologizes for the organization’s own past actions: “ACP acknowledges and regrets its own historical organizational injustices and inequities, and past racism, discrimination and exclusionary practices throughout its history, whether intentional or unintentional, by act or omission.”


 

Family medicine journals plan changes

Changes will differ at each family medicine publication, according to Sexton and other interviewees. Some specific changes at AFP, for example, include creating a medical editor role dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure that content is not only accurate but also that more content addresses racism, Dr. Sexton said.

AFP is creating a Web page dedicated to diversity and will now capitalize the word “Black” in racial and cultural references. Recent calls for papers have included emphasis on finding authors from underrepresented groups and on mentoring new authors.

“We really need to enable our colleagues,” Dr. Sexton said.

The journals are also pooling their published research on topics of racism and inclusion and have established a joint bibliography.

The steps are important, Dr. Sexton said, because reform in research will start a “cascade of action” that will result in better patient care.

“Our mission is to care for the individual as a whole person,” Dr. Sexton said. “This is part of that mission.”
 

Increasing diversity on editorial boards

Family physician Kameron Leigh Matthews, MD, chief medical officer for the Veterans Health Administration, praised the journals’ plan.

She noted that the groups are addressing diversity on their editorial boards, as well as evaluating content. Effective change must also happen regarding the people reviewing the content, she said in an interview. “It has to be both.

“I’m very proud as a family physician that our editors came together and are giving the right response. It’s not enough to say we stand against racism. They’re actually offering concrete actions that they will take as editors, and that will influence health care,” she said.

Dr. Matthews pointed to an example of what can happen when the editorial process fails and racism is introduced in research.

She cited the retraction of an article in the Journal of the American Heart Association entitled, “Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce.” The article advocated for ending racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate and medical school admissions.

The American Heart Association said the article concluded “incorrectly that Black and Hispanic trainees in medicine are less qualified than White and Asian trainees.” The article had “rightfully drawn criticism for its misrepresentations and conclusions,” the AHA said, adding that it would launch an investigation into how the article came to be published.

Dr. Matthews says that’s why it’s so important that, in their statement, the family medicine editors vow to address not only the content but also the editing process to avoid similar systemic lapses.

Dr. Matthews added that, because the proportion of physicians from underrepresented groups is small – only 5% of physicians are Black and 6% are Hispanic – it is vital, as recommended in the editors’ statement, to mentor researchers from underrepresented groups and to reach out to students and residents to be coauthors.

“To sit back and say there’s not enough to recruit from is not sufficient,” Dr. Matthews said. “You need to recognize that you need to assist with expanding the pool.”

She also said she would like to see the journals focus more heavily on solutions to racial disparities in health care rather than on pointing them out.

At the Journal of Family Practice (JFP), Editor in Chief John Hickner, MD, said adding diversity to the editorial board is a top priority. He also reiterated that diversity in top leadership is a concern across all the journals, inasmuch as only 1 of the 10 editors in chief is a person of color.

As an editor, he said, he will personally, as well as through family medicine department chairs, be seeking authors who are members of underrepresented groups and that he will be assisting those who need help.

“I’m committed to giving them special attention in the editorial process,” he said.

Dr. Hickner said the 10 journals have also committed to periodically evaluate whether their approaches are making substantial changes. He said the editors have vowed to meet at least once a year to review progress “and hold each other accountable.”

Statement authors, in addition to Dr. Sexton and Dr. Hickner, include these editors in chief: Caroline R. Richardson, MD, Annals of Family Medicine; Sarina B. Schrager, MD, FPM; Marjorie A. Bowman, MD, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine; Christopher P. Morley, PhD, PRiMER; Nicholas Pimlott, MD, PhD, Canadian Family Physician; John W. Saultz, MD, Family Medicine; and Barry D. Weiss, MD, FP Essentials.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The Journal of Family Practice is owned by the same news organization as this publication.
 

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

Editors in chief at 10 leading family medicine journals have banded together to address systemic racism in research, health care, and the medical profession.

Sumi Sexton, MD, editor in chief of American Family Physician (AFP), said in an interview she had been working on changes at her journal that would answer the need for action that was made clear by this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests and realized the issue was much bigger than one journal. She proposed the collaboration with the other editors.

The editors wrote a joint statement explaining what they plan to do collectively. It was published online Oct. 15 ahead of print and will be published in all 10 journals at the beginning of the year.

Following the action by family medicine editors, the American College of Physicians issued a statement expressing commitment to being an antiracist organization. It calls on all doctors to speak out against hate and discrimination and to act against institutional and systemic racism. The statement also apologizes for the organization’s own past actions: “ACP acknowledges and regrets its own historical organizational injustices and inequities, and past racism, discrimination and exclusionary practices throughout its history, whether intentional or unintentional, by act or omission.”


 

Family medicine journals plan changes

Changes will differ at each family medicine publication, according to Sexton and other interviewees. Some specific changes at AFP, for example, include creating a medical editor role dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure that content is not only accurate but also that more content addresses racism, Dr. Sexton said.

AFP is creating a Web page dedicated to diversity and will now capitalize the word “Black” in racial and cultural references. Recent calls for papers have included emphasis on finding authors from underrepresented groups and on mentoring new authors.

“We really need to enable our colleagues,” Dr. Sexton said.

The journals are also pooling their published research on topics of racism and inclusion and have established a joint bibliography.

The steps are important, Dr. Sexton said, because reform in research will start a “cascade of action” that will result in better patient care.

“Our mission is to care for the individual as a whole person,” Dr. Sexton said. “This is part of that mission.”
 

Increasing diversity on editorial boards

Family physician Kameron Leigh Matthews, MD, chief medical officer for the Veterans Health Administration, praised the journals’ plan.

She noted that the groups are addressing diversity on their editorial boards, as well as evaluating content. Effective change must also happen regarding the people reviewing the content, she said in an interview. “It has to be both.

“I’m very proud as a family physician that our editors came together and are giving the right response. It’s not enough to say we stand against racism. They’re actually offering concrete actions that they will take as editors, and that will influence health care,” she said.

Dr. Matthews pointed to an example of what can happen when the editorial process fails and racism is introduced in research.

She cited the retraction of an article in the Journal of the American Heart Association entitled, “Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce.” The article advocated for ending racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate and medical school admissions.

The American Heart Association said the article concluded “incorrectly that Black and Hispanic trainees in medicine are less qualified than White and Asian trainees.” The article had “rightfully drawn criticism for its misrepresentations and conclusions,” the AHA said, adding that it would launch an investigation into how the article came to be published.

Dr. Matthews says that’s why it’s so important that, in their statement, the family medicine editors vow to address not only the content but also the editing process to avoid similar systemic lapses.

Dr. Matthews added that, because the proportion of physicians from underrepresented groups is small – only 5% of physicians are Black and 6% are Hispanic – it is vital, as recommended in the editors’ statement, to mentor researchers from underrepresented groups and to reach out to students and residents to be coauthors.

“To sit back and say there’s not enough to recruit from is not sufficient,” Dr. Matthews said. “You need to recognize that you need to assist with expanding the pool.”

She also said she would like to see the journals focus more heavily on solutions to racial disparities in health care rather than on pointing them out.

At the Journal of Family Practice (JFP), Editor in Chief John Hickner, MD, said adding diversity to the editorial board is a top priority. He also reiterated that diversity in top leadership is a concern across all the journals, inasmuch as only 1 of the 10 editors in chief is a person of color.

As an editor, he said, he will personally, as well as through family medicine department chairs, be seeking authors who are members of underrepresented groups and that he will be assisting those who need help.

“I’m committed to giving them special attention in the editorial process,” he said.

Dr. Hickner said the 10 journals have also committed to periodically evaluate whether their approaches are making substantial changes. He said the editors have vowed to meet at least once a year to review progress “and hold each other accountable.”

Statement authors, in addition to Dr. Sexton and Dr. Hickner, include these editors in chief: Caroline R. Richardson, MD, Annals of Family Medicine; Sarina B. Schrager, MD, FPM; Marjorie A. Bowman, MD, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine; Christopher P. Morley, PhD, PRiMER; Nicholas Pimlott, MD, PhD, Canadian Family Physician; John W. Saultz, MD, Family Medicine; and Barry D. Weiss, MD, FP Essentials.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The Journal of Family Practice is owned by the same news organization as this publication.
 

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

The latest recommendations from sports cardiologists on getting athletes with COVID-19 back on the playing field safely emphasize a more judicious approach to screening for cardiac injury.

The new recommendations, made by the American College of Cardiology’s Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section, are for adult athletes in competitive sports and also for two important groups: younger athletes taking part in competitive high school sports and older athletes aged 35 and older, the Masters athletes, who continue to be active throughout their lives. The document was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

Because of the evolving nature of knowledge about COVID-19, updates on recommendations for safe return to play for athletes of all ages will continue to be made, senior author Aaron L. Baggish, MD, director of the cardiovascular performance program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said.

“The recommendations we released in May were entirely based on our experience taking care of hospitalized patients with COVID-19; we had no athletes in this population. We used a lot of conservative guesswork around how this would apply to otherwise healthy athletes,” Dr. Baggish said in an interview.

“But as sports started to open up, and we started to see large numbers of first professional and then college athletes come back into training, we realized that we needed to stop and ask whether the recommendations we put forward back in May were still appropriate,” Dr. Baggish said.

“Once we started to actually get into the trenches with these athletes, literally hundreds of them, and applying the testing strategies that we had initially recommended in everybody, we realized that we probably had some room for improvement, and that’s why we reconvened, to make these revisions,” he said.

Essentially, the recommendations now urge less cardiac testing. “Cardiac injury is not as common as we may have originally thought,” said Dr. Baggish.

“In the early days of COVID, people who were hospitalized had evidence of heart injury, and so we wondered if that prevalence would also be applicable to otherwise young, healthy people who got COVID. If that had been the case, we would have been in big trouble with respect to getting people back into sports. So this is why we started with a conservative screening approach and a lot of testing in order to not miss a huge burden of disease,” he said.

“But what we’ve learned over the past few months is that young people who get either asymptomatic or mild infection appear to have very, very low risk of having associated heart injury, so the need for testing in that population, when people who have infections recover fully, is almost certainly not going to be high yield,” Dr. Baggish said.
 

First iteration of the recommendations

Published in May in the early weeks of the pandemic, the first recommendations for safe return to play said that all athletes should stop training for at least 2 weeks after their symptoms resolve, then undergo “careful, clinical cardiovascular evaluation in combination with cardiac biomarkers and imaging.”

Additional testing with cardiac MRI, exercise testing, or ambulatory rhythm monitoring was to be done “based on the clinical course and initial testing.”

But experts caution that monitoring on such a scale in everyone is unnecessary and could even be counterproductive.

“Sending young athletes for extensive testing is not warranted and could send them to unnecessary testing, cardiac imaging, and so on,” Dr. Baggish said.

Only those athletes who continue to have symptoms or whose symptoms return when they get back to their athletic activities should go on for more screening.

“There, in essence, is the single main change from May, and that is a move away from screening with testing everyone, [and instead] confining that to the people who had moderate or greater severity disease,” he said.

Both iterations of the recommendations end with the same message.

“We are at the beginning of our knowledge about the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 but we are gathering evidence every day,” said Dr. Baggish. “Just as they did earlier, we acknowledge that our approaches are subject to change when we learn more about how COVID affects the heart, and specifically the hearts of athletes. This will be an ongoing process.”
 

Something to lean on

The recommendations are welcome, said James E. Udelson, MD, chief of the division of cardiology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, coauthor of an accompanying editorial.

“It was a bit of the wild west out there, because each university, each college, all with good intentions, had been all struggling to figure out what to do, and how much to do. Probably the most important message from this new paper is the fact that now there is something out there that all coaches, athletes, families, schools, trainers can get some guidance from,” Dr. Udelson said in an interview.

Refining the cardiac screening criteria was a necessary step, Dr. Udelson said.

“How much cardiac imaging do you do? That is a matter of controversy,” said Dr. Udelson, who coauthored the commentary with Tufts cardiologist Ethan Rowin, MD, and Michael A. Curtis, MEd, a certified strength and conditioning specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “The problem is that if you use a very sensitive imaging test on a lot of people, sometimes you find things that you really didn’t need to know about. They’re really not important. And now, the athlete is told he or she cannot play for 3 months because they might have myocarditis.

“Should we be too sensitive, meaning do we want to pick up anything no matter whether it’s important or not?” he added. “There will be a lot of false positives, and we are going to disqualify a lot of people. Or do you tune it a different way?”

Dr. Udelson said he would like to see commercial sports donate money to support research into the potential cardiotoxicity of COVID-19.

“If the organizations that benefit from these athletes, like the National Collegiate Athletic Association and professional sports leagues, can fund some of this research, that would be a huge help,” Dr. Udelson said.

“These are the top sports cardiologists in the country, and they have to start somewhere, and these are all based on what we know right now, as well as their own extensive experience. We all know that we are just at the beginning of our knowledge of this. But we have to have something to guide this huge community out there that is really thirsty for help.”

Dr. Baggish reports receiving research funding for the study of athletes in competitive sports from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Football League Players Association; and the American Heart Association and receiving compensation for his role as team cardiologist from the US Olympic Committee/US Olympic Training Centers, US Soccer, US Rowing, the New England Patriots, the Boston Bruins, the New England Revolution, and Harvard University. Dr. Udelson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The latest recommendations from sports cardiologists on getting athletes with COVID-19 back on the playing field safely emphasize a more judicious approach to screening for cardiac injury.

The new recommendations, made by the American College of Cardiology’s Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section, are for adult athletes in competitive sports and also for two important groups: younger athletes taking part in competitive high school sports and older athletes aged 35 and older, the Masters athletes, who continue to be active throughout their lives. The document was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

Because of the evolving nature of knowledge about COVID-19, updates on recommendations for safe return to play for athletes of all ages will continue to be made, senior author Aaron L. Baggish, MD, director of the cardiovascular performance program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said.

“The recommendations we released in May were entirely based on our experience taking care of hospitalized patients with COVID-19; we had no athletes in this population. We used a lot of conservative guesswork around how this would apply to otherwise healthy athletes,” Dr. Baggish said in an interview.

“But as sports started to open up, and we started to see large numbers of first professional and then college athletes come back into training, we realized that we needed to stop and ask whether the recommendations we put forward back in May were still appropriate,” Dr. Baggish said.

“Once we started to actually get into the trenches with these athletes, literally hundreds of them, and applying the testing strategies that we had initially recommended in everybody, we realized that we probably had some room for improvement, and that’s why we reconvened, to make these revisions,” he said.

Essentially, the recommendations now urge less cardiac testing. “Cardiac injury is not as common as we may have originally thought,” said Dr. Baggish.

“In the early days of COVID, people who were hospitalized had evidence of heart injury, and so we wondered if that prevalence would also be applicable to otherwise young, healthy people who got COVID. If that had been the case, we would have been in big trouble with respect to getting people back into sports. So this is why we started with a conservative screening approach and a lot of testing in order to not miss a huge burden of disease,” he said.

“But what we’ve learned over the past few months is that young people who get either asymptomatic or mild infection appear to have very, very low risk of having associated heart injury, so the need for testing in that population, when people who have infections recover fully, is almost certainly not going to be high yield,” Dr. Baggish said.
 

First iteration of the recommendations

Published in May in the early weeks of the pandemic, the first recommendations for safe return to play said that all athletes should stop training for at least 2 weeks after their symptoms resolve, then undergo “careful, clinical cardiovascular evaluation in combination with cardiac biomarkers and imaging.”

Additional testing with cardiac MRI, exercise testing, or ambulatory rhythm monitoring was to be done “based on the clinical course and initial testing.”

But experts caution that monitoring on such a scale in everyone is unnecessary and could even be counterproductive.

“Sending young athletes for extensive testing is not warranted and could send them to unnecessary testing, cardiac imaging, and so on,” Dr. Baggish said.

Only those athletes who continue to have symptoms or whose symptoms return when they get back to their athletic activities should go on for more screening.

“There, in essence, is the single main change from May, and that is a move away from screening with testing everyone, [and instead] confining that to the people who had moderate or greater severity disease,” he said.

Both iterations of the recommendations end with the same message.

“We are at the beginning of our knowledge about the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 but we are gathering evidence every day,” said Dr. Baggish. “Just as they did earlier, we acknowledge that our approaches are subject to change when we learn more about how COVID affects the heart, and specifically the hearts of athletes. This will be an ongoing process.”
 

Something to lean on

The recommendations are welcome, said James E. Udelson, MD, chief of the division of cardiology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, coauthor of an accompanying editorial.

“It was a bit of the wild west out there, because each university, each college, all with good intentions, had been all struggling to figure out what to do, and how much to do. Probably the most important message from this new paper is the fact that now there is something out there that all coaches, athletes, families, schools, trainers can get some guidance from,” Dr. Udelson said in an interview.

Refining the cardiac screening criteria was a necessary step, Dr. Udelson said.

“How much cardiac imaging do you do? That is a matter of controversy,” said Dr. Udelson, who coauthored the commentary with Tufts cardiologist Ethan Rowin, MD, and Michael A. Curtis, MEd, a certified strength and conditioning specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “The problem is that if you use a very sensitive imaging test on a lot of people, sometimes you find things that you really didn’t need to know about. They’re really not important. And now, the athlete is told he or she cannot play for 3 months because they might have myocarditis.

“Should we be too sensitive, meaning do we want to pick up anything no matter whether it’s important or not?” he added. “There will be a lot of false positives, and we are going to disqualify a lot of people. Or do you tune it a different way?”

Dr. Udelson said he would like to see commercial sports donate money to support research into the potential cardiotoxicity of COVID-19.

“If the organizations that benefit from these athletes, like the National Collegiate Athletic Association and professional sports leagues, can fund some of this research, that would be a huge help,” Dr. Udelson said.

“These are the top sports cardiologists in the country, and they have to start somewhere, and these are all based on what we know right now, as well as their own extensive experience. We all know that we are just at the beginning of our knowledge of this. But we have to have something to guide this huge community out there that is really thirsty for help.”

Dr. Baggish reports receiving research funding for the study of athletes in competitive sports from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Football League Players Association; and the American Heart Association and receiving compensation for his role as team cardiologist from the US Olympic Committee/US Olympic Training Centers, US Soccer, US Rowing, the New England Patriots, the Boston Bruins, the New England Revolution, and Harvard University. Dr. Udelson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The latest recommendations from sports cardiologists on getting athletes with COVID-19 back on the playing field safely emphasize a more judicious approach to screening for cardiac injury.

The new recommendations, made by the American College of Cardiology’s Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section, are for adult athletes in competitive sports and also for two important groups: younger athletes taking part in competitive high school sports and older athletes aged 35 and older, the Masters athletes, who continue to be active throughout their lives. The document was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

Because of the evolving nature of knowledge about COVID-19, updates on recommendations for safe return to play for athletes of all ages will continue to be made, senior author Aaron L. Baggish, MD, director of the cardiovascular performance program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said.

“The recommendations we released in May were entirely based on our experience taking care of hospitalized patients with COVID-19; we had no athletes in this population. We used a lot of conservative guesswork around how this would apply to otherwise healthy athletes,” Dr. Baggish said in an interview.

“But as sports started to open up, and we started to see large numbers of first professional and then college athletes come back into training, we realized that we needed to stop and ask whether the recommendations we put forward back in May were still appropriate,” Dr. Baggish said.

“Once we started to actually get into the trenches with these athletes, literally hundreds of them, and applying the testing strategies that we had initially recommended in everybody, we realized that we probably had some room for improvement, and that’s why we reconvened, to make these revisions,” he said.

Essentially, the recommendations now urge less cardiac testing. “Cardiac injury is not as common as we may have originally thought,” said Dr. Baggish.

“In the early days of COVID, people who were hospitalized had evidence of heart injury, and so we wondered if that prevalence would also be applicable to otherwise young, healthy people who got COVID. If that had been the case, we would have been in big trouble with respect to getting people back into sports. So this is why we started with a conservative screening approach and a lot of testing in order to not miss a huge burden of disease,” he said.

“But what we’ve learned over the past few months is that young people who get either asymptomatic or mild infection appear to have very, very low risk of having associated heart injury, so the need for testing in that population, when people who have infections recover fully, is almost certainly not going to be high yield,” Dr. Baggish said.
 

First iteration of the recommendations

Published in May in the early weeks of the pandemic, the first recommendations for safe return to play said that all athletes should stop training for at least 2 weeks after their symptoms resolve, then undergo “careful, clinical cardiovascular evaluation in combination with cardiac biomarkers and imaging.”

Additional testing with cardiac MRI, exercise testing, or ambulatory rhythm monitoring was to be done “based on the clinical course and initial testing.”

But experts caution that monitoring on such a scale in everyone is unnecessary and could even be counterproductive.

“Sending young athletes for extensive testing is not warranted and could send them to unnecessary testing, cardiac imaging, and so on,” Dr. Baggish said.

Only those athletes who continue to have symptoms or whose symptoms return when they get back to their athletic activities should go on for more screening.

“There, in essence, is the single main change from May, and that is a move away from screening with testing everyone, [and instead] confining that to the people who had moderate or greater severity disease,” he said.

Both iterations of the recommendations end with the same message.

“We are at the beginning of our knowledge about the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 but we are gathering evidence every day,” said Dr. Baggish. “Just as they did earlier, we acknowledge that our approaches are subject to change when we learn more about how COVID affects the heart, and specifically the hearts of athletes. This will be an ongoing process.”
 

Something to lean on

The recommendations are welcome, said James E. Udelson, MD, chief of the division of cardiology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, coauthor of an accompanying editorial.

“It was a bit of the wild west out there, because each university, each college, all with good intentions, had been all struggling to figure out what to do, and how much to do. Probably the most important message from this new paper is the fact that now there is something out there that all coaches, athletes, families, schools, trainers can get some guidance from,” Dr. Udelson said in an interview.

Refining the cardiac screening criteria was a necessary step, Dr. Udelson said.

“How much cardiac imaging do you do? That is a matter of controversy,” said Dr. Udelson, who coauthored the commentary with Tufts cardiologist Ethan Rowin, MD, and Michael A. Curtis, MEd, a certified strength and conditioning specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “The problem is that if you use a very sensitive imaging test on a lot of people, sometimes you find things that you really didn’t need to know about. They’re really not important. And now, the athlete is told he or she cannot play for 3 months because they might have myocarditis.

“Should we be too sensitive, meaning do we want to pick up anything no matter whether it’s important or not?” he added. “There will be a lot of false positives, and we are going to disqualify a lot of people. Or do you tune it a different way?”

Dr. Udelson said he would like to see commercial sports donate money to support research into the potential cardiotoxicity of COVID-19.

“If the organizations that benefit from these athletes, like the National Collegiate Athletic Association and professional sports leagues, can fund some of this research, that would be a huge help,” Dr. Udelson said.

“These are the top sports cardiologists in the country, and they have to start somewhere, and these are all based on what we know right now, as well as their own extensive experience. We all know that we are just at the beginning of our knowledge of this. But we have to have something to guide this huge community out there that is really thirsty for help.”

Dr. Baggish reports receiving research funding for the study of athletes in competitive sports from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Football League Players Association; and the American Heart Association and receiving compensation for his role as team cardiologist from the US Olympic Committee/US Olympic Training Centers, US Soccer, US Rowing, the New England Patriots, the Boston Bruins, the New England Revolution, and Harvard University. Dr. Udelson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Clarissa Barnes, MD, a hospitalist at Avera McKennan Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D., and until recently medical director of Avera’s LIGHT Program, a wellness-oriented service for doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, watched the COVID-19 crisis unfold up close in her community and her hospital. Sioux Falls traced its surge of COVID patients to an outbreak at a local meatpacking plant.

“In the beginning, we didn’t know much about the virus and its communicability, although we have since gotten a better handle on that,” she said. “We had questions: Should we give patients more fluids – or less? Steroids or not? In my experience as a hospitalist I never had patients die every day on my shift, but that was happening with COVID.” The crisis imposed serious stresses on frontline providers, and hospitalists were concerned about personal safety and exposure risk – not just for themselves but for their families.

“The first time I worked on the COVID unit, I moved into the guest room in our home, apart from my husband and our young children,” Dr. Barnes said. “Ultimately I caught the virus, although I have since recovered.” Her experience has highlighted how existing issues of job stress and burnout in hospital medicine have been exacerbated by COVID-19. Even physicians who consider themselves healthy may have little emotional reserve to draw upon in a crisis of this magnitude.

“We are social distancing at work, wearing masks, not eating together with our colleagues – with less camaraderie and social support than we used to have,” she said. “I feel exhausted and there’s no question that my colleagues and I have sacrificed a lot to deal with the pandemic.” Add to that the second front of the COVID-19 crisis, Dr. Barnes said, which is “fighting the medical information wars, trying to correct misinformation put out there by people. Physicians who have been on the front lines of the pandemic know how demoralizing it can be to have people negate your first-hand experience.”

The situation has gotten better in Sioux Falls, Dr. Barnes said, although cases have started rising in the state again. The stress, while not gone, is reduced. For some doctors, “COVID reminded us of why we do what we do. Some of the usual bureaucratic requirements were set aside and we could focus on what our patients needed and how to take care of them.”
 

Taking job stress seriously

Tiffani Panek, MA, SFHM, CLHM, administrator of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore, said job stress is a major issue for hospitalist groups.

“We take it seriously here, and use a survey tool to measure morale in our group annually,” she said. “So far, knock on wood, Baltimore has not been one of the big hot spots, but we’ve definitely had waves of COVID patients.”

The Bayview hospitalist group has a diversified set of leaders, including a wellness director. “They’re always checking up on our people, keeping an eye on those who are most vulnerable. One of the stressors we hadn’t thought about before was for our people who live alone. With the isolation and lockdown, they haven’t been able to socialize, so we’ve made direct outreach, asking people how they were doing,” Ms. Panek said. “People know we’ve got their back – professionally and personally. They know, if there’s something we can do to help, we will do it.”

Bayview Medical Center has COVID-specific units and non-COVID units, and has tried to rotate hospitalist assignments because more than a couple days in a row spent wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) is exhausting, Ms. Panek said. The group also allocated a respite room just outside the biocontainment unit, with a computer and opportunities for providers to just sit and take a breather – with appropriate social distancing. “It’s not fancy, but you just have to wear a mask, not full PPE.”

The Hopkins hospitalist group’s wellness director, Catherine Washburn, MD, also a working hospitalist, said providers are exhausted, and trying to transition to the new normal is a moving target.

“It’s hard for anyone to say what our lives will look like in 6 months,” she said. “People in our group have lost family members to COVID, or postponed major life events, like weddings. We acknowledge losses together as a group, and celebrate things worth celebrating, like babies or birthdays.”
 

Greatest COVID caseload

Joshua Case, MD, hospitalist medical director for 16 acute care hospitals of Northwell Health serving metropolitan New York City and Long Island, said his group’s hospitalists and other staff worked incredibly hard during the surge of COVID-19 patients in New York. “Northwell likely cared for more COVID patients than any other health care system in the U.S., if not the world.

“It’s vastly different now. We went from a peak of thousands of cases per day down to about 70-90 new cases a day across our system. We’re lucky our system recognized that COVID could be an issue early on, with all of the multifaceted stressors on patient care,” Dr. Case said. “We’ve done whatever we could to give people time off, especially as the census started to come down. We freed up as many supportive mental health services as we could, working with the health system’s employee assistance program.”

Northwell gave out numbers for the psychiatry department, with clinicians available 24/7 for a confidential call, along with outside volunteers and a network of trauma psychologists. “Our system also provided emergency child care for staff, including hospitalists, wherever we could, drawing upon community resources,” Dr. Case added.

“We recognize that we’re all in the same foxhole. That’s been a helpful attitude – recognizing that it’s okay to be upset in a crisis and to have trouble dealing with what’s going on,” he said. “We need to acknowledge that some of us are suffering and try to encourage people to face it head on. For a lot of physicians, especially those who were redeployed here from other departments, it was important just to have us ask if they were doing okay.”

Brian Schroeder, MHA, FACHE, FHM, assistant vice president for hospital and emergency medicine for Atrium Health, based in Charlotte, N.C., said one of the biggest sources of stress on his staff has been the constant pace of change – whether local hospital protocols, state policies, or guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “The updating is difficult to keep up with. A lot of our physicians get worried and anxious that they’re not following the latest guidelines or correctly doing what they should be doing to care for COVID patients. One thing we’ve done to alleviate some of that fear and anxiety is through weekly huddles with our hospital teams, focusing on changes relevant to their work. We also have weekly ‘all-hands’ meetings for our 250 providers across 13 acute and four postacute facilities.”

Before COVID, it was difficult to get everyone together as one big group from hospitals up to 5 hours apart, but with the Microsoft Teams platform, they can all meet together.

“At the height of the pandemic, we’d convene weekly and share national statistics, organizational statistics, testing updates, changes to protocols,” Mr. Schroeder said. As the pace of change has slowed, these meetings were cut back to monthly. “Our physicians feel we are passing on information as soon as we get it. They know we’ll always tell them what we know.”

Sarah Richards, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, who heads the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Well-Being Task Force, formed to address staff stress in the COVID environment, said there are things that health care systems can do to help mitigate job stress and burnout. But broader issues may need to be addressed at a national level. “SHM is trying to understand work-related stress – and to identify resources that could support doctors, so they can spend more of their time doing what they enjoy most, which is taking care of patients,” she said.

“We also recognize that people have had very different experiences, depending on geography, and at the individual level stressors are experienced very differently,” Dr. Richard noted. “One of the most common stressors we’ve heard from doctors is the challenge of caring for patients who are lonely and isolated in their hospital rooms, suffering and dying in new ways. In low-incidence areas, doctors are expressing guilt because they aren’t under as much stress as their colleagues. In high-incidence areas, doctors are already experiencing posttraumatic stress disorder.”

SHM’s Well-Being Task Force is working on a tool to help normalize these stressors and encourage open conversations about mental health issues. A guide called “HM COVID Check-in Guide for Self & Peers” is designed to help hospitalists break the culture of silence around well-being and burnout during COVID-19 and how people are handling and processing the pandemic experience. It is expected to be completed later this year, Dr. Richards said. Other SHM projects and resources for staff support are also in the works.
 

The impact on women doctors

In a recent Journal of Hospital Medicine article entitled “Collateral Damage: How COVID-19 is Adversely Impacting Women Physicians,” hospitalist Yemisi Jones, MD, medical director of continuing medical education at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues argue that preexisting gender inequities in compensation, academic rank and leadership positions for physicians have made the COVID-19 crisis even more burdensome on female hospitalists.¹

“Increased childcare and schooling obligations, coupled with disproportionate household responsibilities and an inability to work from home, will likely result in female hospitalists struggling to meet family needs while pandemic-related work responsibilities are ramping up,” they write. COVID may intensify workplace inequalities, with a lack of recognition of the undue strain that group policies place on women.

“Often women suffer in silence,” said coauthor Jennifer O’Toole, MD, MEd, director of education in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and program director of the internal medicine–pediatrics residency. “We are not always the best self-advocates, although many of us are working on that.”

When women in hospital medicine take leadership roles, these often tend to involve mutual support activities, taking care of colleagues, and promoting collaborative work environments, Dr. Jones added. The stereotypical example is the committee that organizes celebrations when group members get married or have babies.

These activities can take a lot of time, she said. “We need to pay attention to that kind of role in our groups, because it’s important to the cohesiveness of the group. But it often goes unrecognized and doesn’t translate into the currency of promotion and leadership in medicine. When women go for promotions in the future, how will what happened during the COVID crisis impact their opportunities?”

What is the answer to overcoming these systemic inequities? Start with making sure women are part of the leadership team, with responsibilities for group policies, schedules, and other important decisions. “Look at your group’s leadership – particularly the higher positions. If it’s not diverse, ask why. ‘What is it about the structure of our group?’ Make a more concerted effort in your recruitment and retention,” Dr. Jones said.

The JHM article also recommends closely monitoring the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 on female hospitalists, inquiring specifically about the needs of women in the organization, and ensuring that diversity, inclusion, and equity efforts are not suspended during the pandemic. Gender-based disparities in pay also need a closer look, and not just one time but reviewed periodically and adjusted accordingly.

Mentoring for early career women is important, but more so is sponsorship – someone in a high-level leadership role in the group sponsoring women who are rising up the career ladder, Dr. O’Toole said. “Professional women tend to be overmentored and undersponsored.”
 

What are the answers?

Ultimately, listening is key to try to help people get through the pandemic, Dr. Washburn said. “People become burned out when they feel leadership doesn’t understand their needs or doesn’t hear their concerns. Our group leaders all do clinical work, so they are seen as one of us. They try very hard; they have listening ears. But listening is just the first step. Next step is to work creatively to get the identified needs met.”

A few years ago, Johns Hopkins developed training in enhanced communication in health care for all hospital providers, including nurses and doctors, encouraging them to get trained in how to actively listen and address their patients’ emotional and social experiences as well as disease, Dr. Washburn explained. Learning how to listen better to patients can enhance skills at listening to colleagues, and vice versa. “We recognize the importance of better communication – for reducing sentinel events in the hospital and also for preventing staff burnout.”

Dr. Barnes also does physician coaching, and says a lot of that work is helping people achieve clarity on their core values. “Healing patients is a core identify for physicians; we want to take care of people. But other things can get in the way of that, and hospitalist groups can work at minimizing those barriers. We also need to learn, as hospitalists, that we work in a group. You need to be creative in how you do your team building, especially now, when you can no longer get together for dinner. Whatever it is, how do we bring our team back together? The biggest source of support for many hospitalists, beyond their family, is the group.”

Dr. Case said there is a longer-term need to study the root causes of burnout in hospitalists and to identify the issues that cause job stress. “What is modifiable? How can we tackle it? I see that as big part of my job every day. Being a physician is hard enough as it is. Let’s work to resolve those issues that add needlessly to the stress.”

“I think the pandemic brought a magnifying glass to how important a concern staff stress is,” Ms. Panek said. Resilience is important.

“We were working in our group on creating a culture that values trust and transparency, and then the COVID crisis hit,” she said. “But you can still keep working on those things. We would not have been as good or as positive as we were in managing this crisis without that preexisting culture to draw upon. We always said it was important. Now we know that’s true.”
 

Reference

1. Jones Y et al. Collateral Damage: How COVID-19 Is Adversely Impacting Women Physicians. J Hosp Med. 2020 August;15(8):507-9.

Clarissa Barnes, MD, a hospitalist at Avera McKennan Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D., and until recently medical director of Avera’s LIGHT Program, a wellness-oriented service for doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, watched the COVID-19 crisis unfold up close in her community and her hospital. Sioux Falls traced its surge of COVID patients to an outbreak at a local meatpacking plant.

“In the beginning, we didn’t know much about the virus and its communicability, although we have since gotten a better handle on that,” she said. “We had questions: Should we give patients more fluids – or less? Steroids or not? In my experience as a hospitalist I never had patients die every day on my shift, but that was happening with COVID.” The crisis imposed serious stresses on frontline providers, and hospitalists were concerned about personal safety and exposure risk – not just for themselves but for their families.

“The first time I worked on the COVID unit, I moved into the guest room in our home, apart from my husband and our young children,” Dr. Barnes said. “Ultimately I caught the virus, although I have since recovered.” Her experience has highlighted how existing issues of job stress and burnout in hospital medicine have been exacerbated by COVID-19. Even physicians who consider themselves healthy may have little emotional reserve to draw upon in a crisis of this magnitude.

“We are social distancing at work, wearing masks, not eating together with our colleagues – with less camaraderie and social support than we used to have,” she said. “I feel exhausted and there’s no question that my colleagues and I have sacrificed a lot to deal with the pandemic.” Add to that the second front of the COVID-19 crisis, Dr. Barnes said, which is “fighting the medical information wars, trying to correct misinformation put out there by people. Physicians who have been on the front lines of the pandemic know how demoralizing it can be to have people negate your first-hand experience.”

The situation has gotten better in Sioux Falls, Dr. Barnes said, although cases have started rising in the state again. The stress, while not gone, is reduced. For some doctors, “COVID reminded us of why we do what we do. Some of the usual bureaucratic requirements were set aside and we could focus on what our patients needed and how to take care of them.”
 

Taking job stress seriously

Tiffani Panek, MA, SFHM, CLHM, administrator of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore, said job stress is a major issue for hospitalist groups.

“We take it seriously here, and use a survey tool to measure morale in our group annually,” she said. “So far, knock on wood, Baltimore has not been one of the big hot spots, but we’ve definitely had waves of COVID patients.”

The Bayview hospitalist group has a diversified set of leaders, including a wellness director. “They’re always checking up on our people, keeping an eye on those who are most vulnerable. One of the stressors we hadn’t thought about before was for our people who live alone. With the isolation and lockdown, they haven’t been able to socialize, so we’ve made direct outreach, asking people how they were doing,” Ms. Panek said. “People know we’ve got their back – professionally and personally. They know, if there’s something we can do to help, we will do it.”

Bayview Medical Center has COVID-specific units and non-COVID units, and has tried to rotate hospitalist assignments because more than a couple days in a row spent wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) is exhausting, Ms. Panek said. The group also allocated a respite room just outside the biocontainment unit, with a computer and opportunities for providers to just sit and take a breather – with appropriate social distancing. “It’s not fancy, but you just have to wear a mask, not full PPE.”

The Hopkins hospitalist group’s wellness director, Catherine Washburn, MD, also a working hospitalist, said providers are exhausted, and trying to transition to the new normal is a moving target.

“It’s hard for anyone to say what our lives will look like in 6 months,” she said. “People in our group have lost family members to COVID, or postponed major life events, like weddings. We acknowledge losses together as a group, and celebrate things worth celebrating, like babies or birthdays.”
 

Greatest COVID caseload

Joshua Case, MD, hospitalist medical director for 16 acute care hospitals of Northwell Health serving metropolitan New York City and Long Island, said his group’s hospitalists and other staff worked incredibly hard during the surge of COVID-19 patients in New York. “Northwell likely cared for more COVID patients than any other health care system in the U.S., if not the world.

“It’s vastly different now. We went from a peak of thousands of cases per day down to about 70-90 new cases a day across our system. We’re lucky our system recognized that COVID could be an issue early on, with all of the multifaceted stressors on patient care,” Dr. Case said. “We’ve done whatever we could to give people time off, especially as the census started to come down. We freed up as many supportive mental health services as we could, working with the health system’s employee assistance program.”

Northwell gave out numbers for the psychiatry department, with clinicians available 24/7 for a confidential call, along with outside volunteers and a network of trauma psychologists. “Our system also provided emergency child care for staff, including hospitalists, wherever we could, drawing upon community resources,” Dr. Case added.

“We recognize that we’re all in the same foxhole. That’s been a helpful attitude – recognizing that it’s okay to be upset in a crisis and to have trouble dealing with what’s going on,” he said. “We need to acknowledge that some of us are suffering and try to encourage people to face it head on. For a lot of physicians, especially those who were redeployed here from other departments, it was important just to have us ask if they were doing okay.”

Brian Schroeder, MHA, FACHE, FHM, assistant vice president for hospital and emergency medicine for Atrium Health, based in Charlotte, N.C., said one of the biggest sources of stress on his staff has been the constant pace of change – whether local hospital protocols, state policies, or guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “The updating is difficult to keep up with. A lot of our physicians get worried and anxious that they’re not following the latest guidelines or correctly doing what they should be doing to care for COVID patients. One thing we’ve done to alleviate some of that fear and anxiety is through weekly huddles with our hospital teams, focusing on changes relevant to their work. We also have weekly ‘all-hands’ meetings for our 250 providers across 13 acute and four postacute facilities.”

Before COVID, it was difficult to get everyone together as one big group from hospitals up to 5 hours apart, but with the Microsoft Teams platform, they can all meet together.

“At the height of the pandemic, we’d convene weekly and share national statistics, organizational statistics, testing updates, changes to protocols,” Mr. Schroeder said. As the pace of change has slowed, these meetings were cut back to monthly. “Our physicians feel we are passing on information as soon as we get it. They know we’ll always tell them what we know.”

Sarah Richards, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, who heads the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Well-Being Task Force, formed to address staff stress in the COVID environment, said there are things that health care systems can do to help mitigate job stress and burnout. But broader issues may need to be addressed at a national level. “SHM is trying to understand work-related stress – and to identify resources that could support doctors, so they can spend more of their time doing what they enjoy most, which is taking care of patients,” she said.

“We also recognize that people have had very different experiences, depending on geography, and at the individual level stressors are experienced very differently,” Dr. Richard noted. “One of the most common stressors we’ve heard from doctors is the challenge of caring for patients who are lonely and isolated in their hospital rooms, suffering and dying in new ways. In low-incidence areas, doctors are expressing guilt because they aren’t under as much stress as their colleagues. In high-incidence areas, doctors are already experiencing posttraumatic stress disorder.”

SHM’s Well-Being Task Force is working on a tool to help normalize these stressors and encourage open conversations about mental health issues. A guide called “HM COVID Check-in Guide for Self & Peers” is designed to help hospitalists break the culture of silence around well-being and burnout during COVID-19 and how people are handling and processing the pandemic experience. It is expected to be completed later this year, Dr. Richards said. Other SHM projects and resources for staff support are also in the works.
 

The impact on women doctors

In a recent Journal of Hospital Medicine article entitled “Collateral Damage: How COVID-19 is Adversely Impacting Women Physicians,” hospitalist Yemisi Jones, MD, medical director of continuing medical education at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues argue that preexisting gender inequities in compensation, academic rank and leadership positions for physicians have made the COVID-19 crisis even more burdensome on female hospitalists.¹

“Increased childcare and schooling obligations, coupled with disproportionate household responsibilities and an inability to work from home, will likely result in female hospitalists struggling to meet family needs while pandemic-related work responsibilities are ramping up,” they write. COVID may intensify workplace inequalities, with a lack of recognition of the undue strain that group policies place on women.

“Often women suffer in silence,” said coauthor Jennifer O’Toole, MD, MEd, director of education in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and program director of the internal medicine–pediatrics residency. “We are not always the best self-advocates, although many of us are working on that.”

When women in hospital medicine take leadership roles, these often tend to involve mutual support activities, taking care of colleagues, and promoting collaborative work environments, Dr. Jones added. The stereotypical example is the committee that organizes celebrations when group members get married or have babies.

These activities can take a lot of time, she said. “We need to pay attention to that kind of role in our groups, because it’s important to the cohesiveness of the group. But it often goes unrecognized and doesn’t translate into the currency of promotion and leadership in medicine. When women go for promotions in the future, how will what happened during the COVID crisis impact their opportunities?”

What is the answer to overcoming these systemic inequities? Start with making sure women are part of the leadership team, with responsibilities for group policies, schedules, and other important decisions. “Look at your group’s leadership – particularly the higher positions. If it’s not diverse, ask why. ‘What is it about the structure of our group?’ Make a more concerted effort in your recruitment and retention,” Dr. Jones said.

The JHM article also recommends closely monitoring the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 on female hospitalists, inquiring specifically about the needs of women in the organization, and ensuring that diversity, inclusion, and equity efforts are not suspended during the pandemic. Gender-based disparities in pay also need a closer look, and not just one time but reviewed periodically and adjusted accordingly.

Mentoring for early career women is important, but more so is sponsorship – someone in a high-level leadership role in the group sponsoring women who are rising up the career ladder, Dr. O’Toole said. “Professional women tend to be overmentored and undersponsored.”
 

What are the answers?

Ultimately, listening is key to try to help people get through the pandemic, Dr. Washburn said. “People become burned out when they feel leadership doesn’t understand their needs or doesn’t hear their concerns. Our group leaders all do clinical work, so they are seen as one of us. They try very hard; they have listening ears. But listening is just the first step. Next step is to work creatively to get the identified needs met.”

A few years ago, Johns Hopkins developed training in enhanced communication in health care for all hospital providers, including nurses and doctors, encouraging them to get trained in how to actively listen and address their patients’ emotional and social experiences as well as disease, Dr. Washburn explained. Learning how to listen better to patients can enhance skills at listening to colleagues, and vice versa. “We recognize the importance of better communication – for reducing sentinel events in the hospital and also for preventing staff burnout.”

Dr. Barnes also does physician coaching, and says a lot of that work is helping people achieve clarity on their core values. “Healing patients is a core identify for physicians; we want to take care of people. But other things can get in the way of that, and hospitalist groups can work at minimizing those barriers. We also need to learn, as hospitalists, that we work in a group. You need to be creative in how you do your team building, especially now, when you can no longer get together for dinner. Whatever it is, how do we bring our team back together? The biggest source of support for many hospitalists, beyond their family, is the group.”

Dr. Case said there is a longer-term need to study the root causes of burnout in hospitalists and to identify the issues that cause job stress. “What is modifiable? How can we tackle it? I see that as big part of my job every day. Being a physician is hard enough as it is. Let’s work to resolve those issues that add needlessly to the stress.”

“I think the pandemic brought a magnifying glass to how important a concern staff stress is,” Ms. Panek said. Resilience is important.

“We were working in our group on creating a culture that values trust and transparency, and then the COVID crisis hit,” she said. “But you can still keep working on those things. We would not have been as good or as positive as we were in managing this crisis without that preexisting culture to draw upon. We always said it was important. Now we know that’s true.”
 

Reference

1. Jones Y et al. Collateral Damage: How COVID-19 Is Adversely Impacting Women Physicians. J Hosp Med. 2020 August;15(8):507-9.

Clarissa Barnes, MD, a hospitalist at Avera McKennan Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D., and until recently medical director of Avera’s LIGHT Program, a wellness-oriented service for doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, watched the COVID-19 crisis unfold up close in her community and her hospital. Sioux Falls traced its surge of COVID patients to an outbreak at a local meatpacking plant.

“In the beginning, we didn’t know much about the virus and its communicability, although we have since gotten a better handle on that,” she said. “We had questions: Should we give patients more fluids – or less? Steroids or not? In my experience as a hospitalist I never had patients die every day on my shift, but that was happening with COVID.” The crisis imposed serious stresses on frontline providers, and hospitalists were concerned about personal safety and exposure risk – not just for themselves but for their families.

“The first time I worked on the COVID unit, I moved into the guest room in our home, apart from my husband and our young children,” Dr. Barnes said. “Ultimately I caught the virus, although I have since recovered.” Her experience has highlighted how existing issues of job stress and burnout in hospital medicine have been exacerbated by COVID-19. Even physicians who consider themselves healthy may have little emotional reserve to draw upon in a crisis of this magnitude.

“We are social distancing at work, wearing masks, not eating together with our colleagues – with less camaraderie and social support than we used to have,” she said. “I feel exhausted and there’s no question that my colleagues and I have sacrificed a lot to deal with the pandemic.” Add to that the second front of the COVID-19 crisis, Dr. Barnes said, which is “fighting the medical information wars, trying to correct misinformation put out there by people. Physicians who have been on the front lines of the pandemic know how demoralizing it can be to have people negate your first-hand experience.”

The situation has gotten better in Sioux Falls, Dr. Barnes said, although cases have started rising in the state again. The stress, while not gone, is reduced. For some doctors, “COVID reminded us of why we do what we do. Some of the usual bureaucratic requirements were set aside and we could focus on what our patients needed and how to take care of them.”
 

Taking job stress seriously

Tiffani Panek, MA, SFHM, CLHM, administrator of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore, said job stress is a major issue for hospitalist groups.

“We take it seriously here, and use a survey tool to measure morale in our group annually,” she said. “So far, knock on wood, Baltimore has not been one of the big hot spots, but we’ve definitely had waves of COVID patients.”

The Bayview hospitalist group has a diversified set of leaders, including a wellness director. “They’re always checking up on our people, keeping an eye on those who are most vulnerable. One of the stressors we hadn’t thought about before was for our people who live alone. With the isolation and lockdown, they haven’t been able to socialize, so we’ve made direct outreach, asking people how they were doing,” Ms. Panek said. “People know we’ve got their back – professionally and personally. They know, if there’s something we can do to help, we will do it.”

Bayview Medical Center has COVID-specific units and non-COVID units, and has tried to rotate hospitalist assignments because more than a couple days in a row spent wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) is exhausting, Ms. Panek said. The group also allocated a respite room just outside the biocontainment unit, with a computer and opportunities for providers to just sit and take a breather – with appropriate social distancing. “It’s not fancy, but you just have to wear a mask, not full PPE.”

The Hopkins hospitalist group’s wellness director, Catherine Washburn, MD, also a working hospitalist, said providers are exhausted, and trying to transition to the new normal is a moving target.

“It’s hard for anyone to say what our lives will look like in 6 months,” she said. “People in our group have lost family members to COVID, or postponed major life events, like weddings. We acknowledge losses together as a group, and celebrate things worth celebrating, like babies or birthdays.”
 

Greatest COVID caseload

Joshua Case, MD, hospitalist medical director for 16 acute care hospitals of Northwell Health serving metropolitan New York City and Long Island, said his group’s hospitalists and other staff worked incredibly hard during the surge of COVID-19 patients in New York. “Northwell likely cared for more COVID patients than any other health care system in the U.S., if not the world.

“It’s vastly different now. We went from a peak of thousands of cases per day down to about 70-90 new cases a day across our system. We’re lucky our system recognized that COVID could be an issue early on, with all of the multifaceted stressors on patient care,” Dr. Case said. “We’ve done whatever we could to give people time off, especially as the census started to come down. We freed up as many supportive mental health services as we could, working with the health system’s employee assistance program.”

Northwell gave out numbers for the psychiatry department, with clinicians available 24/7 for a confidential call, along with outside volunteers and a network of trauma psychologists. “Our system also provided emergency child care for staff, including hospitalists, wherever we could, drawing upon community resources,” Dr. Case added.

“We recognize that we’re all in the same foxhole. That’s been a helpful attitude – recognizing that it’s okay to be upset in a crisis and to have trouble dealing with what’s going on,” he said. “We need to acknowledge that some of us are suffering and try to encourage people to face it head on. For a lot of physicians, especially those who were redeployed here from other departments, it was important just to have us ask if they were doing okay.”

Brian Schroeder, MHA, FACHE, FHM, assistant vice president for hospital and emergency medicine for Atrium Health, based in Charlotte, N.C., said one of the biggest sources of stress on his staff has been the constant pace of change – whether local hospital protocols, state policies, or guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “The updating is difficult to keep up with. A lot of our physicians get worried and anxious that they’re not following the latest guidelines or correctly doing what they should be doing to care for COVID patients. One thing we’ve done to alleviate some of that fear and anxiety is through weekly huddles with our hospital teams, focusing on changes relevant to their work. We also have weekly ‘all-hands’ meetings for our 250 providers across 13 acute and four postacute facilities.”

Before COVID, it was difficult to get everyone together as one big group from hospitals up to 5 hours apart, but with the Microsoft Teams platform, they can all meet together.

“At the height of the pandemic, we’d convene weekly and share national statistics, organizational statistics, testing updates, changes to protocols,” Mr. Schroeder said. As the pace of change has slowed, these meetings were cut back to monthly. “Our physicians feel we are passing on information as soon as we get it. They know we’ll always tell them what we know.”

Sarah Richards, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, who heads the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Well-Being Task Force, formed to address staff stress in the COVID environment, said there are things that health care systems can do to help mitigate job stress and burnout. But broader issues may need to be addressed at a national level. “SHM is trying to understand work-related stress – and to identify resources that could support doctors, so they can spend more of their time doing what they enjoy most, which is taking care of patients,” she said.

“We also recognize that people have had very different experiences, depending on geography, and at the individual level stressors are experienced very differently,” Dr. Richard noted. “One of the most common stressors we’ve heard from doctors is the challenge of caring for patients who are lonely and isolated in their hospital rooms, suffering and dying in new ways. In low-incidence areas, doctors are expressing guilt because they aren’t under as much stress as their colleagues. In high-incidence areas, doctors are already experiencing posttraumatic stress disorder.”

SHM’s Well-Being Task Force is working on a tool to help normalize these stressors and encourage open conversations about mental health issues. A guide called “HM COVID Check-in Guide for Self & Peers” is designed to help hospitalists break the culture of silence around well-being and burnout during COVID-19 and how people are handling and processing the pandemic experience. It is expected to be completed later this year, Dr. Richards said. Other SHM projects and resources for staff support are also in the works.
 

The impact on women doctors

In a recent Journal of Hospital Medicine article entitled “Collateral Damage: How COVID-19 is Adversely Impacting Women Physicians,” hospitalist Yemisi Jones, MD, medical director of continuing medical education at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues argue that preexisting gender inequities in compensation, academic rank and leadership positions for physicians have made the COVID-19 crisis even more burdensome on female hospitalists.¹

“Increased childcare and schooling obligations, coupled with disproportionate household responsibilities and an inability to work from home, will likely result in female hospitalists struggling to meet family needs while pandemic-related work responsibilities are ramping up,” they write. COVID may intensify workplace inequalities, with a lack of recognition of the undue strain that group policies place on women.

“Often women suffer in silence,” said coauthor Jennifer O’Toole, MD, MEd, director of education in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and program director of the internal medicine–pediatrics residency. “We are not always the best self-advocates, although many of us are working on that.”

When women in hospital medicine take leadership roles, these often tend to involve mutual support activities, taking care of colleagues, and promoting collaborative work environments, Dr. Jones added. The stereotypical example is the committee that organizes celebrations when group members get married or have babies.

These activities can take a lot of time, she said. “We need to pay attention to that kind of role in our groups, because it’s important to the cohesiveness of the group. But it often goes unrecognized and doesn’t translate into the currency of promotion and leadership in medicine. When women go for promotions in the future, how will what happened during the COVID crisis impact their opportunities?”

What is the answer to overcoming these systemic inequities? Start with making sure women are part of the leadership team, with responsibilities for group policies, schedules, and other important decisions. “Look at your group’s leadership – particularly the higher positions. If it’s not diverse, ask why. ‘What is it about the structure of our group?’ Make a more concerted effort in your recruitment and retention,” Dr. Jones said.

The JHM article also recommends closely monitoring the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 on female hospitalists, inquiring specifically about the needs of women in the organization, and ensuring that diversity, inclusion, and equity efforts are not suspended during the pandemic. Gender-based disparities in pay also need a closer look, and not just one time but reviewed periodically and adjusted accordingly.

Mentoring for early career women is important, but more so is sponsorship – someone in a high-level leadership role in the group sponsoring women who are rising up the career ladder, Dr. O’Toole said. “Professional women tend to be overmentored and undersponsored.”
 

What are the answers?

Ultimately, listening is key to try to help people get through the pandemic, Dr. Washburn said. “People become burned out when they feel leadership doesn’t understand their needs or doesn’t hear their concerns. Our group leaders all do clinical work, so they are seen as one of us. They try very hard; they have listening ears. But listening is just the first step. Next step is to work creatively to get the identified needs met.”

A few years ago, Johns Hopkins developed training in enhanced communication in health care for all hospital providers, including nurses and doctors, encouraging them to get trained in how to actively listen and address their patients’ emotional and social experiences as well as disease, Dr. Washburn explained. Learning how to listen better to patients can enhance skills at listening to colleagues, and vice versa. “We recognize the importance of better communication – for reducing sentinel events in the hospital and also for preventing staff burnout.”

Dr. Barnes also does physician coaching, and says a lot of that work is helping people achieve clarity on their core values. “Healing patients is a core identify for physicians; we want to take care of people. But other things can get in the way of that, and hospitalist groups can work at minimizing those barriers. We also need to learn, as hospitalists, that we work in a group. You need to be creative in how you do your team building, especially now, when you can no longer get together for dinner. Whatever it is, how do we bring our team back together? The biggest source of support for many hospitalists, beyond their family, is the group.”

Dr. Case said there is a longer-term need to study the root causes of burnout in hospitalists and to identify the issues that cause job stress. “What is modifiable? How can we tackle it? I see that as big part of my job every day. Being a physician is hard enough as it is. Let’s work to resolve those issues that add needlessly to the stress.”

“I think the pandemic brought a magnifying glass to how important a concern staff stress is,” Ms. Panek said. Resilience is important.

“We were working in our group on creating a culture that values trust and transparency, and then the COVID crisis hit,” she said. “But you can still keep working on those things. We would not have been as good or as positive as we were in managing this crisis without that preexisting culture to draw upon. We always said it was important. Now we know that’s true.”
 

Reference

1. Jones Y et al. Collateral Damage: How COVID-19 Is Adversely Impacting Women Physicians. J Hosp Med. 2020 August;15(8):507-9.

Nearly half the nation’s hospitals, many of which are still wrestling with the financial fallout of the unexpected coronavirus, will get lower payments for all Medicare patients because of their history of readmitting patients, federal records show.

The penalties are the ninth annual round of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program created as part of the Affordable Care Act’s broader effort to improve quality and lower costs. The latest penalties are calculated using each hospital case history between July 2016 and June 2019, so the flood of coronavirus patients that have swamped hospitals this year were not included.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in September it may suspend the penalty program in the future if the chaos surrounding the pandemic, including the spring’s moratorium on elective surgeries, makes it too difficult to assess hospital performance.

For this year, the penalties remain in effect. Retroactive to the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Medicare will lower a year’s worth of payments to 2,545 hospitals, the data show. The average reduction is 0.69%, with 613 hospitals receiving a penalty of 1% or more.

Out of 5,267 hospitals in the country, Congress has exempted 2,176 from the threat of penalties, either because they are critical access hospitals – defined as the only inpatient facility in an area – or hospitals that specialize in psychiatric patients, children, veterans, rehabilitation or long-term care. Of the 3,080 hospitals CMS evaluated, 83% received a penalty.

The number and severity of penalties were comparable to those of recent years, although the number of hospitals receiving the maximum penalty of 3% dropped from 56 to 39. Because the penalties are applied to new admission payments, the total dollar amount each hospital will lose will not be known until after the fiscal year ends on July 30.

“It’s unfortunate that hospitals will face readmission penalties in fiscal year 2021,” said Akin Demehin, director of policy at the American Hospital Association. “Given the financial strain that hospitals are under, every dollar counts, and the impact of any penalty is significant.”

The penalties are based on readmissions of Medicare patients who initially came to the hospital with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, heart attack, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip or knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Medicare counts as a readmission any of those patients who ended up back in any hospital within 30 days of discharge, except for planned returns like a second phase of surgery.

A hospital will be penalized if its readmission rate is higher than expected given the national trends in any one of those categories.

The industry has disapproved of the program since its inception, complaining the measures aren’t precise and it unfairly punishes hospitals that treat low-income patients, who often don’t have the resources to ensure their recoveries are successful.

Michael Millenson, a health quality consultant who focuses on patient safety, said the penalties are a useful but imperfect mechanism to push hospitals to improve their care. The designers of the penalty system envisioned it as a way to neutralize the economic benefit hospitals get from readmitted patients under Medicare’s fee-for-service payment model, as they are otherwise paid for two stays instead of just one.

“Every industry complains the penalties are too harsh,” he said. “if you’re going to tell me we don’t need any economic incentives to do the right thing because we’re always doing the right thing – that’s not true.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Nearly half the nation’s hospitals, many of which are still wrestling with the financial fallout of the unexpected coronavirus, will get lower payments for all Medicare patients because of their history of readmitting patients, federal records show.

The penalties are the ninth annual round of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program created as part of the Affordable Care Act’s broader effort to improve quality and lower costs. The latest penalties are calculated using each hospital case history between July 2016 and June 2019, so the flood of coronavirus patients that have swamped hospitals this year were not included.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in September it may suspend the penalty program in the future if the chaos surrounding the pandemic, including the spring’s moratorium on elective surgeries, makes it too difficult to assess hospital performance.

For this year, the penalties remain in effect. Retroactive to the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Medicare will lower a year’s worth of payments to 2,545 hospitals, the data show. The average reduction is 0.69%, with 613 hospitals receiving a penalty of 1% or more.

Out of 5,267 hospitals in the country, Congress has exempted 2,176 from the threat of penalties, either because they are critical access hospitals – defined as the only inpatient facility in an area – or hospitals that specialize in psychiatric patients, children, veterans, rehabilitation or long-term care. Of the 3,080 hospitals CMS evaluated, 83% received a penalty.

The number and severity of penalties were comparable to those of recent years, although the number of hospitals receiving the maximum penalty of 3% dropped from 56 to 39. Because the penalties are applied to new admission payments, the total dollar amount each hospital will lose will not be known until after the fiscal year ends on July 30.

“It’s unfortunate that hospitals will face readmission penalties in fiscal year 2021,” said Akin Demehin, director of policy at the American Hospital Association. “Given the financial strain that hospitals are under, every dollar counts, and the impact of any penalty is significant.”

The penalties are based on readmissions of Medicare patients who initially came to the hospital with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, heart attack, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip or knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Medicare counts as a readmission any of those patients who ended up back in any hospital within 30 days of discharge, except for planned returns like a second phase of surgery.

A hospital will be penalized if its readmission rate is higher than expected given the national trends in any one of those categories.

The industry has disapproved of the program since its inception, complaining the measures aren’t precise and it unfairly punishes hospitals that treat low-income patients, who often don’t have the resources to ensure their recoveries are successful.

Michael Millenson, a health quality consultant who focuses on patient safety, said the penalties are a useful but imperfect mechanism to push hospitals to improve their care. The designers of the penalty system envisioned it as a way to neutralize the economic benefit hospitals get from readmitted patients under Medicare’s fee-for-service payment model, as they are otherwise paid for two stays instead of just one.

“Every industry complains the penalties are too harsh,” he said. “if you’re going to tell me we don’t need any economic incentives to do the right thing because we’re always doing the right thing – that’s not true.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Nearly half the nation’s hospitals, many of which are still wrestling with the financial fallout of the unexpected coronavirus, will get lower payments for all Medicare patients because of their history of readmitting patients, federal records show.

The penalties are the ninth annual round of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program created as part of the Affordable Care Act’s broader effort to improve quality and lower costs. The latest penalties are calculated using each hospital case history between July 2016 and June 2019, so the flood of coronavirus patients that have swamped hospitals this year were not included.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in September it may suspend the penalty program in the future if the chaos surrounding the pandemic, including the spring’s moratorium on elective surgeries, makes it too difficult to assess hospital performance.

For this year, the penalties remain in effect. Retroactive to the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Medicare will lower a year’s worth of payments to 2,545 hospitals, the data show. The average reduction is 0.69%, with 613 hospitals receiving a penalty of 1% or more.

Out of 5,267 hospitals in the country, Congress has exempted 2,176 from the threat of penalties, either because they are critical access hospitals – defined as the only inpatient facility in an area – or hospitals that specialize in psychiatric patients, children, veterans, rehabilitation or long-term care. Of the 3,080 hospitals CMS evaluated, 83% received a penalty.

The number and severity of penalties were comparable to those of recent years, although the number of hospitals receiving the maximum penalty of 3% dropped from 56 to 39. Because the penalties are applied to new admission payments, the total dollar amount each hospital will lose will not be known until after the fiscal year ends on July 30.

“It’s unfortunate that hospitals will face readmission penalties in fiscal year 2021,” said Akin Demehin, director of policy at the American Hospital Association. “Given the financial strain that hospitals are under, every dollar counts, and the impact of any penalty is significant.”

The penalties are based on readmissions of Medicare patients who initially came to the hospital with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, heart attack, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip or knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Medicare counts as a readmission any of those patients who ended up back in any hospital within 30 days of discharge, except for planned returns like a second phase of surgery.

A hospital will be penalized if its readmission rate is higher than expected given the national trends in any one of those categories.

The industry has disapproved of the program since its inception, complaining the measures aren’t precise and it unfairly punishes hospitals that treat low-income patients, who often don’t have the resources to ensure their recoveries are successful.

Michael Millenson, a health quality consultant who focuses on patient safety, said the penalties are a useful but imperfect mechanism to push hospitals to improve their care. The designers of the penalty system envisioned it as a way to neutralize the economic benefit hospitals get from readmitted patients under Medicare’s fee-for-service payment model, as they are otherwise paid for two stays instead of just one.

“Every industry complains the penalties are too harsh,” he said. “if you’re going to tell me we don’t need any economic incentives to do the right thing because we’re always doing the right thing – that’s not true.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Plagued by false starts, a few dashed hopes, but with perhaps a glimmer of light on the horizon, the race to find an effective treatment for COVID-19 continues. At last count, more than 300 treatments and 200 vaccines were in preclinical or clinical development (not to mention the numerous existing agents that are being evaluated for repurposing).

There is also a renewed interest in cannabinoid therapeutics — in particular, the nonpsychoactive agent cannabidiol (CBD) and the prospect of its modulating inflammatory and other disease-associated clinical indices, including SARS-CoV-2–induced viral load, hyperinflammation, the cytokine storm, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Long hobbled by regulatory, political, and financial barriers, CBD’s potential ability to knock back COVID-19–related inflammation might just open doors that have been closed for years to CBD researchers.
 

Why CBD and why now?

CBD and the resulting therapeutics have been plagued by a complicated association with recreational cannabis use. It’s been just 2 years since CBD-based therapeutics moved into mainstream medicine — the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Epidiolex oral solution for the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, and in August, the FDA approved it for tuberous sclerosis complex.

CBD’s mechanism of action has not been fully elucidated, but on the basis of its role in immune responses — well described in research spanning more than two decades — it›s not surprising that cannabinoid researchers have thrown their hats into the COVID-19 drug development ring.

The anti-inflammatory potential of CBD is substantial and appears to be related to the fact that it shares 20 protein targets common to inflammation-related pathways, Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, research assistant professor at the University of Florida School of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida, explained to Medscape Medical News.

Among the various trials that are currently recruiting or are underway is one that is slated for completion this fall. CANDIDATE (Cannabidiol for COVID-19 Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19) is a randomized, controlled, double-blind study led by Brazilian researchers at the University of São Paulo. The study, which began recruitment this past August, enrolled 100 patients, 50 in the active treatment group (who received capsulated CBD 300 mg daily for 14 days plus pharmacologic therapy [antipyretics] and clinical measures) and 50 who received placebo.

The primary outcome is intended to help clarify the potential role of oral CBD for preventing COVID-19 disease progression, modifying disease-associated clinical indices, and modulating inflammatory parameters, such as the cytokine storm, according to lead investigator Jose Alexandre de Souza Crippa, MD, PhD, professor of neuropsychology at the Ribeirao Preto Medical School at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, in the description of the study on clinicaltrials.gov. Crippa declined to provide any additional information about the trial in an email to Medscape Medical News.
 

Calming or preventing the storm

While Crippa and colleagues wrap up their CBD trial in South America, several North American and Canadian researchers are seeking to clarify and address one of the most therapeutically challenging aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection — the lung macrophage–orchestrated hyperinflammatory response.

Although hyperinflammation is not unique to SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease severity and COVID-19–related mortality have been linked to this rapid and prolonged surge of inflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin 6 [IL-6], IL-10, tumor necrosis factors [TNF], and chemokines) and the cytokine storm.

“When you stimulate CB2 receptors (involved in fighting inflammation), you get a release of the same inflammatory cytokines that are involved in COVID,” Cecilia Costiniuk, MD, associate professor and researcher at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“So, if you can act on this receptor, you might be able to reduce the release of those damaging cytokines that are causing ARDS, lung damage, etc,” she explained. Targeting these inflammatory mediators has been a key strategy in research aimed at reducing COVID-19 severity and related mortality, which is where CBD comes into play.

“CBD is a very powerful immune regulator. It keeps the [immune] engine on, but it doesn’t push the gas pedal, and it doesn’t push the brake completely,” Babak Baban, PhD, professor and immunologist at the Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University, told Medscape Medical News.

To explore the effectiveness of CBD in reducing hyperactivated inflammatory reactions, Baban and colleagues examined the potential of CBD to ameliorate ARDS in a murine model. The group divided wild-type male mice into sham, control, and treatment groups.

The sham group received intranasal phosphate buffered saline; the treatment and control groups received a polyriboinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) double-stranded RNA analogue (100 mcg daily for 3 days) to simulate the cytokine storm and clinical ARDS symptoms.

Following the second poly I:C dose, the treatment group received CBD 5 mg/kg intraperitoneally every other day for 6 days. The mice were sacrificed on day 8.

The study results, published in July in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, first confirmed that the poly I:C model simulated the cytokine storm in ARDS, reducing blood oxygen saturation by as much as 10% (from ±81.6% to ±72.2%).

Intraperitoneally administered CBD appeared to reverse these ARDS-like trends. “We observed a significant improvement in severe lymphopenia, a mild decline in the ratio of neutrophils to T cells, and significant reductions in levels of [inflammatory and immune factors] IL-6, IFN-gamma [interferon gamma], and in TNF-alpha after the second CBD dose,” Baban said.

There was also a marked downregulation in infiltrating neutrophils and macrophages in the lung, leading to partial restoration of lung morphology and structure. The investigators write that this suggests “a counter inflammatory role for CBD to limit ARDS progression.”

Additional findings from a follow-up study published in mid-October “provide strong data that CBD may partially assert its beneficial and protective impact through its regulation of the apelin peptide,” wrote Baban in an email to Medscape Medical News.

“Apelin may also be a reliable biomarker for early diagnosis of ARDS in general, and in COVID-19 in particular,” he wrote.

Questions remain concerning dose response and whether CBD alone or in combination with other phytocannabinoids is more effective for treating COVID-19. Timing is likewise unclear.

Baban explained that as a result of the biphasic nature of COVID-19, the “sweet spot” appears to be just before the innate immune response progresses into an inflammation-driven response and fibrotic lung damage occurs.

But Wilkerson isn’t as convinced. She said that as with a thermostat, the endocannabinoid system needs tweaking to get it in the right place, that is, to achieve immune homeostasis. The COVID cytokine storm is highly unpredictable, she added, saying, “Right now, the timing for controlling the COVID cytokine storm is really a moving target.”
 

Is safety a concern?

Safety questions are expected to arise, especially in relation to COVID-19. CBD is not risk free, and one size does not fit all. Human CBD studies report gastrointestinal and somnolent effects, as well as drug-drug interactions.

Findings from a recent systematic review of randomized, controlled CBD trials support overall tolerability, suggesting that serious adverse events are rare. Such events are believed to be related to drug-drug interactions rather than to CBD itself. On the flip side, it is nonintoxicating, and there does not appear to be potential for abuse.

“It’s generally well tolerated,” Wilkerson said. “There’ve now been several clinical trials in numerous patient population settings where basically the only time you really start to have issues is where you have patients on very select agents. But this is where a pharmacist would come into play.”

Costiniuk agreed: “Just because it’s cannabis, it doesn’t mean that there’s going to be strange or unusual effects; these people [ie, those with severe COVID-19] are in the hospital and monitored very closely.”
 

Delving into the weeds: What’s next?

Although non-COVID-19 cannabinoid researchers have encountered regulatory roadblocks, several research groups that have had the prescience to dive in at the right time are gaining momentum.

Baban’s team has connected with one of the nation’s few academic laboratories authorized to work with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and are awaiting protocol approval so that they can reproduce their research, this time using two CBD formulations (injectable and inhaled).

If findings are positive, they will move forward quickly to meet with the FDA, Baban said, adding that the team is also collaborating with two organizations to conduct human clinical trials in hopes of pushing up timing.

The initial article caught the eye of the World Health Organization, which included it in its global literature on the coronavirus resource section.

Israeli researchers have also been quite busy. InnoCan Pharma and Tel Aviv University are collaborating to explore the potential for CBD-loaded exosomes (minute extracellular particles that mediate intracellular communication, including via innate and adaptive immune responses). The group plans to use these loaded exosomes to target and facilitate recovery of COVID-19–damaged lung cells.

From a broader perspective, the prospects for harnessing cannabinoids for immune modulation will be more thoroughly explored in a special issue of Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, which has extended its current call for papers, studies, abstracts, and conference proceedings until the end of December.

Like many of the therapeutic strategies under investigation for the treatment of COVID-19, studies in CBD may continue to raise more questions than answers.

Still, Wilkerson is optimistic. “Taken together, these studies along with countless others suggest that the complex pharmacophore of Cannabis sativa may hold therapeutic utility to treat lung inflammation, such as what is seen in a COVID-19 cytokine storm,» she told Medscape Medical News. “I’m very excited to see what comes out of the research.”

Baban, Wilkerson, and Costiniuk have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Plagued by false starts, a few dashed hopes, but with perhaps a glimmer of light on the horizon, the race to find an effective treatment for COVID-19 continues. At last count, more than 300 treatments and 200 vaccines were in preclinical or clinical development (not to mention the numerous existing agents that are being evaluated for repurposing).

There is also a renewed interest in cannabinoid therapeutics — in particular, the nonpsychoactive agent cannabidiol (CBD) and the prospect of its modulating inflammatory and other disease-associated clinical indices, including SARS-CoV-2–induced viral load, hyperinflammation, the cytokine storm, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Long hobbled by regulatory, political, and financial barriers, CBD’s potential ability to knock back COVID-19–related inflammation might just open doors that have been closed for years to CBD researchers.
 

Why CBD and why now?

CBD and the resulting therapeutics have been plagued by a complicated association with recreational cannabis use. It’s been just 2 years since CBD-based therapeutics moved into mainstream medicine — the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Epidiolex oral solution for the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, and in August, the FDA approved it for tuberous sclerosis complex.

CBD’s mechanism of action has not been fully elucidated, but on the basis of its role in immune responses — well described in research spanning more than two decades — it›s not surprising that cannabinoid researchers have thrown their hats into the COVID-19 drug development ring.

The anti-inflammatory potential of CBD is substantial and appears to be related to the fact that it shares 20 protein targets common to inflammation-related pathways, Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, research assistant professor at the University of Florida School of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida, explained to Medscape Medical News.

Among the various trials that are currently recruiting or are underway is one that is slated for completion this fall. CANDIDATE (Cannabidiol for COVID-19 Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19) is a randomized, controlled, double-blind study led by Brazilian researchers at the University of São Paulo. The study, which began recruitment this past August, enrolled 100 patients, 50 in the active treatment group (who received capsulated CBD 300 mg daily for 14 days plus pharmacologic therapy [antipyretics] and clinical measures) and 50 who received placebo.

The primary outcome is intended to help clarify the potential role of oral CBD for preventing COVID-19 disease progression, modifying disease-associated clinical indices, and modulating inflammatory parameters, such as the cytokine storm, according to lead investigator Jose Alexandre de Souza Crippa, MD, PhD, professor of neuropsychology at the Ribeirao Preto Medical School at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, in the description of the study on clinicaltrials.gov. Crippa declined to provide any additional information about the trial in an email to Medscape Medical News.
 

Calming or preventing the storm

While Crippa and colleagues wrap up their CBD trial in South America, several North American and Canadian researchers are seeking to clarify and address one of the most therapeutically challenging aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection — the lung macrophage–orchestrated hyperinflammatory response.

Although hyperinflammation is not unique to SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease severity and COVID-19–related mortality have been linked to this rapid and prolonged surge of inflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin 6 [IL-6], IL-10, tumor necrosis factors [TNF], and chemokines) and the cytokine storm.

“When you stimulate CB2 receptors (involved in fighting inflammation), you get a release of the same inflammatory cytokines that are involved in COVID,” Cecilia Costiniuk, MD, associate professor and researcher at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“So, if you can act on this receptor, you might be able to reduce the release of those damaging cytokines that are causing ARDS, lung damage, etc,” she explained. Targeting these inflammatory mediators has been a key strategy in research aimed at reducing COVID-19 severity and related mortality, which is where CBD comes into play.

“CBD is a very powerful immune regulator. It keeps the [immune] engine on, but it doesn’t push the gas pedal, and it doesn’t push the brake completely,” Babak Baban, PhD, professor and immunologist at the Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University, told Medscape Medical News.

To explore the effectiveness of CBD in reducing hyperactivated inflammatory reactions, Baban and colleagues examined the potential of CBD to ameliorate ARDS in a murine model. The group divided wild-type male mice into sham, control, and treatment groups.

The sham group received intranasal phosphate buffered saline; the treatment and control groups received a polyriboinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) double-stranded RNA analogue (100 mcg daily for 3 days) to simulate the cytokine storm and clinical ARDS symptoms.

Following the second poly I:C dose, the treatment group received CBD 5 mg/kg intraperitoneally every other day for 6 days. The mice were sacrificed on day 8.

The study results, published in July in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, first confirmed that the poly I:C model simulated the cytokine storm in ARDS, reducing blood oxygen saturation by as much as 10% (from ±81.6% to ±72.2%).

Intraperitoneally administered CBD appeared to reverse these ARDS-like trends. “We observed a significant improvement in severe lymphopenia, a mild decline in the ratio of neutrophils to T cells, and significant reductions in levels of [inflammatory and immune factors] IL-6, IFN-gamma [interferon gamma], and in TNF-alpha after the second CBD dose,” Baban said.

There was also a marked downregulation in infiltrating neutrophils and macrophages in the lung, leading to partial restoration of lung morphology and structure. The investigators write that this suggests “a counter inflammatory role for CBD to limit ARDS progression.”

Additional findings from a follow-up study published in mid-October “provide strong data that CBD may partially assert its beneficial and protective impact through its regulation of the apelin peptide,” wrote Baban in an email to Medscape Medical News.

“Apelin may also be a reliable biomarker for early diagnosis of ARDS in general, and in COVID-19 in particular,” he wrote.

Questions remain concerning dose response and whether CBD alone or in combination with other phytocannabinoids is more effective for treating COVID-19. Timing is likewise unclear.

Baban explained that as a result of the biphasic nature of COVID-19, the “sweet spot” appears to be just before the innate immune response progresses into an inflammation-driven response and fibrotic lung damage occurs.

But Wilkerson isn’t as convinced. She said that as with a thermostat, the endocannabinoid system needs tweaking to get it in the right place, that is, to achieve immune homeostasis. The COVID cytokine storm is highly unpredictable, she added, saying, “Right now, the timing for controlling the COVID cytokine storm is really a moving target.”
 

Is safety a concern?

Safety questions are expected to arise, especially in relation to COVID-19. CBD is not risk free, and one size does not fit all. Human CBD studies report gastrointestinal and somnolent effects, as well as drug-drug interactions.

Findings from a recent systematic review of randomized, controlled CBD trials support overall tolerability, suggesting that serious adverse events are rare. Such events are believed to be related to drug-drug interactions rather than to CBD itself. On the flip side, it is nonintoxicating, and there does not appear to be potential for abuse.

“It’s generally well tolerated,” Wilkerson said. “There’ve now been several clinical trials in numerous patient population settings where basically the only time you really start to have issues is where you have patients on very select agents. But this is where a pharmacist would come into play.”

Costiniuk agreed: “Just because it’s cannabis, it doesn’t mean that there’s going to be strange or unusual effects; these people [ie, those with severe COVID-19] are in the hospital and monitored very closely.”
 

Delving into the weeds: What’s next?

Although non-COVID-19 cannabinoid researchers have encountered regulatory roadblocks, several research groups that have had the prescience to dive in at the right time are gaining momentum.

Baban’s team has connected with one of the nation’s few academic laboratories authorized to work with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and are awaiting protocol approval so that they can reproduce their research, this time using two CBD formulations (injectable and inhaled).

If findings are positive, they will move forward quickly to meet with the FDA, Baban said, adding that the team is also collaborating with two organizations to conduct human clinical trials in hopes of pushing up timing.

The initial article caught the eye of the World Health Organization, which included it in its global literature on the coronavirus resource section.

Israeli researchers have also been quite busy. InnoCan Pharma and Tel Aviv University are collaborating to explore the potential for CBD-loaded exosomes (minute extracellular particles that mediate intracellular communication, including via innate and adaptive immune responses). The group plans to use these loaded exosomes to target and facilitate recovery of COVID-19–damaged lung cells.

From a broader perspective, the prospects for harnessing cannabinoids for immune modulation will be more thoroughly explored in a special issue of Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, which has extended its current call for papers, studies, abstracts, and conference proceedings until the end of December.

Like many of the therapeutic strategies under investigation for the treatment of COVID-19, studies in CBD may continue to raise more questions than answers.

Still, Wilkerson is optimistic. “Taken together, these studies along with countless others suggest that the complex pharmacophore of Cannabis sativa may hold therapeutic utility to treat lung inflammation, such as what is seen in a COVID-19 cytokine storm,» she told Medscape Medical News. “I’m very excited to see what comes out of the research.”

Baban, Wilkerson, and Costiniuk have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Plagued by false starts, a few dashed hopes, but with perhaps a glimmer of light on the horizon, the race to find an effective treatment for COVID-19 continues. At last count, more than 300 treatments and 200 vaccines were in preclinical or clinical development (not to mention the numerous existing agents that are being evaluated for repurposing).

There is also a renewed interest in cannabinoid therapeutics — in particular, the nonpsychoactive agent cannabidiol (CBD) and the prospect of its modulating inflammatory and other disease-associated clinical indices, including SARS-CoV-2–induced viral load, hyperinflammation, the cytokine storm, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Long hobbled by regulatory, political, and financial barriers, CBD’s potential ability to knock back COVID-19–related inflammation might just open doors that have been closed for years to CBD researchers.
 

Why CBD and why now?

CBD and the resulting therapeutics have been plagued by a complicated association with recreational cannabis use. It’s been just 2 years since CBD-based therapeutics moved into mainstream medicine — the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Epidiolex oral solution for the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, and in August, the FDA approved it for tuberous sclerosis complex.

CBD’s mechanism of action has not been fully elucidated, but on the basis of its role in immune responses — well described in research spanning more than two decades — it›s not surprising that cannabinoid researchers have thrown their hats into the COVID-19 drug development ring.

The anti-inflammatory potential of CBD is substantial and appears to be related to the fact that it shares 20 protein targets common to inflammation-related pathways, Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, research assistant professor at the University of Florida School of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida, explained to Medscape Medical News.

Among the various trials that are currently recruiting or are underway is one that is slated for completion this fall. CANDIDATE (Cannabidiol for COVID-19 Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19) is a randomized, controlled, double-blind study led by Brazilian researchers at the University of São Paulo. The study, which began recruitment this past August, enrolled 100 patients, 50 in the active treatment group (who received capsulated CBD 300 mg daily for 14 days plus pharmacologic therapy [antipyretics] and clinical measures) and 50 who received placebo.

The primary outcome is intended to help clarify the potential role of oral CBD for preventing COVID-19 disease progression, modifying disease-associated clinical indices, and modulating inflammatory parameters, such as the cytokine storm, according to lead investigator Jose Alexandre de Souza Crippa, MD, PhD, professor of neuropsychology at the Ribeirao Preto Medical School at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, in the description of the study on clinicaltrials.gov. Crippa declined to provide any additional information about the trial in an email to Medscape Medical News.
 

Calming or preventing the storm

While Crippa and colleagues wrap up their CBD trial in South America, several North American and Canadian researchers are seeking to clarify and address one of the most therapeutically challenging aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection — the lung macrophage–orchestrated hyperinflammatory response.

Although hyperinflammation is not unique to SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease severity and COVID-19–related mortality have been linked to this rapid and prolonged surge of inflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin 6 [IL-6], IL-10, tumor necrosis factors [TNF], and chemokines) and the cytokine storm.

“When you stimulate CB2 receptors (involved in fighting inflammation), you get a release of the same inflammatory cytokines that are involved in COVID,” Cecilia Costiniuk, MD, associate professor and researcher at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“So, if you can act on this receptor, you might be able to reduce the release of those damaging cytokines that are causing ARDS, lung damage, etc,” she explained. Targeting these inflammatory mediators has been a key strategy in research aimed at reducing COVID-19 severity and related mortality, which is where CBD comes into play.

“CBD is a very powerful immune regulator. It keeps the [immune] engine on, but it doesn’t push the gas pedal, and it doesn’t push the brake completely,” Babak Baban, PhD, professor and immunologist at the Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University, told Medscape Medical News.

To explore the effectiveness of CBD in reducing hyperactivated inflammatory reactions, Baban and colleagues examined the potential of CBD to ameliorate ARDS in a murine model. The group divided wild-type male mice into sham, control, and treatment groups.

The sham group received intranasal phosphate buffered saline; the treatment and control groups received a polyriboinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) double-stranded RNA analogue (100 mcg daily for 3 days) to simulate the cytokine storm and clinical ARDS symptoms.

Following the second poly I:C dose, the treatment group received CBD 5 mg/kg intraperitoneally every other day for 6 days. The mice were sacrificed on day 8.

The study results, published in July in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, first confirmed that the poly I:C model simulated the cytokine storm in ARDS, reducing blood oxygen saturation by as much as 10% (from ±81.6% to ±72.2%).

Intraperitoneally administered CBD appeared to reverse these ARDS-like trends. “We observed a significant improvement in severe lymphopenia, a mild decline in the ratio of neutrophils to T cells, and significant reductions in levels of [inflammatory and immune factors] IL-6, IFN-gamma [interferon gamma], and in TNF-alpha after the second CBD dose,” Baban said.

There was also a marked downregulation in infiltrating neutrophils and macrophages in the lung, leading to partial restoration of lung morphology and structure. The investigators write that this suggests “a counter inflammatory role for CBD to limit ARDS progression.”

Additional findings from a follow-up study published in mid-October “provide strong data that CBD may partially assert its beneficial and protective impact through its regulation of the apelin peptide,” wrote Baban in an email to Medscape Medical News.

“Apelin may also be a reliable biomarker for early diagnosis of ARDS in general, and in COVID-19 in particular,” he wrote.

Questions remain concerning dose response and whether CBD alone or in combination with other phytocannabinoids is more effective for treating COVID-19. Timing is likewise unclear.

Baban explained that as a result of the biphasic nature of COVID-19, the “sweet spot” appears to be just before the innate immune response progresses into an inflammation-driven response and fibrotic lung damage occurs.

But Wilkerson isn’t as convinced. She said that as with a thermostat, the endocannabinoid system needs tweaking to get it in the right place, that is, to achieve immune homeostasis. The COVID cytokine storm is highly unpredictable, she added, saying, “Right now, the timing for controlling the COVID cytokine storm is really a moving target.”
 

Is safety a concern?

Safety questions are expected to arise, especially in relation to COVID-19. CBD is not risk free, and one size does not fit all. Human CBD studies report gastrointestinal and somnolent effects, as well as drug-drug interactions.

Findings from a recent systematic review of randomized, controlled CBD trials support overall tolerability, suggesting that serious adverse events are rare. Such events are believed to be related to drug-drug interactions rather than to CBD itself. On the flip side, it is nonintoxicating, and there does not appear to be potential for abuse.

“It’s generally well tolerated,” Wilkerson said. “There’ve now been several clinical trials in numerous patient population settings where basically the only time you really start to have issues is where you have patients on very select agents. But this is where a pharmacist would come into play.”

Costiniuk agreed: “Just because it’s cannabis, it doesn’t mean that there’s going to be strange or unusual effects; these people [ie, those with severe COVID-19] are in the hospital and monitored very closely.”
 

Delving into the weeds: What’s next?

Although non-COVID-19 cannabinoid researchers have encountered regulatory roadblocks, several research groups that have had the prescience to dive in at the right time are gaining momentum.

Baban’s team has connected with one of the nation’s few academic laboratories authorized to work with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and are awaiting protocol approval so that they can reproduce their research, this time using two CBD formulations (injectable and inhaled).

If findings are positive, they will move forward quickly to meet with the FDA, Baban said, adding that the team is also collaborating with two organizations to conduct human clinical trials in hopes of pushing up timing.

The initial article caught the eye of the World Health Organization, which included it in its global literature on the coronavirus resource section.

Israeli researchers have also been quite busy. InnoCan Pharma and Tel Aviv University are collaborating to explore the potential for CBD-loaded exosomes (minute extracellular particles that mediate intracellular communication, including via innate and adaptive immune responses). The group plans to use these loaded exosomes to target and facilitate recovery of COVID-19–damaged lung cells.

From a broader perspective, the prospects for harnessing cannabinoids for immune modulation will be more thoroughly explored in a special issue of Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, which has extended its current call for papers, studies, abstracts, and conference proceedings until the end of December.

Like many of the therapeutic strategies under investigation for the treatment of COVID-19, studies in CBD may continue to raise more questions than answers.

Still, Wilkerson is optimistic. “Taken together, these studies along with countless others suggest that the complex pharmacophore of Cannabis sativa may hold therapeutic utility to treat lung inflammation, such as what is seen in a COVID-19 cytokine storm,» she told Medscape Medical News. “I’m very excited to see what comes out of the research.”

Baban, Wilkerson, and Costiniuk have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There were more new cases of COVID-19 reported in children during the week ending Oct. 29 than any other week during the pandemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced Nov. 2.

For the week, over 61,000 cases were reported in children, bringing the number of COVID-19 cases for the month of October to nearly 200,000 and the total since the start of the pandemic to over 853,000, the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly report.

“These numbers reflect a disturbing increase in cases throughout most of the United States in all populations, especially among young adults,” Yvonne Maldonado, MD, chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, said in a separate statement. “We are entering a heightened wave of infections around the country. We would encourage family holiday gatherings to be avoided if possible, especially if there are high-risk individuals in the household.”

For the week ending Oct. 29, children represented 13.3% of all cases, possibly constituting a minitrend of stability over the past 3 weeks. For the full length of the pandemic, 11.1% of all COVID-19 cases have occurred in children, although severe illness is much less common: 1.7% of all hospitalizations (data from 24 states and New York City) and 0.06% of all deaths (data from 42 states and New York City), the AAP and CHA report said.

Other data show that 1,134 per 100,000 children in the United States have been infected by the coronavirus, up from 1,053 the previous week, with state rates ranging from 221 per 100,000 in Vermont to 3,321 in North Dakota. In Wyoming, 25.5% of all COVID-19 cases have occurred in children, the highest of any state, while New Jersey has the lowest rate at 4.9%, the AAP/CHA report showed.

In the 10 states making testing data available, children represent the lowest percentage of tests in Iowa (5.0%) and the highest in Indiana (16.9%). Iowa, however, has the highest positivity rate for children at 14.6%, along with Nevada, while West Virginia has the lowest at 3.6%, the AAP and CHA said in the report.

These numbers, however, may not be telling the whole story. “The number of reported COVID-19 cases in children is likely an undercount because children’s symptoms are often mild and they may not be tested for every illness,” the AAP said in its statement.

“We urge policy makers to listen to doctors and public health experts rather than level baseless accusations against them. Physicians, nurses and other health care professionals have put their lives on the line to protect our communities. We can all do our part to protect them, and our communities, by wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and getting our flu immunizations,” AAP President Sally Goza, MD, said in the AAP statement.

[email protected]

There were more new cases of COVID-19 reported in children during the week ending Oct. 29 than any other week during the pandemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced Nov. 2.

For the week, over 61,000 cases were reported in children, bringing the number of COVID-19 cases for the month of October to nearly 200,000 and the total since the start of the pandemic to over 853,000, the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly report.

“These numbers reflect a disturbing increase in cases throughout most of the United States in all populations, especially among young adults,” Yvonne Maldonado, MD, chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, said in a separate statement. “We are entering a heightened wave of infections around the country. We would encourage family holiday gatherings to be avoided if possible, especially if there are high-risk individuals in the household.”

For the week ending Oct. 29, children represented 13.3% of all cases, possibly constituting a minitrend of stability over the past 3 weeks. For the full length of the pandemic, 11.1% of all COVID-19 cases have occurred in children, although severe illness is much less common: 1.7% of all hospitalizations (data from 24 states and New York City) and 0.06% of all deaths (data from 42 states and New York City), the AAP and CHA report said.

Other data show that 1,134 per 100,000 children in the United States have been infected by the coronavirus, up from 1,053 the previous week, with state rates ranging from 221 per 100,000 in Vermont to 3,321 in North Dakota. In Wyoming, 25.5% of all COVID-19 cases have occurred in children, the highest of any state, while New Jersey has the lowest rate at 4.9%, the AAP/CHA report showed.

In the 10 states making testing data available, children represent the lowest percentage of tests in Iowa (5.0%) and the highest in Indiana (16.9%). Iowa, however, has the highest positivity rate for children at 14.6%, along with Nevada, while West Virginia has the lowest at 3.6%, the AAP and CHA said in the report.

These numbers, however, may not be telling the whole story. “The number of reported COVID-19 cases in children is likely an undercount because children’s symptoms are often mild and they may not be tested for every illness,” the AAP said in its statement.

“We urge policy makers to listen to doctors and public health experts rather than level baseless accusations against them. Physicians, nurses and other health care professionals have put their lives on the line to protect our communities. We can all do our part to protect them, and our communities, by wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and getting our flu immunizations,” AAP President Sally Goza, MD, said in the AAP statement.

[email protected]

There were more new cases of COVID-19 reported in children during the week ending Oct. 29 than any other week during the pandemic, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced Nov. 2.

For the week, over 61,000 cases were reported in children, bringing the number of COVID-19 cases for the month of October to nearly 200,000 and the total since the start of the pandemic to over 853,000, the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly report.

“These numbers reflect a disturbing increase in cases throughout most of the United States in all populations, especially among young adults,” Yvonne Maldonado, MD, chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, said in a separate statement. “We are entering a heightened wave of infections around the country. We would encourage family holiday gatherings to be avoided if possible, especially if there are high-risk individuals in the household.”

For the week ending Oct. 29, children represented 13.3% of all cases, possibly constituting a minitrend of stability over the past 3 weeks. For the full length of the pandemic, 11.1% of all COVID-19 cases have occurred in children, although severe illness is much less common: 1.7% of all hospitalizations (data from 24 states and New York City) and 0.06% of all deaths (data from 42 states and New York City), the AAP and CHA report said.

Other data show that 1,134 per 100,000 children in the United States have been infected by the coronavirus, up from 1,053 the previous week, with state rates ranging from 221 per 100,000 in Vermont to 3,321 in North Dakota. In Wyoming, 25.5% of all COVID-19 cases have occurred in children, the highest of any state, while New Jersey has the lowest rate at 4.9%, the AAP/CHA report showed.

In the 10 states making testing data available, children represent the lowest percentage of tests in Iowa (5.0%) and the highest in Indiana (16.9%). Iowa, however, has the highest positivity rate for children at 14.6%, along with Nevada, while West Virginia has the lowest at 3.6%, the AAP and CHA said in the report.

These numbers, however, may not be telling the whole story. “The number of reported COVID-19 cases in children is likely an undercount because children’s symptoms are often mild and they may not be tested for every illness,” the AAP said in its statement.

“We urge policy makers to listen to doctors and public health experts rather than level baseless accusations against them. Physicians, nurses and other health care professionals have put their lives on the line to protect our communities. We can all do our part to protect them, and our communities, by wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and getting our flu immunizations,” AAP President Sally Goza, MD, said in the AAP statement.

[email protected]

Background: AMA discharges are common (1%-2% of all U.S. discharges) and disproportionately affect vulnerable patient populations, specifically those of lower socioeconomic status and the uninsured. Previous studies have been insufficiently powered to assess the effects of AMA discharge on 30-day readmission rates at a national level.

Patients who were discharged AMA had almost 20 times the odds of undergoing repeat AMA discharge at readmission (OR, 18.41; 95% CI, 17.46-19.41; P less than .001) and twice the odds of presenting to a different hospital (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.22-2.49; P less than .001). The study did not capture readmissions in a different state than that of the index hospital and was limited to the 22 states participating in the 2014 Readmissions Database.

Bottom line: Discharge AMA is associated with significantly higher odds of 30-day readmission, subsequent AMA discharge and presentation to another hospital, compared with routine discharge.

Citation: Kumar N. Burden of 30-day readmissions associated with discharge against medical advice among inpatients in the United States. Am J Med. 2019 Jun;132(6):708-17.

Dr. Webber is a hospitalist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Background: AMA discharges are common (1%-2% of all U.S. discharges) and disproportionately affect vulnerable patient populations, specifically those of lower socioeconomic status and the uninsured. Previous studies have been insufficiently powered to assess the effects of AMA discharge on 30-day readmission rates at a national level.

Patients who were discharged AMA had almost 20 times the odds of undergoing repeat AMA discharge at readmission (OR, 18.41; 95% CI, 17.46-19.41; P less than .001) and twice the odds of presenting to a different hospital (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.22-2.49; P less than .001). The study did not capture readmissions in a different state than that of the index hospital and was limited to the 22 states participating in the 2014 Readmissions Database.

Bottom line: Discharge AMA is associated with significantly higher odds of 30-day readmission, subsequent AMA discharge and presentation to another hospital, compared with routine discharge.

Citation: Kumar N. Burden of 30-day readmissions associated with discharge against medical advice among inpatients in the United States. Am J Med. 2019 Jun;132(6):708-17.

Dr. Webber is a hospitalist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Background: AMA discharges are common (1%-2% of all U.S. discharges) and disproportionately affect vulnerable patient populations, specifically those of lower socioeconomic status and the uninsured. Previous studies have been insufficiently powered to assess the effects of AMA discharge on 30-day readmission rates at a national level.

Patients who were discharged AMA had almost 20 times the odds of undergoing repeat AMA discharge at readmission (OR, 18.41; 95% CI, 17.46-19.41; P less than .001) and twice the odds of presenting to a different hospital (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.22-2.49; P less than .001). The study did not capture readmissions in a different state than that of the index hospital and was limited to the 22 states participating in the 2014 Readmissions Database.

Bottom line: Discharge AMA is associated with significantly higher odds of 30-day readmission, subsequent AMA discharge and presentation to another hospital, compared with routine discharge.

Citation: Kumar N. Burden of 30-day readmissions associated with discharge against medical advice among inpatients in the United States. Am J Med. 2019 Jun;132(6):708-17.

Dr. Webber is a hospitalist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Antibiotics may not significantly improve clinical outcomes in patients with colon ischemia (CI), regardless of severity level, based on a retrospective study involving more than 800 patients.

Given these findings, clinicians “should consider not giving antibiotics to patients with CI,” reported lead author Paul Feuerstadt, MD, of Yale University, New Haven , Conn., and colleagues.

“CI is the most common ischemic injury to the GI tract,” the investigators wrote in their abstract, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. “The clinical utility of antibiotic treatment in CI is unclear and the literature is limited.”

Dr. Feuerstadt and colleagues analyzed data from 838 patients with biopsy-proven CI who were hospitalized between 2005 and 2017, of whom 413 and 425 had moderate and severe disease, respectively.

Across all patients, 67.7% received antibiotics. While there were no significant intergroup differences in age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, or sex, patients who received antibiotics were more likely to have severe CI (54.4% vs. 42.2%; P = .001), small-bowel involvement (12.0% vs. 5.7%; P = .04), and peritonitis (11.3% vs. 4.5%; P = 002), as well as require intensive care (26.1% vs. 19.9%; P = .04).

After adjusting for severity of CI, small-bowel involvement, and comorbidities, analysis revealed no significant associations between antibiotic use and 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, 30-day colectomy, 90-day recurrence, 90-day readmission, or length of stay. The primary outcome, 30-day mortality, remained insignificant in subgroup analyses based on CI severity and age.

Patients were most frequently prescribed ciprofloxacin-metronidazole (57.1%), followed by piperacillin-tazobactam (13.2%), ceftriaxone-metronidazole (11.1%), and other antibiotics (18.5%).

When each of these antimicrobials was compared with no antibiotic usage, only piperacillin-tazobactam correlated with a higher rate of 30-day mortality, based on an adjusted odds ratio of 3.4 (95% CI, 1.5-8.0; P = .0003). But most patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam underwent colectomy, which prompted independent analyses of patients who underwent colectomy and those who did not undergo colectomy. These findings showed no difference in 30-day mortality based on the type of antibiotic used.

During an oral presentation at the meeting, coauthor Karthik Gnanapandithan, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla, said, “In practice, it is reasonable to still use antibiotics in patients with small bowel ischemia and those with severe CI with a high risk of poor outcomes pending prospective studies.”

According to John F. Valentine, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, the present study “adds to the literature that questions the role of antibiotics in CI.”

Dr. Valentine noted that, even among patients with CI who have severe inflammation, “sepsis rarely occurs without frank perforation.”

Still, like Dr. Gnanapandithan, Dr. Valentine concluded that antibiotics are still a reasonable treatment option for certain patients with CI.

“The risks and potential benefits of antibiotics must be considered,” he said. “Until prospective studies are available, use of antibiotics in colon ischemia is reasonable in the setting of severe disease with peritoneal signs, signs of sepsis, pneumatosis, or portal venous gas.”

Dr. Feuerstadt disclosed relationships with Ferring/Rebiotix, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Valentine reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Antibiotics may not significantly improve clinical outcomes in patients with colon ischemia (CI), regardless of severity level, based on a retrospective study involving more than 800 patients.

Given these findings, clinicians “should consider not giving antibiotics to patients with CI,” reported lead author Paul Feuerstadt, MD, of Yale University, New Haven , Conn., and colleagues.

“CI is the most common ischemic injury to the GI tract,” the investigators wrote in their abstract, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. “The clinical utility of antibiotic treatment in CI is unclear and the literature is limited.”

Dr. Feuerstadt and colleagues analyzed data from 838 patients with biopsy-proven CI who were hospitalized between 2005 and 2017, of whom 413 and 425 had moderate and severe disease, respectively.

Across all patients, 67.7% received antibiotics. While there were no significant intergroup differences in age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, or sex, patients who received antibiotics were more likely to have severe CI (54.4% vs. 42.2%; P = .001), small-bowel involvement (12.0% vs. 5.7%; P = .04), and peritonitis (11.3% vs. 4.5%; P = 002), as well as require intensive care (26.1% vs. 19.9%; P = .04).

After adjusting for severity of CI, small-bowel involvement, and comorbidities, analysis revealed no significant associations between antibiotic use and 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, 30-day colectomy, 90-day recurrence, 90-day readmission, or length of stay. The primary outcome, 30-day mortality, remained insignificant in subgroup analyses based on CI severity and age.

Patients were most frequently prescribed ciprofloxacin-metronidazole (57.1%), followed by piperacillin-tazobactam (13.2%), ceftriaxone-metronidazole (11.1%), and other antibiotics (18.5%).

When each of these antimicrobials was compared with no antibiotic usage, only piperacillin-tazobactam correlated with a higher rate of 30-day mortality, based on an adjusted odds ratio of 3.4 (95% CI, 1.5-8.0; P = .0003). But most patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam underwent colectomy, which prompted independent analyses of patients who underwent colectomy and those who did not undergo colectomy. These findings showed no difference in 30-day mortality based on the type of antibiotic used.

During an oral presentation at the meeting, coauthor Karthik Gnanapandithan, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla, said, “In practice, it is reasonable to still use antibiotics in patients with small bowel ischemia and those with severe CI with a high risk of poor outcomes pending prospective studies.”

According to John F. Valentine, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, the present study “adds to the literature that questions the role of antibiotics in CI.”

Dr. Valentine noted that, even among patients with CI who have severe inflammation, “sepsis rarely occurs without frank perforation.”

Still, like Dr. Gnanapandithan, Dr. Valentine concluded that antibiotics are still a reasonable treatment option for certain patients with CI.

“The risks and potential benefits of antibiotics must be considered,” he said. “Until prospective studies are available, use of antibiotics in colon ischemia is reasonable in the setting of severe disease with peritoneal signs, signs of sepsis, pneumatosis, or portal venous gas.”

Dr. Feuerstadt disclosed relationships with Ferring/Rebiotix, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Valentine reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Antibiotics may not significantly improve clinical outcomes in patients with colon ischemia (CI), regardless of severity level, based on a retrospective study involving more than 800 patients.

Given these findings, clinicians “should consider not giving antibiotics to patients with CI,” reported lead author Paul Feuerstadt, MD, of Yale University, New Haven , Conn., and colleagues.

“CI is the most common ischemic injury to the GI tract,” the investigators wrote in their abstract, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. “The clinical utility of antibiotic treatment in CI is unclear and the literature is limited.”

Dr. Feuerstadt and colleagues analyzed data from 838 patients with biopsy-proven CI who were hospitalized between 2005 and 2017, of whom 413 and 425 had moderate and severe disease, respectively.

Across all patients, 67.7% received antibiotics. While there were no significant intergroup differences in age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, or sex, patients who received antibiotics were more likely to have severe CI (54.4% vs. 42.2%; P = .001), small-bowel involvement (12.0% vs. 5.7%; P = .04), and peritonitis (11.3% vs. 4.5%; P = 002), as well as require intensive care (26.1% vs. 19.9%; P = .04).

After adjusting for severity of CI, small-bowel involvement, and comorbidities, analysis revealed no significant associations between antibiotic use and 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, 30-day colectomy, 90-day recurrence, 90-day readmission, or length of stay. The primary outcome, 30-day mortality, remained insignificant in subgroup analyses based on CI severity and age.

Patients were most frequently prescribed ciprofloxacin-metronidazole (57.1%), followed by piperacillin-tazobactam (13.2%), ceftriaxone-metronidazole (11.1%), and other antibiotics (18.5%).

When each of these antimicrobials was compared with no antibiotic usage, only piperacillin-tazobactam correlated with a higher rate of 30-day mortality, based on an adjusted odds ratio of 3.4 (95% CI, 1.5-8.0; P = .0003). But most patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam underwent colectomy, which prompted independent analyses of patients who underwent colectomy and those who did not undergo colectomy. These findings showed no difference in 30-day mortality based on the type of antibiotic used.

During an oral presentation at the meeting, coauthor Karthik Gnanapandithan, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla, said, “In practice, it is reasonable to still use antibiotics in patients with small bowel ischemia and those with severe CI with a high risk of poor outcomes pending prospective studies.”

According to John F. Valentine, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, the present study “adds to the literature that questions the role of antibiotics in CI.”

Dr. Valentine noted that, even among patients with CI who have severe inflammation, “sepsis rarely occurs without frank perforation.”

Still, like Dr. Gnanapandithan, Dr. Valentine concluded that antibiotics are still a reasonable treatment option for certain patients with CI.

“The risks and potential benefits of antibiotics must be considered,” he said. “Until prospective studies are available, use of antibiotics in colon ischemia is reasonable in the setting of severe disease with peritoneal signs, signs of sepsis, pneumatosis, or portal venous gas.”

Dr. Feuerstadt disclosed relationships with Ferring/Rebiotix, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Valentine reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

People with a history of heart failure – no matter the type – face more complications and death than their peers without HF once hospitalized with COVID-19, a new observational study shows.

A history of HF was associated with a near doubling risk of in-hospital mortality and ICU care and more than a tripling risk of mechanical ventilation despite adjustment for 18 factors including race, obesity, diabetes, previous treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, and severity of illness.

Adverse outcomes were high regardless of whether patients had HF with a preserved, mid-range, or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF/HFmrEF/HFrEF).

“That for me was the real zinger,” senior author Anuradha Lala, MD, said in an interview . “Because as clinicians, oftentimes, and wrongly so, we think this person has preserved ejection fraction, so they’re not needing my heart failure expertise as much as someone with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.”

In the peak of the pandemic, that may have meant triaging patients with HFpEF to a regular floor, whereas those with HFrEF were seen by the specialist team.

“What this alerted me to is to take heart failure as a diagnosis very seriously, regardless of ejection fraction, and that is very much in line with all of the emerging data about heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” said Dr. Lala, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Now when I see patients in the clinic, I incorporate part of our visit to talking about what they are doing to prevent COVID, which I really wasn’t doing before. It was like ‘Oh yeah, what crazy times we’re dealing with’ and then addressing their heart failure as I normally would,” she said. “But now, interwoven into every visit is: Are you wearing a mask, what’s your social distancing policy, who are you living with at home, has anyone at home or who you’ve interacted with been sick? I’m asking those questions just as a knee-jerk reaction for these patients because I know the repercussions. We have to keep in mind these are observational studies, so I can’t prove causality but these are observations that are, nonetheless, quite robust.”

Although cardiovascular disease, including HF, is recognized as a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 patients, data are sparse on the clinical course and prognosis of patients with preexisting HF.

“I would have expected that there would have been a gradation of risk from the people with very low ejection fractions up into the normal range, but here it didn’t seem to matter at all. So that’s an important point that bad outcomes were independent of ejection fraction,” commented Lee Goldberg, MD, professor of medicine and chief of advanced heart failure and cardiac transplant at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study also validated that there is no association between use of RAAS inhibitors and bad outcomes in patients with COVID-19, he said.

Although this has been demonstrated in several studies, concerns were raised early in the pandemic that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers could facilitate infection with SARS-CoV-2 and increase the risk of severe or lethal COVID-19.  

“For most clinicians that question has been put to bed, but we’re still getting patients that will ask during office visits ‘Is it safe for me to stay on?’ They still have that doubt [about] ‘Are we doing the right thing?’ ” Dr. Goldberg said.

“We can reassure them now. A lot of us are able to say there’s nothing to that, we’re very clear about this, stay on the meds. If anything, there’s data that suggest actually it may be better to be on an ACE inhibitor; that the hospitalizations were shorter and the outcomes were a little bit better.”  

For the current study, published online Oct. 28 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators analyzed 6,439 patients admitted for COVID-19 at one of five Mount Sinai Health System hospitals in New York between Feb. 27 and June 26. Their mean age was 65.3 years, 45% were women, and one-third were treated with RAAS inhibitors before admission.

Using ICD-9/10 codes and individual chart review, HF was identified in 422 patients (6.6%), of which 250 patients had HFpEF (≥50%), 44 had HFmrEF (41%-49%), and 128 had HFrEF (≤40%).

Patients with HFpEF were older, more frequently women with a higher body mass index and history of lung disease than patients with HFrEF, whereas those with HFmrEF fell in between.

The HFpEF group was also treated with hydroxychloroquine or macrolides and noninvasive ventilation more frequently than the other two groups, whereas antiplatelet and neurohormonal therapies were more common in the HFrEF group.

Patients with a history of HF had significantly longer hospital stays than those without HF (8 days vs. 6 days), increased need for intubation (22.8% vs. 11.9%) and ICU care (23.2% vs. 16.6%), and worse in-hospital mortality (40% vs. 24.9%).

After multivariable regression adjustment, HF persisted as an independent risk factor for ICU care (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.25-2.34), intubation and mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 2.56-5.16), and in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78).

“I knew to expect higher rates of adverse outcomes but I didn’t expect it to be nearly a twofold increase,” Dr. Lala said. “I thought that was pretty powerful.”

No significant differences were seen across LVEF categories in length of stay, need for ICU care, intubation and mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, shock, thromboembolic events, arrhythmias, or 30-day readmission rates.

However, cardiogenic shock (7.8% vs. 2.3% vs. 2%) and HF-related causes for 30-day readmissions (47.1% vs. 0% vs. 8.6%) were significantly higher in patients with HFrEF than in those with HFmrEF or HFpEF.

Also, mortality was lower in those with HFmrEF (22.7%) than with HFrEF (38.3%) and HFpEF (44%). The group was small but the “results suggested that patients with HFmrEF could have a better prognosis, because they can represent a distinct and more favorable HF phenotype,” the authors wrote.

The statistical testing didn’t show much difference and the patient numbers were very small, noted Dr. Goldberg. “So they might be overreaching a little bit there.”

“To me, the take-home message is that just having the phenotype of heart failure, regardless of EF, is associated with bad outcomes and we need to be vigilant on two fronts,” he said. “We really need to be doing prevention in the folks with heart failure because if they get COVID their outcomes are not going to be as good. Second, as clinicians, if we see a patient presenting with COVID who has a history of heart failure we may want to be much more vigilant with that individual than we might otherwise be. So I think there’s something to be said for kind of risk-stratifying people in that way.”

Dr. Goldberg pointed out that the study had many “amazing strengths,” including a large, racially diverse population, direct chart review to identify HF patients, and capturing a patient’s specific HF phenotype.  

Weaknesses are that it was a single-center study, so the biases of how these patients were treated are not easily controlled for, he said. “We also don’t know when the hospital system was very strained as they were making some decisions: Were the older patients who had advanced heart and lung disease ultimately less aggressively treated because they felt they wouldn’t survive?”

Dr. Lala has received personal fees from Zoll, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goldberg reported research funding with Respicardia and consulting fees from Abbott.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with a history of heart failure – no matter the type – face more complications and death than their peers without HF once hospitalized with COVID-19, a new observational study shows.

A history of HF was associated with a near doubling risk of in-hospital mortality and ICU care and more than a tripling risk of mechanical ventilation despite adjustment for 18 factors including race, obesity, diabetes, previous treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, and severity of illness.

Adverse outcomes were high regardless of whether patients had HF with a preserved, mid-range, or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF/HFmrEF/HFrEF).

“That for me was the real zinger,” senior author Anuradha Lala, MD, said in an interview . “Because as clinicians, oftentimes, and wrongly so, we think this person has preserved ejection fraction, so they’re not needing my heart failure expertise as much as someone with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.”

In the peak of the pandemic, that may have meant triaging patients with HFpEF to a regular floor, whereas those with HFrEF were seen by the specialist team.

“What this alerted me to is to take heart failure as a diagnosis very seriously, regardless of ejection fraction, and that is very much in line with all of the emerging data about heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” said Dr. Lala, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Now when I see patients in the clinic, I incorporate part of our visit to talking about what they are doing to prevent COVID, which I really wasn’t doing before. It was like ‘Oh yeah, what crazy times we’re dealing with’ and then addressing their heart failure as I normally would,” she said. “But now, interwoven into every visit is: Are you wearing a mask, what’s your social distancing policy, who are you living with at home, has anyone at home or who you’ve interacted with been sick? I’m asking those questions just as a knee-jerk reaction for these patients because I know the repercussions. We have to keep in mind these are observational studies, so I can’t prove causality but these are observations that are, nonetheless, quite robust.”

Although cardiovascular disease, including HF, is recognized as a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 patients, data are sparse on the clinical course and prognosis of patients with preexisting HF.

“I would have expected that there would have been a gradation of risk from the people with very low ejection fractions up into the normal range, but here it didn’t seem to matter at all. So that’s an important point that bad outcomes were independent of ejection fraction,” commented Lee Goldberg, MD, professor of medicine and chief of advanced heart failure and cardiac transplant at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study also validated that there is no association between use of RAAS inhibitors and bad outcomes in patients with COVID-19, he said.

Although this has been demonstrated in several studies, concerns were raised early in the pandemic that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers could facilitate infection with SARS-CoV-2 and increase the risk of severe or lethal COVID-19.  

“For most clinicians that question has been put to bed, but we’re still getting patients that will ask during office visits ‘Is it safe for me to stay on?’ They still have that doubt [about] ‘Are we doing the right thing?’ ” Dr. Goldberg said.

“We can reassure them now. A lot of us are able to say there’s nothing to that, we’re very clear about this, stay on the meds. If anything, there’s data that suggest actually it may be better to be on an ACE inhibitor; that the hospitalizations were shorter and the outcomes were a little bit better.”  

For the current study, published online Oct. 28 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators analyzed 6,439 patients admitted for COVID-19 at one of five Mount Sinai Health System hospitals in New York between Feb. 27 and June 26. Their mean age was 65.3 years, 45% were women, and one-third were treated with RAAS inhibitors before admission.

Using ICD-9/10 codes and individual chart review, HF was identified in 422 patients (6.6%), of which 250 patients had HFpEF (≥50%), 44 had HFmrEF (41%-49%), and 128 had HFrEF (≤40%).

Patients with HFpEF were older, more frequently women with a higher body mass index and history of lung disease than patients with HFrEF, whereas those with HFmrEF fell in between.

The HFpEF group was also treated with hydroxychloroquine or macrolides and noninvasive ventilation more frequently than the other two groups, whereas antiplatelet and neurohormonal therapies were more common in the HFrEF group.

Patients with a history of HF had significantly longer hospital stays than those without HF (8 days vs. 6 days), increased need for intubation (22.8% vs. 11.9%) and ICU care (23.2% vs. 16.6%), and worse in-hospital mortality (40% vs. 24.9%).

After multivariable regression adjustment, HF persisted as an independent risk factor for ICU care (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.25-2.34), intubation and mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 2.56-5.16), and in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78).

“I knew to expect higher rates of adverse outcomes but I didn’t expect it to be nearly a twofold increase,” Dr. Lala said. “I thought that was pretty powerful.”

No significant differences were seen across LVEF categories in length of stay, need for ICU care, intubation and mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, shock, thromboembolic events, arrhythmias, or 30-day readmission rates.

However, cardiogenic shock (7.8% vs. 2.3% vs. 2%) and HF-related causes for 30-day readmissions (47.1% vs. 0% vs. 8.6%) were significantly higher in patients with HFrEF than in those with HFmrEF or HFpEF.

Also, mortality was lower in those with HFmrEF (22.7%) than with HFrEF (38.3%) and HFpEF (44%). The group was small but the “results suggested that patients with HFmrEF could have a better prognosis, because they can represent a distinct and more favorable HF phenotype,” the authors wrote.

The statistical testing didn’t show much difference and the patient numbers were very small, noted Dr. Goldberg. “So they might be overreaching a little bit there.”

“To me, the take-home message is that just having the phenotype of heart failure, regardless of EF, is associated with bad outcomes and we need to be vigilant on two fronts,” he said. “We really need to be doing prevention in the folks with heart failure because if they get COVID their outcomes are not going to be as good. Second, as clinicians, if we see a patient presenting with COVID who has a history of heart failure we may want to be much more vigilant with that individual than we might otherwise be. So I think there’s something to be said for kind of risk-stratifying people in that way.”

Dr. Goldberg pointed out that the study had many “amazing strengths,” including a large, racially diverse population, direct chart review to identify HF patients, and capturing a patient’s specific HF phenotype.  

Weaknesses are that it was a single-center study, so the biases of how these patients were treated are not easily controlled for, he said. “We also don’t know when the hospital system was very strained as they were making some decisions: Were the older patients who had advanced heart and lung disease ultimately less aggressively treated because they felt they wouldn’t survive?”

Dr. Lala has received personal fees from Zoll, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goldberg reported research funding with Respicardia and consulting fees from Abbott.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with a history of heart failure – no matter the type – face more complications and death than their peers without HF once hospitalized with COVID-19, a new observational study shows.

A history of HF was associated with a near doubling risk of in-hospital mortality and ICU care and more than a tripling risk of mechanical ventilation despite adjustment for 18 factors including race, obesity, diabetes, previous treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, and severity of illness.

Adverse outcomes were high regardless of whether patients had HF with a preserved, mid-range, or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF/HFmrEF/HFrEF).

“That for me was the real zinger,” senior author Anuradha Lala, MD, said in an interview . “Because as clinicians, oftentimes, and wrongly so, we think this person has preserved ejection fraction, so they’re not needing my heart failure expertise as much as someone with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.”

In the peak of the pandemic, that may have meant triaging patients with HFpEF to a regular floor, whereas those with HFrEF were seen by the specialist team.

“What this alerted me to is to take heart failure as a diagnosis very seriously, regardless of ejection fraction, and that is very much in line with all of the emerging data about heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” said Dr. Lala, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Now when I see patients in the clinic, I incorporate part of our visit to talking about what they are doing to prevent COVID, which I really wasn’t doing before. It was like ‘Oh yeah, what crazy times we’re dealing with’ and then addressing their heart failure as I normally would,” she said. “But now, interwoven into every visit is: Are you wearing a mask, what’s your social distancing policy, who are you living with at home, has anyone at home or who you’ve interacted with been sick? I’m asking those questions just as a knee-jerk reaction for these patients because I know the repercussions. We have to keep in mind these are observational studies, so I can’t prove causality but these are observations that are, nonetheless, quite robust.”

Although cardiovascular disease, including HF, is recognized as a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 patients, data are sparse on the clinical course and prognosis of patients with preexisting HF.

“I would have expected that there would have been a gradation of risk from the people with very low ejection fractions up into the normal range, but here it didn’t seem to matter at all. So that’s an important point that bad outcomes were independent of ejection fraction,” commented Lee Goldberg, MD, professor of medicine and chief of advanced heart failure and cardiac transplant at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study also validated that there is no association between use of RAAS inhibitors and bad outcomes in patients with COVID-19, he said.

Although this has been demonstrated in several studies, concerns were raised early in the pandemic that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers could facilitate infection with SARS-CoV-2 and increase the risk of severe or lethal COVID-19.  

“For most clinicians that question has been put to bed, but we’re still getting patients that will ask during office visits ‘Is it safe for me to stay on?’ They still have that doubt [about] ‘Are we doing the right thing?’ ” Dr. Goldberg said.

“We can reassure them now. A lot of us are able to say there’s nothing to that, we’re very clear about this, stay on the meds. If anything, there’s data that suggest actually it may be better to be on an ACE inhibitor; that the hospitalizations were shorter and the outcomes were a little bit better.”  

For the current study, published online Oct. 28 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators analyzed 6,439 patients admitted for COVID-19 at one of five Mount Sinai Health System hospitals in New York between Feb. 27 and June 26. Their mean age was 65.3 years, 45% were women, and one-third were treated with RAAS inhibitors before admission.

Using ICD-9/10 codes and individual chart review, HF was identified in 422 patients (6.6%), of which 250 patients had HFpEF (≥50%), 44 had HFmrEF (41%-49%), and 128 had HFrEF (≤40%).

Patients with HFpEF were older, more frequently women with a higher body mass index and history of lung disease than patients with HFrEF, whereas those with HFmrEF fell in between.

The HFpEF group was also treated with hydroxychloroquine or macrolides and noninvasive ventilation more frequently than the other two groups, whereas antiplatelet and neurohormonal therapies were more common in the HFrEF group.

Patients with a history of HF had significantly longer hospital stays than those without HF (8 days vs. 6 days), increased need for intubation (22.8% vs. 11.9%) and ICU care (23.2% vs. 16.6%), and worse in-hospital mortality (40% vs. 24.9%).

After multivariable regression adjustment, HF persisted as an independent risk factor for ICU care (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.25-2.34), intubation and mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 2.56-5.16), and in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78).

“I knew to expect higher rates of adverse outcomes but I didn’t expect it to be nearly a twofold increase,” Dr. Lala said. “I thought that was pretty powerful.”

No significant differences were seen across LVEF categories in length of stay, need for ICU care, intubation and mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, shock, thromboembolic events, arrhythmias, or 30-day readmission rates.

However, cardiogenic shock (7.8% vs. 2.3% vs. 2%) and HF-related causes for 30-day readmissions (47.1% vs. 0% vs. 8.6%) were significantly higher in patients with HFrEF than in those with HFmrEF or HFpEF.

Also, mortality was lower in those with HFmrEF (22.7%) than with HFrEF (38.3%) and HFpEF (44%). The group was small but the “results suggested that patients with HFmrEF could have a better prognosis, because they can represent a distinct and more favorable HF phenotype,” the authors wrote.

The statistical testing didn’t show much difference and the patient numbers were very small, noted Dr. Goldberg. “So they might be overreaching a little bit there.”

“To me, the take-home message is that just having the phenotype of heart failure, regardless of EF, is associated with bad outcomes and we need to be vigilant on two fronts,” he said. “We really need to be doing prevention in the folks with heart failure because if they get COVID their outcomes are not going to be as good. Second, as clinicians, if we see a patient presenting with COVID who has a history of heart failure we may want to be much more vigilant with that individual than we might otherwise be. So I think there’s something to be said for kind of risk-stratifying people in that way.”

Dr. Goldberg pointed out that the study had many “amazing strengths,” including a large, racially diverse population, direct chart review to identify HF patients, and capturing a patient’s specific HF phenotype.  

Weaknesses are that it was a single-center study, so the biases of how these patients were treated are not easily controlled for, he said. “We also don’t know when the hospital system was very strained as they were making some decisions: Were the older patients who had advanced heart and lung disease ultimately less aggressively treated because they felt they wouldn’t survive?”

Dr. Lala has received personal fees from Zoll, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goldberg reported research funding with Respicardia and consulting fees from Abbott.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

[email protected]

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

[email protected]

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

[email protected]