Pulmonology

A year after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, as the United States was getting a reprieve in new cases from its winter surge, the opposite was happening in the rest of the world. In India, a deadly second wave hit, crippling the health care system in the country for months.

Yugandhar Bhatt, MBBS, MD, a consultant pulmonologist with Yashoda Hospital–Malakpet in Hyderabad, India, told this news organization that someone looking at his hospital before the pandemic – a 400-bed multispecialty care unit – would see patients being treated for respiratory failure secondary to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchial asthma, community-acquired pneumonia, and heart failure. About 30-40 patients per day were treated on an outpatient basis, and more than 30 people were admitted as inpatients.

“After [the] COVID-19 surge, our hospital totally divided into COVID and non-COVID [wards], in which COVID patients occupied 70% of [the] total,” he said. About half of COVID-19 patients were in the ICU, with half of those patients requiring supplemental oxygen.

During the first wave in India, which lasted from May to December 2020, 50% of patients who were intubated were discharged. The percentage of extubated patients decreased to 20% in the second wave, Dr. Bhatt said.

The death toll during the second wave of COVID-19 cases was unlike anything India has seen previously. Between March 1 and June 29, 2021, an estimated 19.24 million individuals were newly infected with COVID-19 and 241,206 patients died, according to Our World in Data, a project of the Global Change Data Lab. When the second wave peaked on May 22, more than 4,000 people were dying each day.

“All hospitals [in India] were treating COVID-19 more than any other acute or chronic disease,” Ramesh Adhikari, MD, MS, SFHM, a hospitalist with Franciscan Health in Lafayette, Ind., said in an interview.

Challenges arose in treating COVID-19 in India that ran counter to how medicine was usually performed. Physicians were seeing more inpatient cases than usual – and more patients in general. The change, Dr. Adhikari said, forced health care providers to think outside the box.
 

An ‘on-the-fly’ hospitalist model

Patients in India access health care by visiting a hospital or primary health center and then are referred out to consultants – specialist doctors – if needed. While India has universal health coverage, it is a multi-payer system that includes approximately 37% of the population covered under the government plan, a large number of private health care facilities and no caps on cost-sharing for the patient. Initiatives like Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana in 2008 and Ayushman Bharat-Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana in 2018 have attempted to close the gap and raise the number of lower-income individuals in India covered under the government plan and reduce out-of-pocket spending. Out-of-pocket payments still consist of about 70% of total health expenditures, according to the Commonwealth Fund.

“There is not much scope for a hospitalist because it’s so cash driven,” Shyam Odeti, MD, SFHM, section chief, hospital medicine, at the Carilion Clinic in Roanoke, Va., said in an interview. “For a hospitalist, there is no urgency in getting them out of the hospital. There was no need for much efficiency before.”

The first issue during the second wave was figuring out which consultants would care for COVID-19 patients. As there is no dedicated specialty for infectious disease in India, the responsibilities fell to internists and critical care medicine consultants who volunteered. Both are considered small specialties in India. They became “makeshift hospitalists” who learned as they went and became the experts in COVID-19 care, treating their own patients while making themselves available for consultations, Dr. Odeti said.

While no official hospital medicine model in India exists like in the United States, the second COVID-19 surge caused these consultants to begin thinking like hospitalists. Tenets of hospital medicine – like team-based treatment across specialties – arose out of necessity during the crisis. “They were trying to implement a hospitalist model because that’s the only way they could treat COVID-19,” said Dr. Adhikari, an editorial advisory board member for the Hospitalist.

“Even in the U.S. when we started the hospitalist model, it started out of necessity. It’s a combination of creating efficiencies and improving quality,” Dr. Odeti said. “It’s the same thing in India. It’s borne of necessity, but it was [done] at a rapid pace.”
 

Problems with patient flow

The next issue was triaging patients in the hospital based on COVID-19 severity. When the second wave began, hospitals in India ran out of beds and experienced staff shortages like in many countries. But this situation “was unusual for the health system,” according to Dr. Odeti, who is also an editorial board member for the Hospitalist.

“We never had that issue. There were so many patients wanting to come to the hospital, and so there was this rush.” There was no process to triage patients to determine who needed to stay. “Everybody got put into the hospital,” he said.

Once it was determined who would take care of patients with COVID-19, access to supplies became the primary problem, Dr. Adhikari explained. Lack of oxygen, ventilators, and critical medicines like the antiviral drug remdesivir were and continue to be in short supply. “I had friends who [said] they could not admit patients because they were worried if their oxygen supply [went] low in the middle of the night. They will treat the patients who were already admitted versus taking new patients. That had caused problems for the administrators,” Dr. Adhikari added.

It is also a source of additional stress for the physicians. Where patients flow through a hospital medicine model in the United States, a system that might include case managers, social workers, pharmacists, physician advocates, and other professionals to keep a patient’s care on track, the physician is the go-to person in India for patient care. While physicians provide access to medications and remain available to a patient’s family, those duties become much harder when caring for a greater number of patients during the pandemic. “That has led to some unrealistic expectations among the patients,” Dr. Adhikari said.

Dr. Bhatt said “more than half” of a physician’s time in India is spent counseling patients on concerns about COVID-19. “Awareness about the disease is limited from the patient and patient’s family perspective, as [there is] too much apprehension toward the nature of [the] disease,” he added. “Theoretical discussions collected from social media” obstruct the physician from executing his or her duties.

Physicians in India have had to contend with physical violence from patients and individuals on the street, Dr. Adhikari added. Workplace violence was already a concern – for years, the Indian Medical Association has cited a statistic that 75% of doctors in India have experienced violence at work (Indian J Psychiatry. 2019 Apr;61[Suppl 4]:S782-5). But the threat of violence against physicians has sharply increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disruptions to daily life through lockdowns “made people fearful, anxious, and sometimes they have found it difficult to access emergency treatment,” according to a letter published by Karthikeyan Iyengar and colleagues in the Postgraduate Medical Journal. In response to the restlessness, irritation, and despair resulting from hospitals closing their doors, “people have shown their frustration by verbally abusing and threatening to physically assault doctors and other health care workers,” the authors wrote.
 

A telemedicine boon in India

Back in the United States, hospitalists with family and friends in India were trying to figure out how to help. Some were working through the day, only to answer calls and WhatsApp messages from loved ones at night. “Everyone knows a physician or someone who’s your colleague, who owns a hospital or runs a hospital, or one of the family members is sick,” Dr. Adhikari said.

These U.S.-based hospitalists were burning the candle at both ends, helping with the pandemic in both countries. Physicians in India were posing questions to U.S. colleagues who they saw as having the most recent evidence for COVID-19 treatment. Out of the 180 physicians he trained with in India, Dr. Odeti said 110 of the physicians were in a large WhatsApp group chat that was constantly exchanging messages and serving as “kind of a friendly support group.”

In Dr. Odeti’s group chat, physicians helped one another find hospital beds for patients who reached out to them. “The first couple of weeks, there was no proper way for people to know where [patients] were based. There was no way to find if this hospital had a bed, so they reached out to any doctors they knew,” he said.

While he said it was emotionally draining, “at the same time, we felt a responsibility toward colleagues in India,” Dr. Odeti said, noting that as COVID-19 cases have decreased in India, the requests have been less frequent.

Because of concerns about traveling to India during the pandemic while on a J-1, H-1B, or other visa with the United States, directly helping friends and family in India seemed out of reach. But many hospitalists of Indian origin instead turned to telemedicine to help their colleagues. Telemedicine had already been steadily growing in India, but was accelerated by the pandemic. The current ratio of doctors to patients in India is 0.62 to 1,000 – lower than recommendations from the World Health Organization. That makes telemedicine a unique opportunity for one physician in India to reach many patients regardless of location.

Dr. Adhikari said he helped out his colleagues in India by performing consults for their patients. “They were just worried because they did not ‘know where to go, or what to get,” he said. “I was treating more patients in India than I was actually treating here.”

In March 2020, the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare released telemedicine practice guidelines for the country, which relaxed regulations on privacy requirements and has been credited in part for giving telemedicine an additional boost during the pandemic. “That makes it easy for people to reach out but also has its own problems,” Dr. Adhikari said.

Monitoring of milder COVID-19 cases that don’t require hospitalization can be performed by a nurse who calls every few hours to check on a patient, make recommendations, and text treatment plans. “The telemedicine platforms are being adopted really fast,” Dr. Adhikari said. “The platforms were built in no time.”

According to NewZoo, a games market data analytics company, India has 345.9 million smartphone users as of 2019 – the second highest number of users in the world after China. Dr. Odeti said he believes telemedicine will be widely adopted.

“In India, they are very proactive in accepting these kinds of methods, so I’m sure they will,” he said. “Governments were trying to do it before the pandemic, because access to care is a problem in India. There are villages which are very, very remote.”
 

Reversion to old systems

After the peak in late May, new COVID-19 cases in India began to decrease, and the second wave waned on a national level. Hospitals began to get the supplies they needed, beds are available, and patients aren’t as sick as before, according to Dr. Adhikari. The federal government has begun issuing supplies to patients in each state, including COVID-19 vaccines. “The peak for the second wave is gone,” he said.

What remains is a group of physicians trained in how to triage patients and create efficiencies in a hospital setting. Could those skills be put to use elsewhere in India after the pandemic?

According to Dr. Bhatt, the patient care model is likely to revert to the system that existed before. “Whatever the changes, interims of bed occupancy, cost of ICU will be temporary [and] will change to normal,” he said. “But awareness about masks [and] sanitizing methods will be permanent.”

Dr. Adhikari believes that not utilizing the skills of newly minted hospitalists in India would be a missed opportunity. “This is a silver lining from COVID-19, that hospital medicine plays a vital role in the sickest patients, whether it is in India or the U.S. or anywhere,” he said. “I think the model of hospital medicine should be adopted. It’s not: ‘Should it really be adopted or not?’ It should be. There is a huge potential in doing inpatient coordinated [care], having people dedicated in the hospital.”

There are tangible benefits to creating efficiencies in India’s health system, Dr. Odeti said. Length of stay for sicker patients “was much longer” at 10-14 days during the second wave, compared with the United States, before lowering to around 5 days. “These hospitals right now are learning the efficient ways of doing it: when to send [patients] out, how to send them out, how to [perform] service-based practices, creating processes which were nonexistent before.”

While he doesn’t personally believe physicians will adopt a full-fledged hospitalist model unless the payer structure in India changes, “these people are at an advantage with this extra set of skills,” he said. “I think all the knowledge that these people have are going to come in handy.”
 

Opportunities for growth

Dr. Odeti sees the potential for the hospitalist model to grow in India – if not into its own specialty, then in how critical care consultants handle sicker patients and handoffs.

“The critical care clinician cannot keep the patient from the time they are admitted to the ICU until the discharge, so there will be a need for the transition,” Dr. Odeti said. “In the past, there were not many capabilities in Indian health systems to take care of these extremely sick patients, and now it is evolving. I think that is one more thing that will help.”

Dr. Adhikari said hospital systems in India are beginning to realize how having dedicated hospital physicians could benefit them. In India, “if you’re sick, you go to your doctor, you get treated and you disappear,” he said. The next time, you may see the same doctor or a completely different doctor. “There’s no system there, so it’s really hard for hospital medicine as such because patients, when they are very sick, they just come to the ER. They’re not followed by their primary care.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Odeti sees patients already adapting to having access to a physician for asking questions normally answered by primary care physicians. “I think primary care will come into play,” he said. “When I was doing a Zoom call for patients, they were asking me questions about sciatica. I think they are getting comfortable with this technology.”

A hospitalist model could even be applied to specific diseases with a large population of patients. Hospital administrators “have seen this for the first time, how efficient it could be if they had their own hospitalists and actually run it. So that’s the part that has crossed their minds,” Dr. Adhikari said. “How they will apply it going forward, other than during the COVID-19 pandemic, depends on the size of the hospital and the volume of the patients for a particular disease.”

“You can see in certain areas there is large growth for hospital medicine. But to rise to the level of the United States and how we do it, India needs bigger health systems to adopt the model,” Dr. Adhikari said.

A year after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, as the United States was getting a reprieve in new cases from its winter surge, the opposite was happening in the rest of the world. In India, a deadly second wave hit, crippling the health care system in the country for months.

Yugandhar Bhatt, MBBS, MD, a consultant pulmonologist with Yashoda Hospital–Malakpet in Hyderabad, India, told this news organization that someone looking at his hospital before the pandemic – a 400-bed multispecialty care unit – would see patients being treated for respiratory failure secondary to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchial asthma, community-acquired pneumonia, and heart failure. About 30-40 patients per day were treated on an outpatient basis, and more than 30 people were admitted as inpatients.

“After [the] COVID-19 surge, our hospital totally divided into COVID and non-COVID [wards], in which COVID patients occupied 70% of [the] total,” he said. About half of COVID-19 patients were in the ICU, with half of those patients requiring supplemental oxygen.

During the first wave in India, which lasted from May to December 2020, 50% of patients who were intubated were discharged. The percentage of extubated patients decreased to 20% in the second wave, Dr. Bhatt said.

The death toll during the second wave of COVID-19 cases was unlike anything India has seen previously. Between March 1 and June 29, 2021, an estimated 19.24 million individuals were newly infected with COVID-19 and 241,206 patients died, according to Our World in Data, a project of the Global Change Data Lab. When the second wave peaked on May 22, more than 4,000 people were dying each day.

“All hospitals [in India] were treating COVID-19 more than any other acute or chronic disease,” Ramesh Adhikari, MD, MS, SFHM, a hospitalist with Franciscan Health in Lafayette, Ind., said in an interview.

Challenges arose in treating COVID-19 in India that ran counter to how medicine was usually performed. Physicians were seeing more inpatient cases than usual – and more patients in general. The change, Dr. Adhikari said, forced health care providers to think outside the box.
 

An ‘on-the-fly’ hospitalist model

Patients in India access health care by visiting a hospital or primary health center and then are referred out to consultants – specialist doctors – if needed. While India has universal health coverage, it is a multi-payer system that includes approximately 37% of the population covered under the government plan, a large number of private health care facilities and no caps on cost-sharing for the patient. Initiatives like Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana in 2008 and Ayushman Bharat-Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana in 2018 have attempted to close the gap and raise the number of lower-income individuals in India covered under the government plan and reduce out-of-pocket spending. Out-of-pocket payments still consist of about 70% of total health expenditures, according to the Commonwealth Fund.

“There is not much scope for a hospitalist because it’s so cash driven,” Shyam Odeti, MD, SFHM, section chief, hospital medicine, at the Carilion Clinic in Roanoke, Va., said in an interview. “For a hospitalist, there is no urgency in getting them out of the hospital. There was no need for much efficiency before.”

The first issue during the second wave was figuring out which consultants would care for COVID-19 patients. As there is no dedicated specialty for infectious disease in India, the responsibilities fell to internists and critical care medicine consultants who volunteered. Both are considered small specialties in India. They became “makeshift hospitalists” who learned as they went and became the experts in COVID-19 care, treating their own patients while making themselves available for consultations, Dr. Odeti said.

While no official hospital medicine model in India exists like in the United States, the second COVID-19 surge caused these consultants to begin thinking like hospitalists. Tenets of hospital medicine – like team-based treatment across specialties – arose out of necessity during the crisis. “They were trying to implement a hospitalist model because that’s the only way they could treat COVID-19,” said Dr. Adhikari, an editorial advisory board member for the Hospitalist.

“Even in the U.S. when we started the hospitalist model, it started out of necessity. It’s a combination of creating efficiencies and improving quality,” Dr. Odeti said. “It’s the same thing in India. It’s borne of necessity, but it was [done] at a rapid pace.”
 

Problems with patient flow

The next issue was triaging patients in the hospital based on COVID-19 severity. When the second wave began, hospitals in India ran out of beds and experienced staff shortages like in many countries. But this situation “was unusual for the health system,” according to Dr. Odeti, who is also an editorial board member for the Hospitalist.

“We never had that issue. There were so many patients wanting to come to the hospital, and so there was this rush.” There was no process to triage patients to determine who needed to stay. “Everybody got put into the hospital,” he said.

Once it was determined who would take care of patients with COVID-19, access to supplies became the primary problem, Dr. Adhikari explained. Lack of oxygen, ventilators, and critical medicines like the antiviral drug remdesivir were and continue to be in short supply. “I had friends who [said] they could not admit patients because they were worried if their oxygen supply [went] low in the middle of the night. They will treat the patients who were already admitted versus taking new patients. That had caused problems for the administrators,” Dr. Adhikari added.

It is also a source of additional stress for the physicians. Where patients flow through a hospital medicine model in the United States, a system that might include case managers, social workers, pharmacists, physician advocates, and other professionals to keep a patient’s care on track, the physician is the go-to person in India for patient care. While physicians provide access to medications and remain available to a patient’s family, those duties become much harder when caring for a greater number of patients during the pandemic. “That has led to some unrealistic expectations among the patients,” Dr. Adhikari said.

Dr. Bhatt said “more than half” of a physician’s time in India is spent counseling patients on concerns about COVID-19. “Awareness about the disease is limited from the patient and patient’s family perspective, as [there is] too much apprehension toward the nature of [the] disease,” he added. “Theoretical discussions collected from social media” obstruct the physician from executing his or her duties.

Physicians in India have had to contend with physical violence from patients and individuals on the street, Dr. Adhikari added. Workplace violence was already a concern – for years, the Indian Medical Association has cited a statistic that 75% of doctors in India have experienced violence at work (Indian J Psychiatry. 2019 Apr;61[Suppl 4]:S782-5). But the threat of violence against physicians has sharply increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disruptions to daily life through lockdowns “made people fearful, anxious, and sometimes they have found it difficult to access emergency treatment,” according to a letter published by Karthikeyan Iyengar and colleagues in the Postgraduate Medical Journal. In response to the restlessness, irritation, and despair resulting from hospitals closing their doors, “people have shown their frustration by verbally abusing and threatening to physically assault doctors and other health care workers,” the authors wrote.
 

A telemedicine boon in India

Back in the United States, hospitalists with family and friends in India were trying to figure out how to help. Some were working through the day, only to answer calls and WhatsApp messages from loved ones at night. “Everyone knows a physician or someone who’s your colleague, who owns a hospital or runs a hospital, or one of the family members is sick,” Dr. Adhikari said.

These U.S.-based hospitalists were burning the candle at both ends, helping with the pandemic in both countries. Physicians in India were posing questions to U.S. colleagues who they saw as having the most recent evidence for COVID-19 treatment. Out of the 180 physicians he trained with in India, Dr. Odeti said 110 of the physicians were in a large WhatsApp group chat that was constantly exchanging messages and serving as “kind of a friendly support group.”

In Dr. Odeti’s group chat, physicians helped one another find hospital beds for patients who reached out to them. “The first couple of weeks, there was no proper way for people to know where [patients] were based. There was no way to find if this hospital had a bed, so they reached out to any doctors they knew,” he said.

While he said it was emotionally draining, “at the same time, we felt a responsibility toward colleagues in India,” Dr. Odeti said, noting that as COVID-19 cases have decreased in India, the requests have been less frequent.

Because of concerns about traveling to India during the pandemic while on a J-1, H-1B, or other visa with the United States, directly helping friends and family in India seemed out of reach. But many hospitalists of Indian origin instead turned to telemedicine to help their colleagues. Telemedicine had already been steadily growing in India, but was accelerated by the pandemic. The current ratio of doctors to patients in India is 0.62 to 1,000 – lower than recommendations from the World Health Organization. That makes telemedicine a unique opportunity for one physician in India to reach many patients regardless of location.

Dr. Adhikari said he helped out his colleagues in India by performing consults for their patients. “They were just worried because they did not ‘know where to go, or what to get,” he said. “I was treating more patients in India than I was actually treating here.”

In March 2020, the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare released telemedicine practice guidelines for the country, which relaxed regulations on privacy requirements and has been credited in part for giving telemedicine an additional boost during the pandemic. “That makes it easy for people to reach out but also has its own problems,” Dr. Adhikari said.

Monitoring of milder COVID-19 cases that don’t require hospitalization can be performed by a nurse who calls every few hours to check on a patient, make recommendations, and text treatment plans. “The telemedicine platforms are being adopted really fast,” Dr. Adhikari said. “The platforms were built in no time.”

According to NewZoo, a games market data analytics company, India has 345.9 million smartphone users as of 2019 – the second highest number of users in the world after China. Dr. Odeti said he believes telemedicine will be widely adopted.

“In India, they are very proactive in accepting these kinds of methods, so I’m sure they will,” he said. “Governments were trying to do it before the pandemic, because access to care is a problem in India. There are villages which are very, very remote.”
 

Reversion to old systems

After the peak in late May, new COVID-19 cases in India began to decrease, and the second wave waned on a national level. Hospitals began to get the supplies they needed, beds are available, and patients aren’t as sick as before, according to Dr. Adhikari. The federal government has begun issuing supplies to patients in each state, including COVID-19 vaccines. “The peak for the second wave is gone,” he said.

What remains is a group of physicians trained in how to triage patients and create efficiencies in a hospital setting. Could those skills be put to use elsewhere in India after the pandemic?

According to Dr. Bhatt, the patient care model is likely to revert to the system that existed before. “Whatever the changes, interims of bed occupancy, cost of ICU will be temporary [and] will change to normal,” he said. “But awareness about masks [and] sanitizing methods will be permanent.”

Dr. Adhikari believes that not utilizing the skills of newly minted hospitalists in India would be a missed opportunity. “This is a silver lining from COVID-19, that hospital medicine plays a vital role in the sickest patients, whether it is in India or the U.S. or anywhere,” he said. “I think the model of hospital medicine should be adopted. It’s not: ‘Should it really be adopted or not?’ It should be. There is a huge potential in doing inpatient coordinated [care], having people dedicated in the hospital.”

There are tangible benefits to creating efficiencies in India’s health system, Dr. Odeti said. Length of stay for sicker patients “was much longer” at 10-14 days during the second wave, compared with the United States, before lowering to around 5 days. “These hospitals right now are learning the efficient ways of doing it: when to send [patients] out, how to send them out, how to [perform] service-based practices, creating processes which were nonexistent before.”

While he doesn’t personally believe physicians will adopt a full-fledged hospitalist model unless the payer structure in India changes, “these people are at an advantage with this extra set of skills,” he said. “I think all the knowledge that these people have are going to come in handy.”
 

Opportunities for growth

Dr. Odeti sees the potential for the hospitalist model to grow in India – if not into its own specialty, then in how critical care consultants handle sicker patients and handoffs.

“The critical care clinician cannot keep the patient from the time they are admitted to the ICU until the discharge, so there will be a need for the transition,” Dr. Odeti said. “In the past, there were not many capabilities in Indian health systems to take care of these extremely sick patients, and now it is evolving. I think that is one more thing that will help.”

Dr. Adhikari said hospital systems in India are beginning to realize how having dedicated hospital physicians could benefit them. In India, “if you’re sick, you go to your doctor, you get treated and you disappear,” he said. The next time, you may see the same doctor or a completely different doctor. “There’s no system there, so it’s really hard for hospital medicine as such because patients, when they are very sick, they just come to the ER. They’re not followed by their primary care.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Odeti sees patients already adapting to having access to a physician for asking questions normally answered by primary care physicians. “I think primary care will come into play,” he said. “When I was doing a Zoom call for patients, they were asking me questions about sciatica. I think they are getting comfortable with this technology.”

A hospitalist model could even be applied to specific diseases with a large population of patients. Hospital administrators “have seen this for the first time, how efficient it could be if they had their own hospitalists and actually run it. So that’s the part that has crossed their minds,” Dr. Adhikari said. “How they will apply it going forward, other than during the COVID-19 pandemic, depends on the size of the hospital and the volume of the patients for a particular disease.”

“You can see in certain areas there is large growth for hospital medicine. But to rise to the level of the United States and how we do it, India needs bigger health systems to adopt the model,” Dr. Adhikari said.

A year after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, as the United States was getting a reprieve in new cases from its winter surge, the opposite was happening in the rest of the world. In India, a deadly second wave hit, crippling the health care system in the country for months.

Yugandhar Bhatt, MBBS, MD, a consultant pulmonologist with Yashoda Hospital–Malakpet in Hyderabad, India, told this news organization that someone looking at his hospital before the pandemic – a 400-bed multispecialty care unit – would see patients being treated for respiratory failure secondary to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchial asthma, community-acquired pneumonia, and heart failure. About 30-40 patients per day were treated on an outpatient basis, and more than 30 people were admitted as inpatients.

“After [the] COVID-19 surge, our hospital totally divided into COVID and non-COVID [wards], in which COVID patients occupied 70% of [the] total,” he said. About half of COVID-19 patients were in the ICU, with half of those patients requiring supplemental oxygen.

During the first wave in India, which lasted from May to December 2020, 50% of patients who were intubated were discharged. The percentage of extubated patients decreased to 20% in the second wave, Dr. Bhatt said.

The death toll during the second wave of COVID-19 cases was unlike anything India has seen previously. Between March 1 and June 29, 2021, an estimated 19.24 million individuals were newly infected with COVID-19 and 241,206 patients died, according to Our World in Data, a project of the Global Change Data Lab. When the second wave peaked on May 22, more than 4,000 people were dying each day.

“All hospitals [in India] were treating COVID-19 more than any other acute or chronic disease,” Ramesh Adhikari, MD, MS, SFHM, a hospitalist with Franciscan Health in Lafayette, Ind., said in an interview.

Challenges arose in treating COVID-19 in India that ran counter to how medicine was usually performed. Physicians were seeing more inpatient cases than usual – and more patients in general. The change, Dr. Adhikari said, forced health care providers to think outside the box.
 

An ‘on-the-fly’ hospitalist model

Patients in India access health care by visiting a hospital or primary health center and then are referred out to consultants – specialist doctors – if needed. While India has universal health coverage, it is a multi-payer system that includes approximately 37% of the population covered under the government plan, a large number of private health care facilities and no caps on cost-sharing for the patient. Initiatives like Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana in 2008 and Ayushman Bharat-Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana in 2018 have attempted to close the gap and raise the number of lower-income individuals in India covered under the government plan and reduce out-of-pocket spending. Out-of-pocket payments still consist of about 70% of total health expenditures, according to the Commonwealth Fund.

“There is not much scope for a hospitalist because it’s so cash driven,” Shyam Odeti, MD, SFHM, section chief, hospital medicine, at the Carilion Clinic in Roanoke, Va., said in an interview. “For a hospitalist, there is no urgency in getting them out of the hospital. There was no need for much efficiency before.”

The first issue during the second wave was figuring out which consultants would care for COVID-19 patients. As there is no dedicated specialty for infectious disease in India, the responsibilities fell to internists and critical care medicine consultants who volunteered. Both are considered small specialties in India. They became “makeshift hospitalists” who learned as they went and became the experts in COVID-19 care, treating their own patients while making themselves available for consultations, Dr. Odeti said.

While no official hospital medicine model in India exists like in the United States, the second COVID-19 surge caused these consultants to begin thinking like hospitalists. Tenets of hospital medicine – like team-based treatment across specialties – arose out of necessity during the crisis. “They were trying to implement a hospitalist model because that’s the only way they could treat COVID-19,” said Dr. Adhikari, an editorial advisory board member for the Hospitalist.

“Even in the U.S. when we started the hospitalist model, it started out of necessity. It’s a combination of creating efficiencies and improving quality,” Dr. Odeti said. “It’s the same thing in India. It’s borne of necessity, but it was [done] at a rapid pace.”
 

Problems with patient flow

The next issue was triaging patients in the hospital based on COVID-19 severity. When the second wave began, hospitals in India ran out of beds and experienced staff shortages like in many countries. But this situation “was unusual for the health system,” according to Dr. Odeti, who is also an editorial board member for the Hospitalist.

“We never had that issue. There were so many patients wanting to come to the hospital, and so there was this rush.” There was no process to triage patients to determine who needed to stay. “Everybody got put into the hospital,” he said.

Once it was determined who would take care of patients with COVID-19, access to supplies became the primary problem, Dr. Adhikari explained. Lack of oxygen, ventilators, and critical medicines like the antiviral drug remdesivir were and continue to be in short supply. “I had friends who [said] they could not admit patients because they were worried if their oxygen supply [went] low in the middle of the night. They will treat the patients who were already admitted versus taking new patients. That had caused problems for the administrators,” Dr. Adhikari added.

It is also a source of additional stress for the physicians. Where patients flow through a hospital medicine model in the United States, a system that might include case managers, social workers, pharmacists, physician advocates, and other professionals to keep a patient’s care on track, the physician is the go-to person in India for patient care. While physicians provide access to medications and remain available to a patient’s family, those duties become much harder when caring for a greater number of patients during the pandemic. “That has led to some unrealistic expectations among the patients,” Dr. Adhikari said.

Dr. Bhatt said “more than half” of a physician’s time in India is spent counseling patients on concerns about COVID-19. “Awareness about the disease is limited from the patient and patient’s family perspective, as [there is] too much apprehension toward the nature of [the] disease,” he added. “Theoretical discussions collected from social media” obstruct the physician from executing his or her duties.

Physicians in India have had to contend with physical violence from patients and individuals on the street, Dr. Adhikari added. Workplace violence was already a concern – for years, the Indian Medical Association has cited a statistic that 75% of doctors in India have experienced violence at work (Indian J Psychiatry. 2019 Apr;61[Suppl 4]:S782-5). But the threat of violence against physicians has sharply increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disruptions to daily life through lockdowns “made people fearful, anxious, and sometimes they have found it difficult to access emergency treatment,” according to a letter published by Karthikeyan Iyengar and colleagues in the Postgraduate Medical Journal. In response to the restlessness, irritation, and despair resulting from hospitals closing their doors, “people have shown their frustration by verbally abusing and threatening to physically assault doctors and other health care workers,” the authors wrote.
 

A telemedicine boon in India

Back in the United States, hospitalists with family and friends in India were trying to figure out how to help. Some were working through the day, only to answer calls and WhatsApp messages from loved ones at night. “Everyone knows a physician or someone who’s your colleague, who owns a hospital or runs a hospital, or one of the family members is sick,” Dr. Adhikari said.

These U.S.-based hospitalists were burning the candle at both ends, helping with the pandemic in both countries. Physicians in India were posing questions to U.S. colleagues who they saw as having the most recent evidence for COVID-19 treatment. Out of the 180 physicians he trained with in India, Dr. Odeti said 110 of the physicians were in a large WhatsApp group chat that was constantly exchanging messages and serving as “kind of a friendly support group.”

In Dr. Odeti’s group chat, physicians helped one another find hospital beds for patients who reached out to them. “The first couple of weeks, there was no proper way for people to know where [patients] were based. There was no way to find if this hospital had a bed, so they reached out to any doctors they knew,” he said.

While he said it was emotionally draining, “at the same time, we felt a responsibility toward colleagues in India,” Dr. Odeti said, noting that as COVID-19 cases have decreased in India, the requests have been less frequent.

Because of concerns about traveling to India during the pandemic while on a J-1, H-1B, or other visa with the United States, directly helping friends and family in India seemed out of reach. But many hospitalists of Indian origin instead turned to telemedicine to help their colleagues. Telemedicine had already been steadily growing in India, but was accelerated by the pandemic. The current ratio of doctors to patients in India is 0.62 to 1,000 – lower than recommendations from the World Health Organization. That makes telemedicine a unique opportunity for one physician in India to reach many patients regardless of location.

Dr. Adhikari said he helped out his colleagues in India by performing consults for their patients. “They were just worried because they did not ‘know where to go, or what to get,” he said. “I was treating more patients in India than I was actually treating here.”

In March 2020, the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare released telemedicine practice guidelines for the country, which relaxed regulations on privacy requirements and has been credited in part for giving telemedicine an additional boost during the pandemic. “That makes it easy for people to reach out but also has its own problems,” Dr. Adhikari said.

Monitoring of milder COVID-19 cases that don’t require hospitalization can be performed by a nurse who calls every few hours to check on a patient, make recommendations, and text treatment plans. “The telemedicine platforms are being adopted really fast,” Dr. Adhikari said. “The platforms were built in no time.”

According to NewZoo, a games market data analytics company, India has 345.9 million smartphone users as of 2019 – the second highest number of users in the world after China. Dr. Odeti said he believes telemedicine will be widely adopted.

“In India, they are very proactive in accepting these kinds of methods, so I’m sure they will,” he said. “Governments were trying to do it before the pandemic, because access to care is a problem in India. There are villages which are very, very remote.”
 

Reversion to old systems

After the peak in late May, new COVID-19 cases in India began to decrease, and the second wave waned on a national level. Hospitals began to get the supplies they needed, beds are available, and patients aren’t as sick as before, according to Dr. Adhikari. The federal government has begun issuing supplies to patients in each state, including COVID-19 vaccines. “The peak for the second wave is gone,” he said.

What remains is a group of physicians trained in how to triage patients and create efficiencies in a hospital setting. Could those skills be put to use elsewhere in India after the pandemic?

According to Dr. Bhatt, the patient care model is likely to revert to the system that existed before. “Whatever the changes, interims of bed occupancy, cost of ICU will be temporary [and] will change to normal,” he said. “But awareness about masks [and] sanitizing methods will be permanent.”

Dr. Adhikari believes that not utilizing the skills of newly minted hospitalists in India would be a missed opportunity. “This is a silver lining from COVID-19, that hospital medicine plays a vital role in the sickest patients, whether it is in India or the U.S. or anywhere,” he said. “I think the model of hospital medicine should be adopted. It’s not: ‘Should it really be adopted or not?’ It should be. There is a huge potential in doing inpatient coordinated [care], having people dedicated in the hospital.”

There are tangible benefits to creating efficiencies in India’s health system, Dr. Odeti said. Length of stay for sicker patients “was much longer” at 10-14 days during the second wave, compared with the United States, before lowering to around 5 days. “These hospitals right now are learning the efficient ways of doing it: when to send [patients] out, how to send them out, how to [perform] service-based practices, creating processes which were nonexistent before.”

While he doesn’t personally believe physicians will adopt a full-fledged hospitalist model unless the payer structure in India changes, “these people are at an advantage with this extra set of skills,” he said. “I think all the knowledge that these people have are going to come in handy.”
 

Opportunities for growth

Dr. Odeti sees the potential for the hospitalist model to grow in India – if not into its own specialty, then in how critical care consultants handle sicker patients and handoffs.

“The critical care clinician cannot keep the patient from the time they are admitted to the ICU until the discharge, so there will be a need for the transition,” Dr. Odeti said. “In the past, there were not many capabilities in Indian health systems to take care of these extremely sick patients, and now it is evolving. I think that is one more thing that will help.”

Dr. Adhikari said hospital systems in India are beginning to realize how having dedicated hospital physicians could benefit them. In India, “if you’re sick, you go to your doctor, you get treated and you disappear,” he said. The next time, you may see the same doctor or a completely different doctor. “There’s no system there, so it’s really hard for hospital medicine as such because patients, when they are very sick, they just come to the ER. They’re not followed by their primary care.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Odeti sees patients already adapting to having access to a physician for asking questions normally answered by primary care physicians. “I think primary care will come into play,” he said. “When I was doing a Zoom call for patients, they were asking me questions about sciatica. I think they are getting comfortable with this technology.”

A hospitalist model could even be applied to specific diseases with a large population of patients. Hospital administrators “have seen this for the first time, how efficient it could be if they had their own hospitalists and actually run it. So that’s the part that has crossed their minds,” Dr. Adhikari said. “How they will apply it going forward, other than during the COVID-19 pandemic, depends on the size of the hospital and the volume of the patients for a particular disease.”

“You can see in certain areas there is large growth for hospital medicine. But to rise to the level of the United States and how we do it, India needs bigger health systems to adopt the model,” Dr. Adhikari said.

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered millions of e-cigarette products off the public market while saying it needs more time to review vape products sold by leading retailers like Juul, the country’s largest e-cigarette maker.

The agency had a court-ordered deadline of Sept. 9 to review more than 6.5 million applications for approval of what are considered new tobacco products – the vast majority of which are e-cigarettes and liquids, none of which have gone through FDA review before.

The FDA reviewed 93% of those applications in the past year, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said in a statement.

Of those reviewed, the agency rejected more than 946,000 flavored vape products, “because their applications lacked sufficient evidence that they have a benefit to adult smokers sufficient to overcome the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use of such products,” Dr. Woodcock and Mr. Zeller said.

The pair said more work is needed to finish the reviews to “ensure that we continue taking appropriate action to protect our nation’s youth from the dangers of all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, which remain the most commonly used tobacco product by youth in the United States.”

No e-cigarette product has been given official FDA approval to be sold, meaning all e-cigarette products technically are on the market illegally, the agency said in 2020, but federal officials decided only to begin enforcing rules against flavored products, which surveys show are more often used by children. Tobacco-flavored and menthol e-cigarette products – which some adults use to quit smoking cigarettes – were exempted.

The American Cancer Society and other advocacy groups slammed the FDA’s decision to withhold action on major e-cigarette manufacturers, including Juul.

“The FDA’s failure today to act on applications by Juul, the manufacturer with the single biggest e-cigarette market share, is extremely disappointing and will allow the industry to further endanger public health and hook more kids on their highly addictive products,” Lisa Lacasse, president of ACS CAN, said in a statement, according to CNN.

“The FDA has had ample time to review the applications and allowing additional delays is unconscionable. There is overwhelming data to demonstrate the negative impact these kinds of flavored products have had on public health and their role in the youth e-cigarette epidemic. The time to act is now,” Ms. Lacasse added.

E-cigarette use among high school students rose from 11.7% in 2017 to 19.6% in 2020, the American Cancer Society said. Nearly 5% of middle schoolers reported using them in 2020.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered millions of e-cigarette products off the public market while saying it needs more time to review vape products sold by leading retailers like Juul, the country’s largest e-cigarette maker.

The agency had a court-ordered deadline of Sept. 9 to review more than 6.5 million applications for approval of what are considered new tobacco products – the vast majority of which are e-cigarettes and liquids, none of which have gone through FDA review before.

The FDA reviewed 93% of those applications in the past year, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said in a statement.

Of those reviewed, the agency rejected more than 946,000 flavored vape products, “because their applications lacked sufficient evidence that they have a benefit to adult smokers sufficient to overcome the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use of such products,” Dr. Woodcock and Mr. Zeller said.

The pair said more work is needed to finish the reviews to “ensure that we continue taking appropriate action to protect our nation’s youth from the dangers of all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, which remain the most commonly used tobacco product by youth in the United States.”

No e-cigarette product has been given official FDA approval to be sold, meaning all e-cigarette products technically are on the market illegally, the agency said in 2020, but federal officials decided only to begin enforcing rules against flavored products, which surveys show are more often used by children. Tobacco-flavored and menthol e-cigarette products – which some adults use to quit smoking cigarettes – were exempted.

The American Cancer Society and other advocacy groups slammed the FDA’s decision to withhold action on major e-cigarette manufacturers, including Juul.

“The FDA’s failure today to act on applications by Juul, the manufacturer with the single biggest e-cigarette market share, is extremely disappointing and will allow the industry to further endanger public health and hook more kids on their highly addictive products,” Lisa Lacasse, president of ACS CAN, said in a statement, according to CNN.

“The FDA has had ample time to review the applications and allowing additional delays is unconscionable. There is overwhelming data to demonstrate the negative impact these kinds of flavored products have had on public health and their role in the youth e-cigarette epidemic. The time to act is now,” Ms. Lacasse added.

E-cigarette use among high school students rose from 11.7% in 2017 to 19.6% in 2020, the American Cancer Society said. Nearly 5% of middle schoolers reported using them in 2020.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered millions of e-cigarette products off the public market while saying it needs more time to review vape products sold by leading retailers like Juul, the country’s largest e-cigarette maker.

The agency had a court-ordered deadline of Sept. 9 to review more than 6.5 million applications for approval of what are considered new tobacco products – the vast majority of which are e-cigarettes and liquids, none of which have gone through FDA review before.

The FDA reviewed 93% of those applications in the past year, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said in a statement.

Of those reviewed, the agency rejected more than 946,000 flavored vape products, “because their applications lacked sufficient evidence that they have a benefit to adult smokers sufficient to overcome the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use of such products,” Dr. Woodcock and Mr. Zeller said.

The pair said more work is needed to finish the reviews to “ensure that we continue taking appropriate action to protect our nation’s youth from the dangers of all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, which remain the most commonly used tobacco product by youth in the United States.”

No e-cigarette product has been given official FDA approval to be sold, meaning all e-cigarette products technically are on the market illegally, the agency said in 2020, but federal officials decided only to begin enforcing rules against flavored products, which surveys show are more often used by children. Tobacco-flavored and menthol e-cigarette products – which some adults use to quit smoking cigarettes – were exempted.

The American Cancer Society and other advocacy groups slammed the FDA’s decision to withhold action on major e-cigarette manufacturers, including Juul.

“The FDA’s failure today to act on applications by Juul, the manufacturer with the single biggest e-cigarette market share, is extremely disappointing and will allow the industry to further endanger public health and hook more kids on their highly addictive products,” Lisa Lacasse, president of ACS CAN, said in a statement, according to CNN.

“The FDA has had ample time to review the applications and allowing additional delays is unconscionable. There is overwhelming data to demonstrate the negative impact these kinds of flavored products have had on public health and their role in the youth e-cigarette epidemic. The time to act is now,” Ms. Lacasse added.

E-cigarette use among high school students rose from 11.7% in 2017 to 19.6% in 2020, the American Cancer Society said. Nearly 5% of middle schoolers reported using them in 2020.

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

Many Americans are clamoring for a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine after reports of rising numbers of breakthrough infections, and demand increased after the Biden administration said those shots would be offered starting on Sept. 20.

That plan, which was first announced on Aug. 18, has raised eyebrows because it comes in advance of regulatory reviews by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those reviews are needed to determine whether third doses of these vaccines are effective or even safe. The move could have important legal ramifications for doctors and patients, too.

On Aug. 31, two high-level officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review abruptly resigned amid reports that they were angry that the Biden administration was making decisions that should be left up to that agency.

So far, data show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing the most severe consequences of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death – even regarding the Delta variant. The World Health Organization has urged wealthy nations such as the United States not to offer boosters so that the limited supply of vaccines can be directed to countries with fewer resources.
 

White House supports boosters

In a recent press briefing, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, defended the move.

“You know, the booster decision, which you referenced ... was made by and announced by the nation’s leading public health officials, including Dr. Walensky; Dr. Fauci; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock; the FDA acting commissioner, Dr. Francis Collins; Dr. Kessler; and others,” Mr. Zients said.

“And as our medical experts laid out, having reviewed all of the available data, it is in their clinical judgment that it is time to prepare Americans for a booster shot.”

He said a target date of Sept. 20 was announced so as to give states and practitioners time to prepare. He also said the move to give boosters was meant to help the United States stay ahead of a rapidly changing virus. Mr. Zients added that whether boosters will be administered starting on Sept. 20 depends on the FDA’s and CDC’s giving the go-ahead.

“Booster doses are going to be handled the same way all vaccines are handled,” said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. “Companies will have to provide data to FDA. FDA will have to make a decision and authorize the use of those, and ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will have to look at the evidence as well and make recommendations on top of FDA’s regulatory action,” she said.

Ms. Nordlund agreed that the planned Sept. 20 start date for boosters was something to which they aspired and was not necessarily set.

Historically, the FDA has needed at least 4 months to review a change to a vaccine’s approval, even on an accelerated schedule. Reviewers use that time to assess data regarding individual patients in a study, to review raw data, and essentially to check a drug company’s math and conclusions. The Biden administration’s timeline would shorten that review period from months to just a few weeks.
 

‘FDA in a very difficult position’

After the FDA approves, the ACIP of the CDC must meet to review the evidence and make recommendations on the use of the boosters in the United States.

Pfizer says it completed its submission for a supplemental biologics license application to the FDA on Aug. 27. To meet a Sept. 20 timeline, the entire process would have to be completed within 3 weeks.

“I don’t think that was handled, you know, ideally,” said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner of public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.

“It puts FDA in a very difficult position,” Dr. Lurie said. “It’s almost as if the decision has been made and they’re just checking a box, and that is, you know, contrary to the what FDA – at least the internal people at FDA – have been trying to do for ages.”

He said the agency took great pains with the emergency use authorizations and the full approvals of the vaccines to work as rapidly but thoroughly as possible. They did not skip steps.

“I think all of that reflected very well on the agency,” Dr. Lurie said. “And I think it worked out well in terms of trust in the vaccines.”

Although additional doses of vaccine are expected to be safe, little is known about side effects or adverse events after a third dose.

“It’s critical to wait for additional data and regulatory allowance for booster doses,” Sara Oliver, MD, a member of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service, said in an Aug. 30 presentation to the ACIP, which is charged with making recommendations for use of all vaccines in the United States.
 

Boosters already being given

But after the White House announced that boosters were on the way, many people are not waiting.

Many health care practitioners and pharmacies have already been giving people third doses of vaccines, even if they are not among the immunocompromised – the group for which the shots are currently approved.

“You can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a third dose. Depending on which pharmacy you go to, you may get it,” said Helen Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and a member of the ACIP.

She says she has a friend who recently went for a checkup and was offered a third dose. His physician is already giving extra doses to everyone who is older than 65.

Dr. Talbot said that in fairness, pharmacies in the United States are throwing away doses of vaccine because they are expiring before they get used.

“Many of us may or may not be ready to give a third dose but would rather give someone a third dose than throw a vaccine away,” she said.
 

Consequences of a third shot

But giving or getting a third dose before approval by the FDA may have legal consequences.

In the ACIP meeting on Aug. 30, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, who leads vaccine equity efforts at the CDC, cautioned that physicians who give extra doses of the vaccine before the FDA and CDC have signed off may be in violation of practitioner agreements with the federal government and might not be covered by the federal PREP Act. The PREP Act provides immunity from lawsuits for people who administer COVID-19 vaccines and compensates patients in the event of injury. Patients who get a vaccine and suffer a rare but serious side effect may lose the ability to claim compensation offered by the act.

“Many of us gasped when he said that,” Dr. Talbot said, “because that’s a big deal.”

The ACIP signaled that it is considering recommending boosters for a much narrower slice of the American population than the Biden administration has suggested.

They said that so far, the data point only to the need for boosters for seniors, who are the patients most likely to experience breakthrough infections that require hospitalization, and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever and cannot work if they’re sick.

In a White House news briefing Aug. 31, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, was asked about the ACIP’s conclusions and whether she believed there were enough data to recommend booster shots for most Americans 8 months after their last dose.

“The ACIP did not review international data that actually has led us to be even more concerned about increased risk of vaccine effectiveness waning against hospitalization, severe disease, and death. They will be reviewing that as well,” she said.

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

Many Americans are clamoring for a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine after reports of rising numbers of breakthrough infections, and demand increased after the Biden administration said those shots would be offered starting on Sept. 20.

That plan, which was first announced on Aug. 18, has raised eyebrows because it comes in advance of regulatory reviews by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those reviews are needed to determine whether third doses of these vaccines are effective or even safe. The move could have important legal ramifications for doctors and patients, too.

On Aug. 31, two high-level officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review abruptly resigned amid reports that they were angry that the Biden administration was making decisions that should be left up to that agency.

So far, data show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing the most severe consequences of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death – even regarding the Delta variant. The World Health Organization has urged wealthy nations such as the United States not to offer boosters so that the limited supply of vaccines can be directed to countries with fewer resources.
 

White House supports boosters

In a recent press briefing, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, defended the move.

“You know, the booster decision, which you referenced ... was made by and announced by the nation’s leading public health officials, including Dr. Walensky; Dr. Fauci; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock; the FDA acting commissioner, Dr. Francis Collins; Dr. Kessler; and others,” Mr. Zients said.

“And as our medical experts laid out, having reviewed all of the available data, it is in their clinical judgment that it is time to prepare Americans for a booster shot.”

He said a target date of Sept. 20 was announced so as to give states and practitioners time to prepare. He also said the move to give boosters was meant to help the United States stay ahead of a rapidly changing virus. Mr. Zients added that whether boosters will be administered starting on Sept. 20 depends on the FDA’s and CDC’s giving the go-ahead.

“Booster doses are going to be handled the same way all vaccines are handled,” said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. “Companies will have to provide data to FDA. FDA will have to make a decision and authorize the use of those, and ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will have to look at the evidence as well and make recommendations on top of FDA’s regulatory action,” she said.

Ms. Nordlund agreed that the planned Sept. 20 start date for boosters was something to which they aspired and was not necessarily set.

Historically, the FDA has needed at least 4 months to review a change to a vaccine’s approval, even on an accelerated schedule. Reviewers use that time to assess data regarding individual patients in a study, to review raw data, and essentially to check a drug company’s math and conclusions. The Biden administration’s timeline would shorten that review period from months to just a few weeks.
 

‘FDA in a very difficult position’

After the FDA approves, the ACIP of the CDC must meet to review the evidence and make recommendations on the use of the boosters in the United States.

Pfizer says it completed its submission for a supplemental biologics license application to the FDA on Aug. 27. To meet a Sept. 20 timeline, the entire process would have to be completed within 3 weeks.

“I don’t think that was handled, you know, ideally,” said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner of public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.

“It puts FDA in a very difficult position,” Dr. Lurie said. “It’s almost as if the decision has been made and they’re just checking a box, and that is, you know, contrary to the what FDA – at least the internal people at FDA – have been trying to do for ages.”

He said the agency took great pains with the emergency use authorizations and the full approvals of the vaccines to work as rapidly but thoroughly as possible. They did not skip steps.

“I think all of that reflected very well on the agency,” Dr. Lurie said. “And I think it worked out well in terms of trust in the vaccines.”

Although additional doses of vaccine are expected to be safe, little is known about side effects or adverse events after a third dose.

“It’s critical to wait for additional data and regulatory allowance for booster doses,” Sara Oliver, MD, a member of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service, said in an Aug. 30 presentation to the ACIP, which is charged with making recommendations for use of all vaccines in the United States.
 

Boosters already being given

But after the White House announced that boosters were on the way, many people are not waiting.

Many health care practitioners and pharmacies have already been giving people third doses of vaccines, even if they are not among the immunocompromised – the group for which the shots are currently approved.

“You can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a third dose. Depending on which pharmacy you go to, you may get it,” said Helen Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and a member of the ACIP.

She says she has a friend who recently went for a checkup and was offered a third dose. His physician is already giving extra doses to everyone who is older than 65.

Dr. Talbot said that in fairness, pharmacies in the United States are throwing away doses of vaccine because they are expiring before they get used.

“Many of us may or may not be ready to give a third dose but would rather give someone a third dose than throw a vaccine away,” she said.
 

Consequences of a third shot

But giving or getting a third dose before approval by the FDA may have legal consequences.

In the ACIP meeting on Aug. 30, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, who leads vaccine equity efforts at the CDC, cautioned that physicians who give extra doses of the vaccine before the FDA and CDC have signed off may be in violation of practitioner agreements with the federal government and might not be covered by the federal PREP Act. The PREP Act provides immunity from lawsuits for people who administer COVID-19 vaccines and compensates patients in the event of injury. Patients who get a vaccine and suffer a rare but serious side effect may lose the ability to claim compensation offered by the act.

“Many of us gasped when he said that,” Dr. Talbot said, “because that’s a big deal.”

The ACIP signaled that it is considering recommending boosters for a much narrower slice of the American population than the Biden administration has suggested.

They said that so far, the data point only to the need for boosters for seniors, who are the patients most likely to experience breakthrough infections that require hospitalization, and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever and cannot work if they’re sick.

In a White House news briefing Aug. 31, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, was asked about the ACIP’s conclusions and whether she believed there were enough data to recommend booster shots for most Americans 8 months after their last dose.

“The ACIP did not review international data that actually has led us to be even more concerned about increased risk of vaccine effectiveness waning against hospitalization, severe disease, and death. They will be reviewing that as well,” she said.

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

Many Americans are clamoring for a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine after reports of rising numbers of breakthrough infections, and demand increased after the Biden administration said those shots would be offered starting on Sept. 20.

That plan, which was first announced on Aug. 18, has raised eyebrows because it comes in advance of regulatory reviews by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those reviews are needed to determine whether third doses of these vaccines are effective or even safe. The move could have important legal ramifications for doctors and patients, too.

On Aug. 31, two high-level officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review abruptly resigned amid reports that they were angry that the Biden administration was making decisions that should be left up to that agency.

So far, data show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing the most severe consequences of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death – even regarding the Delta variant. The World Health Organization has urged wealthy nations such as the United States not to offer boosters so that the limited supply of vaccines can be directed to countries with fewer resources.
 

White House supports boosters

In a recent press briefing, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, defended the move.

“You know, the booster decision, which you referenced ... was made by and announced by the nation’s leading public health officials, including Dr. Walensky; Dr. Fauci; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock; the FDA acting commissioner, Dr. Francis Collins; Dr. Kessler; and others,” Mr. Zients said.

“And as our medical experts laid out, having reviewed all of the available data, it is in their clinical judgment that it is time to prepare Americans for a booster shot.”

He said a target date of Sept. 20 was announced so as to give states and practitioners time to prepare. He also said the move to give boosters was meant to help the United States stay ahead of a rapidly changing virus. Mr. Zients added that whether boosters will be administered starting on Sept. 20 depends on the FDA’s and CDC’s giving the go-ahead.

“Booster doses are going to be handled the same way all vaccines are handled,” said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. “Companies will have to provide data to FDA. FDA will have to make a decision and authorize the use of those, and ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will have to look at the evidence as well and make recommendations on top of FDA’s regulatory action,” she said.

Ms. Nordlund agreed that the planned Sept. 20 start date for boosters was something to which they aspired and was not necessarily set.

Historically, the FDA has needed at least 4 months to review a change to a vaccine’s approval, even on an accelerated schedule. Reviewers use that time to assess data regarding individual patients in a study, to review raw data, and essentially to check a drug company’s math and conclusions. The Biden administration’s timeline would shorten that review period from months to just a few weeks.
 

‘FDA in a very difficult position’

After the FDA approves, the ACIP of the CDC must meet to review the evidence and make recommendations on the use of the boosters in the United States.

Pfizer says it completed its submission for a supplemental biologics license application to the FDA on Aug. 27. To meet a Sept. 20 timeline, the entire process would have to be completed within 3 weeks.

“I don’t think that was handled, you know, ideally,” said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner of public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.

“It puts FDA in a very difficult position,” Dr. Lurie said. “It’s almost as if the decision has been made and they’re just checking a box, and that is, you know, contrary to the what FDA – at least the internal people at FDA – have been trying to do for ages.”

He said the agency took great pains with the emergency use authorizations and the full approvals of the vaccines to work as rapidly but thoroughly as possible. They did not skip steps.

“I think all of that reflected very well on the agency,” Dr. Lurie said. “And I think it worked out well in terms of trust in the vaccines.”

Although additional doses of vaccine are expected to be safe, little is known about side effects or adverse events after a third dose.

“It’s critical to wait for additional data and regulatory allowance for booster doses,” Sara Oliver, MD, a member of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service, said in an Aug. 30 presentation to the ACIP, which is charged with making recommendations for use of all vaccines in the United States.
 

Boosters already being given

But after the White House announced that boosters were on the way, many people are not waiting.

Many health care practitioners and pharmacies have already been giving people third doses of vaccines, even if they are not among the immunocompromised – the group for which the shots are currently approved.

“You can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a third dose. Depending on which pharmacy you go to, you may get it,” said Helen Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and a member of the ACIP.

She says she has a friend who recently went for a checkup and was offered a third dose. His physician is already giving extra doses to everyone who is older than 65.

Dr. Talbot said that in fairness, pharmacies in the United States are throwing away doses of vaccine because they are expiring before they get used.

“Many of us may or may not be ready to give a third dose but would rather give someone a third dose than throw a vaccine away,” she said.
 

Consequences of a third shot

But giving or getting a third dose before approval by the FDA may have legal consequences.

In the ACIP meeting on Aug. 30, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, who leads vaccine equity efforts at the CDC, cautioned that physicians who give extra doses of the vaccine before the FDA and CDC have signed off may be in violation of practitioner agreements with the federal government and might not be covered by the federal PREP Act. The PREP Act provides immunity from lawsuits for people who administer COVID-19 vaccines and compensates patients in the event of injury. Patients who get a vaccine and suffer a rare but serious side effect may lose the ability to claim compensation offered by the act.

“Many of us gasped when he said that,” Dr. Talbot said, “because that’s a big deal.”

The ACIP signaled that it is considering recommending boosters for a much narrower slice of the American population than the Biden administration has suggested.

They said that so far, the data point only to the need for boosters for seniors, who are the patients most likely to experience breakthrough infections that require hospitalization, and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever and cannot work if they’re sick.

In a White House news briefing Aug. 31, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, was asked about the ACIP’s conclusions and whether she believed there were enough data to recommend booster shots for most Americans 8 months after their last dose.

“The ACIP did not review international data that actually has led us to be even more concerned about increased risk of vaccine effectiveness waning against hospitalization, severe disease, and death. They will be reviewing that as well,” she said.

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

People with breakthrough COVID-19 infections are two times more likely to be completely asymptomatic and are about two-thirds less likely to be hospitalized, compared with those who are unvaccinated, according to a new observational study.

Individuals infected with COVID-19 after receiving their first or second dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine experienced a lower number of symptoms in the first week of infection, compared with those who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine, reported the authors of the report in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. These patients also had a reduced need for hospitalization, compared with their unvaccinated peers. Those who received both doses of a vaccine were less likely to experience prolonged COVID - defined as at least 28 days of symptoms in this paper - compared with unvaccinated individuals.

“We are at a critical point in the pandemic as we see cases rising worldwide due to the delta variant,” study co–lead author Dr. Claire Steves, said in a statement. “Breakthrough infections are expected and don’t diminish the fact that these vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do – save lives and prevent serious illness.”

For the community-based, case-control study, Dr. Steves, who is a clinical senior lecturer at King’s College London, and her colleagues analyzed and presented self-reported data on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations from more than 1.2 million UK-based adults through the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app.

They found that, of the 1.2 million adults who received at least one dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine, fewer than 0.5% tested positive for COVID-19 14 days after their first dose. Of those who received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 0.2% acquired the infection more than 7 days post vaccination.

Likelihood of severe symptoms dropped after one dose

After just one COVID-19 vaccine dose, the likelihood of experiencing severe symptoms from a COVID-19 infection dropped by a quarter. The odds of their infection being asymptomatic increased by 94% after the second dose. Researchers also found that vaccinated participants in the study were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older.

Furthermore, the odds of those with breakthrough infections experiencing severe disease – which is characterized by having five or more symptoms within the first week of becoming ill – dropped by approximately one-third.

When evaluating risk factors, the researchers found that those most vulnerable to a breakthrough infection after receiving a first dose of Pfizer, Moderna, or Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine were older adults (ages 60 years or older) who are either frail or live with underlying conditions such as asthma, lung disease, and obesity.

The findings provide substantial evidence that there are benefits after just one dose of the vaccine, said Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis. However, the report also supports caution around becoming lax on protective COVID-19 measures such as physical distancing and wearing masks, especially around vulnerable groups, he said.

Findings may have implications for health policies

“It’s also important for people who are fully vaccinated to understand that these infections are expected and are happening, especially now with the Delta variant” Dr. Hijano said. “While the outcomes are favorable, you need to still protect yourself to also protect your loved ones. You want to be very mindful that, if you are vaccinated and you get infected, you can pass it on to somebody that actually has not been vaccinated or has some of these risk factors.”

The authors of the new research paper believe their findings may have implications for health policies regarding the timing between vaccine doses, COVID-19 booster shots, and for continuing personal protective measures.

The authors of the paper and Dr. Hijano disclosed no conflicts.

People with breakthrough COVID-19 infections are two times more likely to be completely asymptomatic and are about two-thirds less likely to be hospitalized, compared with those who are unvaccinated, according to a new observational study.

Individuals infected with COVID-19 after receiving their first or second dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine experienced a lower number of symptoms in the first week of infection, compared with those who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine, reported the authors of the report in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. These patients also had a reduced need for hospitalization, compared with their unvaccinated peers. Those who received both doses of a vaccine were less likely to experience prolonged COVID - defined as at least 28 days of symptoms in this paper - compared with unvaccinated individuals.

“We are at a critical point in the pandemic as we see cases rising worldwide due to the delta variant,” study co–lead author Dr. Claire Steves, said in a statement. “Breakthrough infections are expected and don’t diminish the fact that these vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do – save lives and prevent serious illness.”

For the community-based, case-control study, Dr. Steves, who is a clinical senior lecturer at King’s College London, and her colleagues analyzed and presented self-reported data on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations from more than 1.2 million UK-based adults through the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app.

They found that, of the 1.2 million adults who received at least one dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine, fewer than 0.5% tested positive for COVID-19 14 days after their first dose. Of those who received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 0.2% acquired the infection more than 7 days post vaccination.

Likelihood of severe symptoms dropped after one dose

After just one COVID-19 vaccine dose, the likelihood of experiencing severe symptoms from a COVID-19 infection dropped by a quarter. The odds of their infection being asymptomatic increased by 94% after the second dose. Researchers also found that vaccinated participants in the study were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older.

Furthermore, the odds of those with breakthrough infections experiencing severe disease – which is characterized by having five or more symptoms within the first week of becoming ill – dropped by approximately one-third.

When evaluating risk factors, the researchers found that those most vulnerable to a breakthrough infection after receiving a first dose of Pfizer, Moderna, or Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine were older adults (ages 60 years or older) who are either frail or live with underlying conditions such as asthma, lung disease, and obesity.

The findings provide substantial evidence that there are benefits after just one dose of the vaccine, said Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis. However, the report also supports caution around becoming lax on protective COVID-19 measures such as physical distancing and wearing masks, especially around vulnerable groups, he said.

Findings may have implications for health policies

“It’s also important for people who are fully vaccinated to understand that these infections are expected and are happening, especially now with the Delta variant” Dr. Hijano said. “While the outcomes are favorable, you need to still protect yourself to also protect your loved ones. You want to be very mindful that, if you are vaccinated and you get infected, you can pass it on to somebody that actually has not been vaccinated or has some of these risk factors.”

The authors of the new research paper believe their findings may have implications for health policies regarding the timing between vaccine doses, COVID-19 booster shots, and for continuing personal protective measures.

The authors of the paper and Dr. Hijano disclosed no conflicts.

People with breakthrough COVID-19 infections are two times more likely to be completely asymptomatic and are about two-thirds less likely to be hospitalized, compared with those who are unvaccinated, according to a new observational study.

Individuals infected with COVID-19 after receiving their first or second dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine experienced a lower number of symptoms in the first week of infection, compared with those who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine, reported the authors of the report in The Lancet Infectious Diseases. These patients also had a reduced need for hospitalization, compared with their unvaccinated peers. Those who received both doses of a vaccine were less likely to experience prolonged COVID - defined as at least 28 days of symptoms in this paper - compared with unvaccinated individuals.

“We are at a critical point in the pandemic as we see cases rising worldwide due to the delta variant,” study co–lead author Dr. Claire Steves, said in a statement. “Breakthrough infections are expected and don’t diminish the fact that these vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed to do – save lives and prevent serious illness.”

For the community-based, case-control study, Dr. Steves, who is a clinical senior lecturer at King’s College London, and her colleagues analyzed and presented self-reported data on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations from more than 1.2 million UK-based adults through the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app.

They found that, of the 1.2 million adults who received at least one dose of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccine, fewer than 0.5% tested positive for COVID-19 14 days after their first dose. Of those who received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 0.2% acquired the infection more than 7 days post vaccination.

Likelihood of severe symptoms dropped after one dose

After just one COVID-19 vaccine dose, the likelihood of experiencing severe symptoms from a COVID-19 infection dropped by a quarter. The odds of their infection being asymptomatic increased by 94% after the second dose. Researchers also found that vaccinated participants in the study were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older.

Furthermore, the odds of those with breakthrough infections experiencing severe disease – which is characterized by having five or more symptoms within the first week of becoming ill – dropped by approximately one-third.

When evaluating risk factors, the researchers found that those most vulnerable to a breakthrough infection after receiving a first dose of Pfizer, Moderna, or Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine were older adults (ages 60 years or older) who are either frail or live with underlying conditions such as asthma, lung disease, and obesity.

The findings provide substantial evidence that there are benefits after just one dose of the vaccine, said Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis. However, the report also supports caution around becoming lax on protective COVID-19 measures such as physical distancing and wearing masks, especially around vulnerable groups, he said.

Findings may have implications for health policies

“It’s also important for people who are fully vaccinated to understand that these infections are expected and are happening, especially now with the Delta variant” Dr. Hijano said. “While the outcomes are favorable, you need to still protect yourself to also protect your loved ones. You want to be very mindful that, if you are vaccinated and you get infected, you can pass it on to somebody that actually has not been vaccinated or has some of these risk factors.”

The authors of the new research paper believe their findings may have implications for health policies regarding the timing between vaccine doses, COVID-19 booster shots, and for continuing personal protective measures.

The authors of the paper and Dr. Hijano disclosed no conflicts.

Background: Despite advances in perioperative care, postoperative pulmonary complications represent a leading cause of morbidity and mortality that are associated with increased risk of admission to critical care and prolonged length of hospital stay. There are multiple interventions that are used, despite there being no consensus guidelines aimed at reducing the risk of PPCs.

Unfortunately, only a minority of the trials reviewed were large, multi-center studies with a low risk of bias. The studies were also heterogeneous, posing a challenge for meta-analysis.

Bottom line: There is limited evidence supporting the efficacy of any intervention preventing postoperative pulmonary complications, with moderate-quality evidence supporting intraoperative lung protective ventilation and goal-directed hemodynamic strategies reducing PPCs.

Citation: Odor PM et al. Perioperative interventions for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complication: Systemic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m540.

Dr. Weaver is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: Despite advances in perioperative care, postoperative pulmonary complications represent a leading cause of morbidity and mortality that are associated with increased risk of admission to critical care and prolonged length of hospital stay. There are multiple interventions that are used, despite there being no consensus guidelines aimed at reducing the risk of PPCs.

Unfortunately, only a minority of the trials reviewed were large, multi-center studies with a low risk of bias. The studies were also heterogeneous, posing a challenge for meta-analysis.

Bottom line: There is limited evidence supporting the efficacy of any intervention preventing postoperative pulmonary complications, with moderate-quality evidence supporting intraoperative lung protective ventilation and goal-directed hemodynamic strategies reducing PPCs.

Citation: Odor PM et al. Perioperative interventions for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complication: Systemic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m540.

Dr. Weaver is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: Despite advances in perioperative care, postoperative pulmonary complications represent a leading cause of morbidity and mortality that are associated with increased risk of admission to critical care and prolonged length of hospital stay. There are multiple interventions that are used, despite there being no consensus guidelines aimed at reducing the risk of PPCs.

Unfortunately, only a minority of the trials reviewed were large, multi-center studies with a low risk of bias. The studies were also heterogeneous, posing a challenge for meta-analysis.

Bottom line: There is limited evidence supporting the efficacy of any intervention preventing postoperative pulmonary complications, with moderate-quality evidence supporting intraoperative lung protective ventilation and goal-directed hemodynamic strategies reducing PPCs.

Citation: Odor PM et al. Perioperative interventions for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complication: Systemic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m540.

Dr. Weaver is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

The anti-inflammatory agents colchicine and icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) failed to provide substantial benefits in separate randomized COVID-19 trials.

Both were reported at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021.

The open-label ECLA PHRI COLCOVID trial randomized 1,277 hospitalized adults (mean age 62 years) to usual care alone or with colchicine at a loading dose of 1.5 mg for 2 hours followed by 0.5 mg on day 1 and then 0.5 mg twice daily for 14 days or until discharge.

The investigators hypothesized that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, might modulate the hyperinflammatory syndrome, or cytokine storm, associated with COVID-19.

Results showed that the need for mechanical ventilation or death occurred in 25.0% of patients receiving colchicine and 28.8% with usual care (P = .08).

The coprimary endpoint of death at 28 days was also not significantly different between groups (20.5% vs. 22.2%), principal investigator Rafael Diaz, MD, said in a late-breaking COVID-19 trials session at the congress.

Among the secondary outcomes at 28 days, colchicine significantly reduced the incidence of new intubation or death from respiratory failure from 27.0% to 22.3% (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.99) but not mortality from respiratory failure (19.5% vs. 16.8%).

The only important adverse effect was severe diarrhea, which was reported in 11.3% of the colchicine group vs. 4.5% in the control group, said Dr. Diaz, director of Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica (ECLA), Rosario, Argentina.

The results are consistent with those from the massive RECOVERY trial, which earlier this year stopped enrollment in the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, and COLCORONA, which missed its primary endpoint using colchicine among nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19.

Session chair and COLCORONA principal investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, pointed out that, as clinicians, it’s fairly uncommon to combine systemic steroids with colchicine, which was the case in 92% of patients in ECLA PHRI COLCOVID.

“I think it is an inherent limitation of testing colchicine on top of steroids,” said Dr. Tardif, of the Montreal Heart Institute.
 

Icosapent ethyl in PREPARE-IT

Dr. Diaz returned in the ESC session to present the results of the PREPARE-IT trial, which tested whether icosapent ethyl – at a loading dose of 8 grams (4 capsules) for the first 3 days and 4 g/d on days 4-60 – could reduce the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2,041 health care and other public workers in Argentina at high risk for infection (mean age 40.5 years).

Vascepa was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2012 for the reduction of elevated triglyceride levels, with an added indication in 2019 to reduce cardiovascular (CV) events in people with elevated triglycerides and established CV disease or diabetes with other CV risk factors.

The rationale for using the high-dose prescription eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) preparation includes its anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects, and that unsaturated fatty acids, especially EPA, might inactivate the enveloped virus, he explained.

Among 1,712 participants followed for up to 60 days, however, the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was 7.9% with icosapent ethyl vs. 7.1% with a mineral oil placebo (P = .58).

There were also no significant changes from baseline in the icosapent ethyl and placebo groups for the secondary outcomes of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (0 vs. 0), triglycerides (median –2 mg/dL vs. 7 mg/dL), or Influenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) questionnaire scores (median 0.01 vs. 0.03).

The use of a mineral oil placebo has been the subject of controversy in previous fish oil trials, but, Dr. Diaz noted, it did not have a significant proinflammatory effect or cause any excess adverse events.

Overall, adverse events were similar between the active and placebo groups, including atrial fibrillation (none), major bleeding (none), minor bleeding (7 events vs. 10 events), gastrointestinal symptoms (6.8% vs. 7.0%), and diarrhea (8.6% vs. 7.7%).

Although it missed the primary endpoint, Dr. Diaz said, “this is the first large, randomized blinded trial to demonstrate excellent safety and tolerability of an 8-gram-per-day loading dose of icosapent ethyl, opening up the potential for acute use in randomized trials of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndromes, strokes, and revascularization.”

During a discussion of the results, Dr. Diaz said the Delta variant was not present at the time of the analysis and that the second half of the trial will report on whether icosapent ethyl can reduce the risk for hospitalization or death in participants diagnosed with COVID-19.

ECLA PHRI COLCOVID was supported by the Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica Population Health Research Institute. PREPARE-IT was supported by Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica with collaboration from Amarin. Dr. Diaz reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The anti-inflammatory agents colchicine and icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) failed to provide substantial benefits in separate randomized COVID-19 trials.

Both were reported at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021.

The open-label ECLA PHRI COLCOVID trial randomized 1,277 hospitalized adults (mean age 62 years) to usual care alone or with colchicine at a loading dose of 1.5 mg for 2 hours followed by 0.5 mg on day 1 and then 0.5 mg twice daily for 14 days or until discharge.

The investigators hypothesized that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, might modulate the hyperinflammatory syndrome, or cytokine storm, associated with COVID-19.

Results showed that the need for mechanical ventilation or death occurred in 25.0% of patients receiving colchicine and 28.8% with usual care (P = .08).

The coprimary endpoint of death at 28 days was also not significantly different between groups (20.5% vs. 22.2%), principal investigator Rafael Diaz, MD, said in a late-breaking COVID-19 trials session at the congress.

Among the secondary outcomes at 28 days, colchicine significantly reduced the incidence of new intubation or death from respiratory failure from 27.0% to 22.3% (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.99) but not mortality from respiratory failure (19.5% vs. 16.8%).

The only important adverse effect was severe diarrhea, which was reported in 11.3% of the colchicine group vs. 4.5% in the control group, said Dr. Diaz, director of Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica (ECLA), Rosario, Argentina.

The results are consistent with those from the massive RECOVERY trial, which earlier this year stopped enrollment in the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, and COLCORONA, which missed its primary endpoint using colchicine among nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19.

Session chair and COLCORONA principal investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, pointed out that, as clinicians, it’s fairly uncommon to combine systemic steroids with colchicine, which was the case in 92% of patients in ECLA PHRI COLCOVID.

“I think it is an inherent limitation of testing colchicine on top of steroids,” said Dr. Tardif, of the Montreal Heart Institute.
 

Icosapent ethyl in PREPARE-IT

Dr. Diaz returned in the ESC session to present the results of the PREPARE-IT trial, which tested whether icosapent ethyl – at a loading dose of 8 grams (4 capsules) for the first 3 days and 4 g/d on days 4-60 – could reduce the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2,041 health care and other public workers in Argentina at high risk for infection (mean age 40.5 years).

Vascepa was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2012 for the reduction of elevated triglyceride levels, with an added indication in 2019 to reduce cardiovascular (CV) events in people with elevated triglycerides and established CV disease or diabetes with other CV risk factors.

The rationale for using the high-dose prescription eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) preparation includes its anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects, and that unsaturated fatty acids, especially EPA, might inactivate the enveloped virus, he explained.

Among 1,712 participants followed for up to 60 days, however, the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was 7.9% with icosapent ethyl vs. 7.1% with a mineral oil placebo (P = .58).

There were also no significant changes from baseline in the icosapent ethyl and placebo groups for the secondary outcomes of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (0 vs. 0), triglycerides (median –2 mg/dL vs. 7 mg/dL), or Influenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) questionnaire scores (median 0.01 vs. 0.03).

The use of a mineral oil placebo has been the subject of controversy in previous fish oil trials, but, Dr. Diaz noted, it did not have a significant proinflammatory effect or cause any excess adverse events.

Overall, adverse events were similar between the active and placebo groups, including atrial fibrillation (none), major bleeding (none), minor bleeding (7 events vs. 10 events), gastrointestinal symptoms (6.8% vs. 7.0%), and diarrhea (8.6% vs. 7.7%).

Although it missed the primary endpoint, Dr. Diaz said, “this is the first large, randomized blinded trial to demonstrate excellent safety and tolerability of an 8-gram-per-day loading dose of icosapent ethyl, opening up the potential for acute use in randomized trials of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndromes, strokes, and revascularization.”

During a discussion of the results, Dr. Diaz said the Delta variant was not present at the time of the analysis and that the second half of the trial will report on whether icosapent ethyl can reduce the risk for hospitalization or death in participants diagnosed with COVID-19.

ECLA PHRI COLCOVID was supported by the Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica Population Health Research Institute. PREPARE-IT was supported by Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica with collaboration from Amarin. Dr. Diaz reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The anti-inflammatory agents colchicine and icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) failed to provide substantial benefits in separate randomized COVID-19 trials.

Both were reported at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021.

The open-label ECLA PHRI COLCOVID trial randomized 1,277 hospitalized adults (mean age 62 years) to usual care alone or with colchicine at a loading dose of 1.5 mg for 2 hours followed by 0.5 mg on day 1 and then 0.5 mg twice daily for 14 days or until discharge.

The investigators hypothesized that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, might modulate the hyperinflammatory syndrome, or cytokine storm, associated with COVID-19.

Results showed that the need for mechanical ventilation or death occurred in 25.0% of patients receiving colchicine and 28.8% with usual care (P = .08).

The coprimary endpoint of death at 28 days was also not significantly different between groups (20.5% vs. 22.2%), principal investigator Rafael Diaz, MD, said in a late-breaking COVID-19 trials session at the congress.

Among the secondary outcomes at 28 days, colchicine significantly reduced the incidence of new intubation or death from respiratory failure from 27.0% to 22.3% (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.99) but not mortality from respiratory failure (19.5% vs. 16.8%).

The only important adverse effect was severe diarrhea, which was reported in 11.3% of the colchicine group vs. 4.5% in the control group, said Dr. Diaz, director of Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica (ECLA), Rosario, Argentina.

The results are consistent with those from the massive RECOVERY trial, which earlier this year stopped enrollment in the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, and COLCORONA, which missed its primary endpoint using colchicine among nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19.

Session chair and COLCORONA principal investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, pointed out that, as clinicians, it’s fairly uncommon to combine systemic steroids with colchicine, which was the case in 92% of patients in ECLA PHRI COLCOVID.

“I think it is an inherent limitation of testing colchicine on top of steroids,” said Dr. Tardif, of the Montreal Heart Institute.
 

Icosapent ethyl in PREPARE-IT

Dr. Diaz returned in the ESC session to present the results of the PREPARE-IT trial, which tested whether icosapent ethyl – at a loading dose of 8 grams (4 capsules) for the first 3 days and 4 g/d on days 4-60 – could reduce the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2,041 health care and other public workers in Argentina at high risk for infection (mean age 40.5 years).

Vascepa was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2012 for the reduction of elevated triglyceride levels, with an added indication in 2019 to reduce cardiovascular (CV) events in people with elevated triglycerides and established CV disease or diabetes with other CV risk factors.

The rationale for using the high-dose prescription eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) preparation includes its anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects, and that unsaturated fatty acids, especially EPA, might inactivate the enveloped virus, he explained.

Among 1,712 participants followed for up to 60 days, however, the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was 7.9% with icosapent ethyl vs. 7.1% with a mineral oil placebo (P = .58).

There were also no significant changes from baseline in the icosapent ethyl and placebo groups for the secondary outcomes of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (0 vs. 0), triglycerides (median –2 mg/dL vs. 7 mg/dL), or Influenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) questionnaire scores (median 0.01 vs. 0.03).

The use of a mineral oil placebo has been the subject of controversy in previous fish oil trials, but, Dr. Diaz noted, it did not have a significant proinflammatory effect or cause any excess adverse events.

Overall, adverse events were similar between the active and placebo groups, including atrial fibrillation (none), major bleeding (none), minor bleeding (7 events vs. 10 events), gastrointestinal symptoms (6.8% vs. 7.0%), and diarrhea (8.6% vs. 7.7%).

Although it missed the primary endpoint, Dr. Diaz said, “this is the first large, randomized blinded trial to demonstrate excellent safety and tolerability of an 8-gram-per-day loading dose of icosapent ethyl, opening up the potential for acute use in randomized trials of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndromes, strokes, and revascularization.”

During a discussion of the results, Dr. Diaz said the Delta variant was not present at the time of the analysis and that the second half of the trial will report on whether icosapent ethyl can reduce the risk for hospitalization or death in participants diagnosed with COVID-19.

ECLA PHRI COLCOVID was supported by the Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica Population Health Research Institute. PREPARE-IT was supported by Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica with collaboration from Amarin. Dr. Diaz reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Opioid overdose deaths were significantly higher during 2020, but occurrences were not homogeneous across nine states. Male deaths were higher than in the 2 previous years in two states, according to a new, granular examination of data collected by researchers at the Massachusetts General Hospital (Mass General), Boston.

The analysis also showed that synthetic opioids such as fentanyl played an outsized role in most of the states that were reviewed. Additional drugs of abuse found in decedents, such as cocaine and psychostimulants, were more prevalent in some states than in others.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used provisional death data in its recent report. It found that opioid-related deaths substantially rose in 2020 and that synthetic opioids were a primary driver.

The current Mass General analysis provides a more timely and detailed dive, senior author Mohammad Jalali, PhD, who is a senior scientist at Mass General’s Institute for Technology Assessment, told this news organization.

The findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, were published in MedRxiv.
 

Shifting sands of opioid use disorder

Dr. Jalali and colleagues used a decision analysis approach to study opioid data in the hopes of providing better tools for policymakers to analyze and project trends and also to be better prepared to address the shifting sands of opioid use disorder in the United States.

They attempted to collect data on confirmed opioid overdose deaths from all 50 states and Washington, D.C. to assess what might have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only nine states provided enough data for the analysis, which has been submitted to a peer reviewed publication.

These states were Alaska, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

“Drug overdose data are collected and reported more slowly than COVID-19 data,” Dr. Jalali said in a press release. The data reflected a lag time of about 4 to 8 months in Massachusetts and North Carolina to more than a year in Maryland and Ohio, he noted.

The reporting lag “has clouded the understanding of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid-related overdose deaths,” said Dr. Jalali.

Commenting on the findings, Brandon Marshall, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Brown University, Providence, R.I, said that “the overall pattern of what’s being reported here is not surprising,” given the national trends seen in the CDC data.

“This paper adds a deeper dive into some of the sociodemographic trends that we’re starting to observe in specific states,” Dr. Marshall said.

Also commenting for this news organization, Brian Fuehrlein, MD, PhD, director of the psychiatric emergency department at the VA Connecticut Healthcare System in West Haven, Connecticut, noted that the current study “highlights things that we are currently seeing at VA Connecticut.”
 

Decrease in heroin, rise in fentanyl

The investigators found a significant reduction in overdose deaths that involved heroin in Alaska, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. That was a new trend for Alaska, Indiana, and Rhode Island, although with only 3 years of data, it’s hard to say whether it will continue, Dr. Jalali noted.

The decrease in heroin involvement seemed to continue a trend previously observed in Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.

In Connecticut, heroin was involved in 36% of deaths in 2018, 30% in 2019, and 16% in 2020, according to the study.

“We have begun seeing more and more heroin-negative, fentanyl-positive drug screens,” said Dr. Fuehrlein, who is also associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“There is a shift from fentanyl being an adulterant to fentanyl being what is sold and used exclusively,” he added.

In 2020, 92% (n = 887) of deaths in Connecticut involved synthetic opioids, continuing a trend. In Alaska, however, synthetic opioids were involved in 60% (44) of deaths, which is a big jump from 23% (9) in 2018.

Synthetic opioids were involved in the largest percentage of overdoses in all of the states studied. The fewest deaths, 17 (49%), occurred in Wyoming.

Cocaine is also increasingly found in addition to other substances in decedents. In Alaska, about 14% of individuals who overdosed in 2020 also had cocaine in their system, which was a jump from 2% in the prior year.

In Colorado, 19% (94) of those who died also had taken cocaine, up from 13% in 2019. Cocaine was also frequently found in those who died in the northeast: 39% (467) of those who died in Massachusetts, 29% (280) in Connecticut, and 47% (109) in Rhode Island.

There was also an increase in psychostimulants found in those who had died in Massachusetts in 2020.
 

More male overdoses in 2020

Results also showed that, compared to 2019, significantly more men died from overdoses in 2020 in Colorado (61% vs. 70%, P = .017) and Indiana (62% vs. 70%, P = .026).

This finding was unexpected, said Dr. Marshall, who has observed the same phenomenon in Rhode Island. He is the scientific director of PreventOverdoseRI, Rhode Island’s drug overdose surveillance and information dashboard.

Dr. Marshall and his colleagues conducted a study that also found disproportionate increases in overdoses among men. The findings of that study will be published in September.

“We’re still trying to wrap our head around why that is,” he said. He added that a deeper dive into the Rhode Island data showed that the deaths were increased especially among middle-aged men who had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety.

The same patterns were not seen among women in either Dr. Jalali’s study or his own analysis of the Rhode Island data, said Dr. Marshall.

“That suggests the COVID-19 pandemic impacted men who are at risk for overdose in some particularly severe way,” he noted.

Dr. Fuehrlein said he believes a variety of factors have led to an increase in overdose deaths during the pandemic, including the fact that many patients who would normally seek help avoided care or dropped out of treatment because of COVID fears. In addition, other support systems, such as group therapy and Narcotics Anonymous, were unavailable.

The pandemic increased stress, which can lead to worsening substance use, said Dr. Fuehrlein. He also noted that regular opioid suppliers were often not available, which led some to buy from different dealers, “which can lead to overdose if the fentanyl content is different.”
 

Identifying at-risk individuals

Dr. Jalali and colleagues note that clinicians and policymakers could use the new study to help identify and treat at-risk individuals.

“Practitioners and policy makers can use our findings to help them anticipate which groups of people might be most affected by opioid overdose and which types of policy interventions might be most effective given each state’s unique situation,” said lead study author Gian-Gabriel P. Garcia, PhD, in a press release. At the time of the study, Dr. Garcia was a postdoctoral fellow at Mass General and Harvard Medical School. He is currently an assistant professor at Georgia Tech, Atlanta.

Dr. Marshall pointed out that Dr. Jalali’s study is also relevant for emergency departments.

ED clinicians “are and will be seeing patients coming in who have no idea they were exposed to an opioid, nevermind fentanyl,” he said. ED clinicians can discuss with patients various harm reduction techniques, including the use of naloxone as well as test strips that can detect fentanyl in the drug supply, he added.

“Given the increasing use of fentanyl, which is very dangerous in overdose, clinicians need to be well versed in a harm reduction/overdose prevention approach to patient care,” Dr. Fuehrlein agreed.

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

Opioid overdose deaths were significantly higher during 2020, but occurrences were not homogeneous across nine states. Male deaths were higher than in the 2 previous years in two states, according to a new, granular examination of data collected by researchers at the Massachusetts General Hospital (Mass General), Boston.

The analysis also showed that synthetic opioids such as fentanyl played an outsized role in most of the states that were reviewed. Additional drugs of abuse found in decedents, such as cocaine and psychostimulants, were more prevalent in some states than in others.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used provisional death data in its recent report. It found that opioid-related deaths substantially rose in 2020 and that synthetic opioids were a primary driver.

The current Mass General analysis provides a more timely and detailed dive, senior author Mohammad Jalali, PhD, who is a senior scientist at Mass General’s Institute for Technology Assessment, told this news organization.

The findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, were published in MedRxiv.
 

Shifting sands of opioid use disorder

Dr. Jalali and colleagues used a decision analysis approach to study opioid data in the hopes of providing better tools for policymakers to analyze and project trends and also to be better prepared to address the shifting sands of opioid use disorder in the United States.

They attempted to collect data on confirmed opioid overdose deaths from all 50 states and Washington, D.C. to assess what might have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only nine states provided enough data for the analysis, which has been submitted to a peer reviewed publication.

These states were Alaska, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

“Drug overdose data are collected and reported more slowly than COVID-19 data,” Dr. Jalali said in a press release. The data reflected a lag time of about 4 to 8 months in Massachusetts and North Carolina to more than a year in Maryland and Ohio, he noted.

The reporting lag “has clouded the understanding of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid-related overdose deaths,” said Dr. Jalali.

Commenting on the findings, Brandon Marshall, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Brown University, Providence, R.I, said that “the overall pattern of what’s being reported here is not surprising,” given the national trends seen in the CDC data.

“This paper adds a deeper dive into some of the sociodemographic trends that we’re starting to observe in specific states,” Dr. Marshall said.

Also commenting for this news organization, Brian Fuehrlein, MD, PhD, director of the psychiatric emergency department at the VA Connecticut Healthcare System in West Haven, Connecticut, noted that the current study “highlights things that we are currently seeing at VA Connecticut.”
 

Decrease in heroin, rise in fentanyl

The investigators found a significant reduction in overdose deaths that involved heroin in Alaska, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. That was a new trend for Alaska, Indiana, and Rhode Island, although with only 3 years of data, it’s hard to say whether it will continue, Dr. Jalali noted.

The decrease in heroin involvement seemed to continue a trend previously observed in Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.

In Connecticut, heroin was involved in 36% of deaths in 2018, 30% in 2019, and 16% in 2020, according to the study.

“We have begun seeing more and more heroin-negative, fentanyl-positive drug screens,” said Dr. Fuehrlein, who is also associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“There is a shift from fentanyl being an adulterant to fentanyl being what is sold and used exclusively,” he added.

In 2020, 92% (n = 887) of deaths in Connecticut involved synthetic opioids, continuing a trend. In Alaska, however, synthetic opioids were involved in 60% (44) of deaths, which is a big jump from 23% (9) in 2018.

Synthetic opioids were involved in the largest percentage of overdoses in all of the states studied. The fewest deaths, 17 (49%), occurred in Wyoming.

Cocaine is also increasingly found in addition to other substances in decedents. In Alaska, about 14% of individuals who overdosed in 2020 also had cocaine in their system, which was a jump from 2% in the prior year.

In Colorado, 19% (94) of those who died also had taken cocaine, up from 13% in 2019. Cocaine was also frequently found in those who died in the northeast: 39% (467) of those who died in Massachusetts, 29% (280) in Connecticut, and 47% (109) in Rhode Island.

There was also an increase in psychostimulants found in those who had died in Massachusetts in 2020.
 

More male overdoses in 2020

Results also showed that, compared to 2019, significantly more men died from overdoses in 2020 in Colorado (61% vs. 70%, P = .017) and Indiana (62% vs. 70%, P = .026).

This finding was unexpected, said Dr. Marshall, who has observed the same phenomenon in Rhode Island. He is the scientific director of PreventOverdoseRI, Rhode Island’s drug overdose surveillance and information dashboard.

Dr. Marshall and his colleagues conducted a study that also found disproportionate increases in overdoses among men. The findings of that study will be published in September.

“We’re still trying to wrap our head around why that is,” he said. He added that a deeper dive into the Rhode Island data showed that the deaths were increased especially among middle-aged men who had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety.

The same patterns were not seen among women in either Dr. Jalali’s study or his own analysis of the Rhode Island data, said Dr. Marshall.

“That suggests the COVID-19 pandemic impacted men who are at risk for overdose in some particularly severe way,” he noted.

Dr. Fuehrlein said he believes a variety of factors have led to an increase in overdose deaths during the pandemic, including the fact that many patients who would normally seek help avoided care or dropped out of treatment because of COVID fears. In addition, other support systems, such as group therapy and Narcotics Anonymous, were unavailable.

The pandemic increased stress, which can lead to worsening substance use, said Dr. Fuehrlein. He also noted that regular opioid suppliers were often not available, which led some to buy from different dealers, “which can lead to overdose if the fentanyl content is different.”
 

Identifying at-risk individuals

Dr. Jalali and colleagues note that clinicians and policymakers could use the new study to help identify and treat at-risk individuals.

“Practitioners and policy makers can use our findings to help them anticipate which groups of people might be most affected by opioid overdose and which types of policy interventions might be most effective given each state’s unique situation,” said lead study author Gian-Gabriel P. Garcia, PhD, in a press release. At the time of the study, Dr. Garcia was a postdoctoral fellow at Mass General and Harvard Medical School. He is currently an assistant professor at Georgia Tech, Atlanta.

Dr. Marshall pointed out that Dr. Jalali’s study is also relevant for emergency departments.

ED clinicians “are and will be seeing patients coming in who have no idea they were exposed to an opioid, nevermind fentanyl,” he said. ED clinicians can discuss with patients various harm reduction techniques, including the use of naloxone as well as test strips that can detect fentanyl in the drug supply, he added.

“Given the increasing use of fentanyl, which is very dangerous in overdose, clinicians need to be well versed in a harm reduction/overdose prevention approach to patient care,” Dr. Fuehrlein agreed.

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

Opioid overdose deaths were significantly higher during 2020, but occurrences were not homogeneous across nine states. Male deaths were higher than in the 2 previous years in two states, according to a new, granular examination of data collected by researchers at the Massachusetts General Hospital (Mass General), Boston.

The analysis also showed that synthetic opioids such as fentanyl played an outsized role in most of the states that were reviewed. Additional drugs of abuse found in decedents, such as cocaine and psychostimulants, were more prevalent in some states than in others.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used provisional death data in its recent report. It found that opioid-related deaths substantially rose in 2020 and that synthetic opioids were a primary driver.

The current Mass General analysis provides a more timely and detailed dive, senior author Mohammad Jalali, PhD, who is a senior scientist at Mass General’s Institute for Technology Assessment, told this news organization.

The findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, were published in MedRxiv.
 

Shifting sands of opioid use disorder

Dr. Jalali and colleagues used a decision analysis approach to study opioid data in the hopes of providing better tools for policymakers to analyze and project trends and also to be better prepared to address the shifting sands of opioid use disorder in the United States.

They attempted to collect data on confirmed opioid overdose deaths from all 50 states and Washington, D.C. to assess what might have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only nine states provided enough data for the analysis, which has been submitted to a peer reviewed publication.

These states were Alaska, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

“Drug overdose data are collected and reported more slowly than COVID-19 data,” Dr. Jalali said in a press release. The data reflected a lag time of about 4 to 8 months in Massachusetts and North Carolina to more than a year in Maryland and Ohio, he noted.

The reporting lag “has clouded the understanding of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid-related overdose deaths,” said Dr. Jalali.

Commenting on the findings, Brandon Marshall, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Brown University, Providence, R.I, said that “the overall pattern of what’s being reported here is not surprising,” given the national trends seen in the CDC data.

“This paper adds a deeper dive into some of the sociodemographic trends that we’re starting to observe in specific states,” Dr. Marshall said.

Also commenting for this news organization, Brian Fuehrlein, MD, PhD, director of the psychiatric emergency department at the VA Connecticut Healthcare System in West Haven, Connecticut, noted that the current study “highlights things that we are currently seeing at VA Connecticut.”
 

Decrease in heroin, rise in fentanyl

The investigators found a significant reduction in overdose deaths that involved heroin in Alaska, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. That was a new trend for Alaska, Indiana, and Rhode Island, although with only 3 years of data, it’s hard to say whether it will continue, Dr. Jalali noted.

The decrease in heroin involvement seemed to continue a trend previously observed in Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.

In Connecticut, heroin was involved in 36% of deaths in 2018, 30% in 2019, and 16% in 2020, according to the study.

“We have begun seeing more and more heroin-negative, fentanyl-positive drug screens,” said Dr. Fuehrlein, who is also associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“There is a shift from fentanyl being an adulterant to fentanyl being what is sold and used exclusively,” he added.

In 2020, 92% (n = 887) of deaths in Connecticut involved synthetic opioids, continuing a trend. In Alaska, however, synthetic opioids were involved in 60% (44) of deaths, which is a big jump from 23% (9) in 2018.

Synthetic opioids were involved in the largest percentage of overdoses in all of the states studied. The fewest deaths, 17 (49%), occurred in Wyoming.

Cocaine is also increasingly found in addition to other substances in decedents. In Alaska, about 14% of individuals who overdosed in 2020 also had cocaine in their system, which was a jump from 2% in the prior year.

In Colorado, 19% (94) of those who died also had taken cocaine, up from 13% in 2019. Cocaine was also frequently found in those who died in the northeast: 39% (467) of those who died in Massachusetts, 29% (280) in Connecticut, and 47% (109) in Rhode Island.

There was also an increase in psychostimulants found in those who had died in Massachusetts in 2020.
 

More male overdoses in 2020

Results also showed that, compared to 2019, significantly more men died from overdoses in 2020 in Colorado (61% vs. 70%, P = .017) and Indiana (62% vs. 70%, P = .026).

This finding was unexpected, said Dr. Marshall, who has observed the same phenomenon in Rhode Island. He is the scientific director of PreventOverdoseRI, Rhode Island’s drug overdose surveillance and information dashboard.

Dr. Marshall and his colleagues conducted a study that also found disproportionate increases in overdoses among men. The findings of that study will be published in September.

“We’re still trying to wrap our head around why that is,” he said. He added that a deeper dive into the Rhode Island data showed that the deaths were increased especially among middle-aged men who had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety.

The same patterns were not seen among women in either Dr. Jalali’s study or his own analysis of the Rhode Island data, said Dr. Marshall.

“That suggests the COVID-19 pandemic impacted men who are at risk for overdose in some particularly severe way,” he noted.

Dr. Fuehrlein said he believes a variety of factors have led to an increase in overdose deaths during the pandemic, including the fact that many patients who would normally seek help avoided care or dropped out of treatment because of COVID fears. In addition, other support systems, such as group therapy and Narcotics Anonymous, were unavailable.

The pandemic increased stress, which can lead to worsening substance use, said Dr. Fuehrlein. He also noted that regular opioid suppliers were often not available, which led some to buy from different dealers, “which can lead to overdose if the fentanyl content is different.”
 

Identifying at-risk individuals

Dr. Jalali and colleagues note that clinicians and policymakers could use the new study to help identify and treat at-risk individuals.

“Practitioners and policy makers can use our findings to help them anticipate which groups of people might be most affected by opioid overdose and which types of policy interventions might be most effective given each state’s unique situation,” said lead study author Gian-Gabriel P. Garcia, PhD, in a press release. At the time of the study, Dr. Garcia was a postdoctoral fellow at Mass General and Harvard Medical School. He is currently an assistant professor at Georgia Tech, Atlanta.

Dr. Marshall pointed out that Dr. Jalali’s study is also relevant for emergency departments.

ED clinicians “are and will be seeing patients coming in who have no idea they were exposed to an opioid, nevermind fentanyl,” he said. ED clinicians can discuss with patients various harm reduction techniques, including the use of naloxone as well as test strips that can detect fentanyl in the drug supply, he added.

“Given the increasing use of fentanyl, which is very dangerous in overdose, clinicians need to be well versed in a harm reduction/overdose prevention approach to patient care,” Dr. Fuehrlein agreed.

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

Background: Both observational studies and clinical trials have found that a liberal oxygenation strategy in multiple inpatient settings may be harmful. Furthermore, a conservative strategy is what has been recommended in guidelines. Conversely, the relevance of this recent concept has been challenged in a large trial of a critically ill population (ICU-ROX).

Dr. Saraiva is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: Both observational studies and clinical trials have found that a liberal oxygenation strategy in multiple inpatient settings may be harmful. Furthermore, a conservative strategy is what has been recommended in guidelines. Conversely, the relevance of this recent concept has been challenged in a large trial of a critically ill population (ICU-ROX).

Dr. Saraiva is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: Both observational studies and clinical trials have found that a liberal oxygenation strategy in multiple inpatient settings may be harmful. Furthermore, a conservative strategy is what has been recommended in guidelines. Conversely, the relevance of this recent concept has been challenged in a large trial of a critically ill population (ICU-ROX).

Dr. Saraiva is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

As governors and legislatures in states such as Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and Arkansas have banned schools and other entities from implementing mask mandates, disability rights advocates have pushed back. In federal civil rights lawsuits, they argue that bans on mask mandates violate antidiscrimination laws protecting people with disabilities.

OsakaWayne Studios/Moment

For unvaccinated and immunosuppressed individuals, masks can provide crucial protection from SARS-CoV-2.

People who are immunocompromised can harness the power of the Americans With Disabilities Act to fight against bans on mask mandates and protect themselves in their workplaces, argues Mical Raz, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and a physician at Strong Memorial Hospital, also in Rochester, New York, in an article published in JAMA with coauthor Doron Dorfman, LLB, JSD.

This news organization talked with Dr. Raz about approaching mask requirements as disability accommodation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The following interview was lightly edited for length and clarity.
 

How did you come to think about mask requirements as a form of disability accommodation?

I saw a tweet from a professor at a university who said they couldn’t ask students about their vaccination status or to wear a mask. All agency was removed from the professor to take care of and protect themselves. I thought, well, that can’t be right. And ostensibly, that would be particularly dangerous for somebody with immunosuppression for whom the vaccine is not adequately protective. So, I called my friend, Doron Dorfman, and asked him to help me think through the legal part of this. We fleshed it out and wrote the article that same night.
 

How novel is it to view accommodations for people who are immunosuppressed through the lens of disability accommodation?

I think there has not been enough focus during the pandemic on individuals with disabilities or on how disability law can be mobilized during this pandemic to help supplement the public health law. This framework should be used a lot more because it’s good for everybody, not just for individuals with disabilities.

For example, take what’s called the “curb effect.” If you expand sidewalks, yes, it helps individuals who use a wheelchair. But it also helps me as a mom with a stroller. It helps somebody with a shopping cart, or a kid with a bike. If we adopt policies that are inclusive to those who are disadvantaged, it’s good for everybody. We should always strive to be an inclusive society, not just because it’s the right thing to do but because it really makes our society better.
 

How can mask requirements be used as a form of disability accommodation, as you argue in the JAMA article?

The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disability. In this case, the disability is your immunosuppressive status. We have an abundance of evidence showing individuals who are immunocompromised and vaccinated are still inadequately protected from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So, there is absolute data to show individuals with immunosuppression have a disability that requires accommodation.

The ADA has a mandate requiring employers to adjust or modify policies in order to accommodate a disability. There are certain situations in which you cannot or do not need to accommodate a disability, when it would fundamentally alter the kind of employment you offer or if it’s an undue burden or hardship. But given that we’ve been wearing masks and working remotely for a year now, arguing that somehow these accommodations are no longer possible seems disingenuous.

In that way, allowing a person who’s immunocompromised to require those around them to mask is a form of modified protective policies. And in this case, those policies line up with a public health good, masking in the face of the highly contagious Delta variant ravaging our country right now.
 

In your view, can this argument be used in the mask debates happening right now across the country?

This argument can and should be useful for a couple of different lawsuits that are now underway in different states. I hope our article will provide further support for those suits. And I hope in school board hearings, when parents and teachers are talking about their concerns, this could be one way to argue for why we should allow mask mandates in classes. I’ve received emails from parents who said they’re going to bring this article to their school board hearing.

I also hope this could shift the narrative around the pandemic. Instead of focusing on individual responsibility – I got my vaccine shot so I’m fine – let’s focus on how we create an inclusive environment where we protect everybody, including those who cannot be vaccinated because of age or disability, or those who are vaccinated but inadequately protected because of their underlying conditions.
 

In the JAMA article, you talk about how our pandemic response has focused on individual health and how that individual focus can be ableist. Can you explain that point?

I think this idea that we just make our choices – like whether to get vaccinated or wear a mask, or not – and live with it really perpetuates a highly individualistic and ableist mindset. It doesn’t consider the people I admit to the hospital who are vaccinated but have a heart transplant and didn’t mount the sufficient immune response. Or even the people who chose not to be vaccinated because they were exposed to hours and hours of misinformation on TV.

We like to individualize everything, focusing on personal responsibility and choices, but a pandemic is one of those moments where everybody’s choices affect everybody else. Laying responsibility at the doorstep of each person, rather than thinking about what steps we as a society could be taking, is cheap and politically expedient. There is no public health rationale behind the bans on mask requirements in states like Texas, Iowa, and Florida. These choices are about politics. And the price is always borne by the most disadvantaged among us.

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

As governors and legislatures in states such as Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and Arkansas have banned schools and other entities from implementing mask mandates, disability rights advocates have pushed back. In federal civil rights lawsuits, they argue that bans on mask mandates violate antidiscrimination laws protecting people with disabilities.

OsakaWayne Studios/Moment

For unvaccinated and immunosuppressed individuals, masks can provide crucial protection from SARS-CoV-2.

People who are immunocompromised can harness the power of the Americans With Disabilities Act to fight against bans on mask mandates and protect themselves in their workplaces, argues Mical Raz, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and a physician at Strong Memorial Hospital, also in Rochester, New York, in an article published in JAMA with coauthor Doron Dorfman, LLB, JSD.

This news organization talked with Dr. Raz about approaching mask requirements as disability accommodation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The following interview was lightly edited for length and clarity.
 

How did you come to think about mask requirements as a form of disability accommodation?

I saw a tweet from a professor at a university who said they couldn’t ask students about their vaccination status or to wear a mask. All agency was removed from the professor to take care of and protect themselves. I thought, well, that can’t be right. And ostensibly, that would be particularly dangerous for somebody with immunosuppression for whom the vaccine is not adequately protective. So, I called my friend, Doron Dorfman, and asked him to help me think through the legal part of this. We fleshed it out and wrote the article that same night.
 

How novel is it to view accommodations for people who are immunosuppressed through the lens of disability accommodation?

I think there has not been enough focus during the pandemic on individuals with disabilities or on how disability law can be mobilized during this pandemic to help supplement the public health law. This framework should be used a lot more because it’s good for everybody, not just for individuals with disabilities.

For example, take what’s called the “curb effect.” If you expand sidewalks, yes, it helps individuals who use a wheelchair. But it also helps me as a mom with a stroller. It helps somebody with a shopping cart, or a kid with a bike. If we adopt policies that are inclusive to those who are disadvantaged, it’s good for everybody. We should always strive to be an inclusive society, not just because it’s the right thing to do but because it really makes our society better.
 

How can mask requirements be used as a form of disability accommodation, as you argue in the JAMA article?

The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disability. In this case, the disability is your immunosuppressive status. We have an abundance of evidence showing individuals who are immunocompromised and vaccinated are still inadequately protected from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So, there is absolute data to show individuals with immunosuppression have a disability that requires accommodation.

The ADA has a mandate requiring employers to adjust or modify policies in order to accommodate a disability. There are certain situations in which you cannot or do not need to accommodate a disability, when it would fundamentally alter the kind of employment you offer or if it’s an undue burden or hardship. But given that we’ve been wearing masks and working remotely for a year now, arguing that somehow these accommodations are no longer possible seems disingenuous.

In that way, allowing a person who’s immunocompromised to require those around them to mask is a form of modified protective policies. And in this case, those policies line up with a public health good, masking in the face of the highly contagious Delta variant ravaging our country right now.
 

In your view, can this argument be used in the mask debates happening right now across the country?

This argument can and should be useful for a couple of different lawsuits that are now underway in different states. I hope our article will provide further support for those suits. And I hope in school board hearings, when parents and teachers are talking about their concerns, this could be one way to argue for why we should allow mask mandates in classes. I’ve received emails from parents who said they’re going to bring this article to their school board hearing.

I also hope this could shift the narrative around the pandemic. Instead of focusing on individual responsibility – I got my vaccine shot so I’m fine – let’s focus on how we create an inclusive environment where we protect everybody, including those who cannot be vaccinated because of age or disability, or those who are vaccinated but inadequately protected because of their underlying conditions.
 

In the JAMA article, you talk about how our pandemic response has focused on individual health and how that individual focus can be ableist. Can you explain that point?

I think this idea that we just make our choices – like whether to get vaccinated or wear a mask, or not – and live with it really perpetuates a highly individualistic and ableist mindset. It doesn’t consider the people I admit to the hospital who are vaccinated but have a heart transplant and didn’t mount the sufficient immune response. Or even the people who chose not to be vaccinated because they were exposed to hours and hours of misinformation on TV.

We like to individualize everything, focusing on personal responsibility and choices, but a pandemic is one of those moments where everybody’s choices affect everybody else. Laying responsibility at the doorstep of each person, rather than thinking about what steps we as a society could be taking, is cheap and politically expedient. There is no public health rationale behind the bans on mask requirements in states like Texas, Iowa, and Florida. These choices are about politics. And the price is always borne by the most disadvantaged among us.

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

As governors and legislatures in states such as Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and Arkansas have banned schools and other entities from implementing mask mandates, disability rights advocates have pushed back. In federal civil rights lawsuits, they argue that bans on mask mandates violate antidiscrimination laws protecting people with disabilities.

OsakaWayne Studios/Moment

For unvaccinated and immunosuppressed individuals, masks can provide crucial protection from SARS-CoV-2.

People who are immunocompromised can harness the power of the Americans With Disabilities Act to fight against bans on mask mandates and protect themselves in their workplaces, argues Mical Raz, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and a physician at Strong Memorial Hospital, also in Rochester, New York, in an article published in JAMA with coauthor Doron Dorfman, LLB, JSD.

This news organization talked with Dr. Raz about approaching mask requirements as disability accommodation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The following interview was lightly edited for length and clarity.
 

How did you come to think about mask requirements as a form of disability accommodation?

I saw a tweet from a professor at a university who said they couldn’t ask students about their vaccination status or to wear a mask. All agency was removed from the professor to take care of and protect themselves. I thought, well, that can’t be right. And ostensibly, that would be particularly dangerous for somebody with immunosuppression for whom the vaccine is not adequately protective. So, I called my friend, Doron Dorfman, and asked him to help me think through the legal part of this. We fleshed it out and wrote the article that same night.
 

How novel is it to view accommodations for people who are immunosuppressed through the lens of disability accommodation?

I think there has not been enough focus during the pandemic on individuals with disabilities or on how disability law can be mobilized during this pandemic to help supplement the public health law. This framework should be used a lot more because it’s good for everybody, not just for individuals with disabilities.

For example, take what’s called the “curb effect.” If you expand sidewalks, yes, it helps individuals who use a wheelchair. But it also helps me as a mom with a stroller. It helps somebody with a shopping cart, or a kid with a bike. If we adopt policies that are inclusive to those who are disadvantaged, it’s good for everybody. We should always strive to be an inclusive society, not just because it’s the right thing to do but because it really makes our society better.
 

How can mask requirements be used as a form of disability accommodation, as you argue in the JAMA article?

The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disability. In this case, the disability is your immunosuppressive status. We have an abundance of evidence showing individuals who are immunocompromised and vaccinated are still inadequately protected from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So, there is absolute data to show individuals with immunosuppression have a disability that requires accommodation.

The ADA has a mandate requiring employers to adjust or modify policies in order to accommodate a disability. There are certain situations in which you cannot or do not need to accommodate a disability, when it would fundamentally alter the kind of employment you offer or if it’s an undue burden or hardship. But given that we’ve been wearing masks and working remotely for a year now, arguing that somehow these accommodations are no longer possible seems disingenuous.

In that way, allowing a person who’s immunocompromised to require those around them to mask is a form of modified protective policies. And in this case, those policies line up with a public health good, masking in the face of the highly contagious Delta variant ravaging our country right now.
 

In your view, can this argument be used in the mask debates happening right now across the country?

This argument can and should be useful for a couple of different lawsuits that are now underway in different states. I hope our article will provide further support for those suits. And I hope in school board hearings, when parents and teachers are talking about their concerns, this could be one way to argue for why we should allow mask mandates in classes. I’ve received emails from parents who said they’re going to bring this article to their school board hearing.

I also hope this could shift the narrative around the pandemic. Instead of focusing on individual responsibility – I got my vaccine shot so I’m fine – let’s focus on how we create an inclusive environment where we protect everybody, including those who cannot be vaccinated because of age or disability, or those who are vaccinated but inadequately protected because of their underlying conditions.
 

In the JAMA article, you talk about how our pandemic response has focused on individual health and how that individual focus can be ableist. Can you explain that point?

I think this idea that we just make our choices – like whether to get vaccinated or wear a mask, or not – and live with it really perpetuates a highly individualistic and ableist mindset. It doesn’t consider the people I admit to the hospital who are vaccinated but have a heart transplant and didn’t mount the sufficient immune response. Or even the people who chose not to be vaccinated because they were exposed to hours and hours of misinformation on TV.

We like to individualize everything, focusing on personal responsibility and choices, but a pandemic is one of those moments where everybody’s choices affect everybody else. Laying responsibility at the doorstep of each person, rather than thinking about what steps we as a society could be taking, is cheap and politically expedient. There is no public health rationale behind the bans on mask requirements in states like Texas, Iowa, and Florida. These choices are about politics. And the price is always borne by the most disadvantaged among us.

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

Urgent recommendations from a European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) task force are aimed at reducing antibiotic overuse with allergic disease.

Top recommendations include limiting antibiotic therapy in pregnancy and early childhood to help reduce the allergy epidemic in children, and restricting antibiotic therapy in exacerbations and chronic treatment of allergic diseases, especially asthma and atopic dermatitis.

The review, by lead author Gerdien Tramper-Stranders, MD, PhD, department of pediatrics, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues, was published online Aug. 13 in the journal Allergy.

Several studies have shown that use of antibiotics in childhood and during pregnancy is associated with disturbing the intestinal and respiratory microbiome, which in turn leads to dysbiosis and an increased risk of acquiring allergic diseases, the authors noted.

In addition, patients with allergic diseases such as asthma have a higher risk of being prescribed antibiotics for infections compared with the general population, despite lack of clear clinical benefit.

“In fact, there are no clear data supporting antibiotic prescriptions for acute exacerbations; and clinical and/or laboratory criteria are lacking,” the authors wrote.

Despite that lack of data, antibiotics are often prescribed for exacerbations along with oral corticosteroids, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said in an interview. Some patients may benefit from antibiotics in a flare-up, she said, but more research is needed to determine which ones.

Dr. Tramper-Stranders said Franciscus has begun a large study that includes patients with asthma exacerbations to find biomarkers that might predict the type or origin of exacerbation to personalize treatment.
 

Recommendations have global relevance

She said although the recommendations are coming from the EAACI group, they apply worldwide.

“Especially in countries outside Northern Europe, antibiotic use is tremendous, leading to high rates of antibiotic resistance; but also increasing the risk for developing allergic diseases when prescribed in infancy,” she said.

She pointed out that in the United States, as many as one in six children receive unnecessary antibiotics for an asthma exacerbation. Overtreatment in adults with flare-ups is also prevalent, at rates from 40%-50%.

Millie Kwan, MD, PhD, an allergy specialist at University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that in the U.S. there’s been a culture change in the direction of antibiotic restraint – but there are still problems.

“It’s a lot easier for us to whip out our prescription pads and prescribe antibiotics for an asthma patient who’s having a flare-up or a patient who has atopic dermatitis before addressing the underlying mechanism directly,” Dr. Kwan said. She agreed that antibiotic overuse is prevalent in pregnancies in the U.S., and she said that starts with the high prevalence of cesarean births. Nearly one-third of all births in the U.S. are by C-section, twice the rate recommended by the World Health Organization.

“Just bypassing the birth canal actually changes what kind of microflora the infant is being exposed to,” Dr. Kwan said. “That’s the first huge problem.”

The second problem, she said, is the potential for overuse of antibiotics with the surgical procedure.

The researchers wrote that pre-, pro- or postbiotics might alter the course of allergic disease, but clear evidence is lacking.

Until now, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said, pre- or probiotic treatment in infancy, irrespective of previous antibiotic use, has not proved effective in preventing allergies.

Data describing the effect of pre- or probiotics after an antibiotic course are scarce, are limited to older children and adults, and are focused on short-term effects, such as diarrhea prevention, she explained.

Dr. Kwan says she agrees that current data are not strong enough to recommend one over another.

“We don’t even know what the normal amount of bacteria should be to constitute an environment where the immune system develops ‘normally,’ “ she said.

Antibiotics should be prescribed cautiously and by following current recommendations to use the narrowest spectrum available, the authors wrote. Future research in antibiotic stewardship should incorporate biomarker-guided therapy to determine which patients might benefit most from antibiotic therapy.

“Practicing antibiotic stewardship needs recurrent attention and we hope that with this initiative, we specifically reach allergy doctors who will rethink their next [antibiotic] prescription. Within our EAACI task force, we will next work on a guideline for rational antibiotic use in asthma,” Dr. Tramper-Stranders said.

The review’s authors and Dr. Kwan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Urgent recommendations from a European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) task force are aimed at reducing antibiotic overuse with allergic disease.

Top recommendations include limiting antibiotic therapy in pregnancy and early childhood to help reduce the allergy epidemic in children, and restricting antibiotic therapy in exacerbations and chronic treatment of allergic diseases, especially asthma and atopic dermatitis.

The review, by lead author Gerdien Tramper-Stranders, MD, PhD, department of pediatrics, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues, was published online Aug. 13 in the journal Allergy.

Several studies have shown that use of antibiotics in childhood and during pregnancy is associated with disturbing the intestinal and respiratory microbiome, which in turn leads to dysbiosis and an increased risk of acquiring allergic diseases, the authors noted.

In addition, patients with allergic diseases such as asthma have a higher risk of being prescribed antibiotics for infections compared with the general population, despite lack of clear clinical benefit.

“In fact, there are no clear data supporting antibiotic prescriptions for acute exacerbations; and clinical and/or laboratory criteria are lacking,” the authors wrote.

Despite that lack of data, antibiotics are often prescribed for exacerbations along with oral corticosteroids, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said in an interview. Some patients may benefit from antibiotics in a flare-up, she said, but more research is needed to determine which ones.

Dr. Tramper-Stranders said Franciscus has begun a large study that includes patients with asthma exacerbations to find biomarkers that might predict the type or origin of exacerbation to personalize treatment.
 

Recommendations have global relevance

She said although the recommendations are coming from the EAACI group, they apply worldwide.

“Especially in countries outside Northern Europe, antibiotic use is tremendous, leading to high rates of antibiotic resistance; but also increasing the risk for developing allergic diseases when prescribed in infancy,” she said.

She pointed out that in the United States, as many as one in six children receive unnecessary antibiotics for an asthma exacerbation. Overtreatment in adults with flare-ups is also prevalent, at rates from 40%-50%.

Millie Kwan, MD, PhD, an allergy specialist at University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that in the U.S. there’s been a culture change in the direction of antibiotic restraint – but there are still problems.

“It’s a lot easier for us to whip out our prescription pads and prescribe antibiotics for an asthma patient who’s having a flare-up or a patient who has atopic dermatitis before addressing the underlying mechanism directly,” Dr. Kwan said. She agreed that antibiotic overuse is prevalent in pregnancies in the U.S., and she said that starts with the high prevalence of cesarean births. Nearly one-third of all births in the U.S. are by C-section, twice the rate recommended by the World Health Organization.

“Just bypassing the birth canal actually changes what kind of microflora the infant is being exposed to,” Dr. Kwan said. “That’s the first huge problem.”

The second problem, she said, is the potential for overuse of antibiotics with the surgical procedure.

The researchers wrote that pre-, pro- or postbiotics might alter the course of allergic disease, but clear evidence is lacking.

Until now, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said, pre- or probiotic treatment in infancy, irrespective of previous antibiotic use, has not proved effective in preventing allergies.

Data describing the effect of pre- or probiotics after an antibiotic course are scarce, are limited to older children and adults, and are focused on short-term effects, such as diarrhea prevention, she explained.

Dr. Kwan says she agrees that current data are not strong enough to recommend one over another.

“We don’t even know what the normal amount of bacteria should be to constitute an environment where the immune system develops ‘normally,’ “ she said.

Antibiotics should be prescribed cautiously and by following current recommendations to use the narrowest spectrum available, the authors wrote. Future research in antibiotic stewardship should incorporate biomarker-guided therapy to determine which patients might benefit most from antibiotic therapy.

“Practicing antibiotic stewardship needs recurrent attention and we hope that with this initiative, we specifically reach allergy doctors who will rethink their next [antibiotic] prescription. Within our EAACI task force, we will next work on a guideline for rational antibiotic use in asthma,” Dr. Tramper-Stranders said.

The review’s authors and Dr. Kwan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Urgent recommendations from a European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) task force are aimed at reducing antibiotic overuse with allergic disease.

Top recommendations include limiting antibiotic therapy in pregnancy and early childhood to help reduce the allergy epidemic in children, and restricting antibiotic therapy in exacerbations and chronic treatment of allergic diseases, especially asthma and atopic dermatitis.

The review, by lead author Gerdien Tramper-Stranders, MD, PhD, department of pediatrics, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues, was published online Aug. 13 in the journal Allergy.

Several studies have shown that use of antibiotics in childhood and during pregnancy is associated with disturbing the intestinal and respiratory microbiome, which in turn leads to dysbiosis and an increased risk of acquiring allergic diseases, the authors noted.

In addition, patients with allergic diseases such as asthma have a higher risk of being prescribed antibiotics for infections compared with the general population, despite lack of clear clinical benefit.

“In fact, there are no clear data supporting antibiotic prescriptions for acute exacerbations; and clinical and/or laboratory criteria are lacking,” the authors wrote.

Despite that lack of data, antibiotics are often prescribed for exacerbations along with oral corticosteroids, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said in an interview. Some patients may benefit from antibiotics in a flare-up, she said, but more research is needed to determine which ones.

Dr. Tramper-Stranders said Franciscus has begun a large study that includes patients with asthma exacerbations to find biomarkers that might predict the type or origin of exacerbation to personalize treatment.
 

Recommendations have global relevance

She said although the recommendations are coming from the EAACI group, they apply worldwide.

“Especially in countries outside Northern Europe, antibiotic use is tremendous, leading to high rates of antibiotic resistance; but also increasing the risk for developing allergic diseases when prescribed in infancy,” she said.

She pointed out that in the United States, as many as one in six children receive unnecessary antibiotics for an asthma exacerbation. Overtreatment in adults with flare-ups is also prevalent, at rates from 40%-50%.

Millie Kwan, MD, PhD, an allergy specialist at University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that in the U.S. there’s been a culture change in the direction of antibiotic restraint – but there are still problems.

“It’s a lot easier for us to whip out our prescription pads and prescribe antibiotics for an asthma patient who’s having a flare-up or a patient who has atopic dermatitis before addressing the underlying mechanism directly,” Dr. Kwan said. She agreed that antibiotic overuse is prevalent in pregnancies in the U.S., and she said that starts with the high prevalence of cesarean births. Nearly one-third of all births in the U.S. are by C-section, twice the rate recommended by the World Health Organization.

“Just bypassing the birth canal actually changes what kind of microflora the infant is being exposed to,” Dr. Kwan said. “That’s the first huge problem.”

The second problem, she said, is the potential for overuse of antibiotics with the surgical procedure.

The researchers wrote that pre-, pro- or postbiotics might alter the course of allergic disease, but clear evidence is lacking.

Until now, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said, pre- or probiotic treatment in infancy, irrespective of previous antibiotic use, has not proved effective in preventing allergies.

Data describing the effect of pre- or probiotics after an antibiotic course are scarce, are limited to older children and adults, and are focused on short-term effects, such as diarrhea prevention, she explained.

Dr. Kwan says she agrees that current data are not strong enough to recommend one over another.

“We don’t even know what the normal amount of bacteria should be to constitute an environment where the immune system develops ‘normally,’ “ she said.

Antibiotics should be prescribed cautiously and by following current recommendations to use the narrowest spectrum available, the authors wrote. Future research in antibiotic stewardship should incorporate biomarker-guided therapy to determine which patients might benefit most from antibiotic therapy.

“Practicing antibiotic stewardship needs recurrent attention and we hope that with this initiative, we specifically reach allergy doctors who will rethink their next [antibiotic] prescription. Within our EAACI task force, we will next work on a guideline for rational antibiotic use in asthma,” Dr. Tramper-Stranders said.

The review’s authors and Dr. Kwan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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