Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

For women who receive radiotherapy after undergoing hysterectomy for high-risk cervical cancer, image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) is superior to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) at reducing late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and is similarly efficacious, according to new findings.

“IG-IMRT should represent the new standard of care for postoperative pelvic radiation therapy in women with gynecological cancers,” said study lead author Supriya Chopra, MD, of the Tata Memorial Center in Mumbai, India.

She noted that the study, known as PARCER, is the first in gynecologic cancer to show the impact of advanced technology in reducing long-term morbidity and thus improving the experience of survivors.

At 4 years, rates of late GI toxicity of grade 2 or higher in the IG-IMRT and 3D-CRT arms were 19.2% and 36.2%, respectively (P = .005). Rates of toxicity of grade 3 or higher were 2.0% and 8.7%, respectively (P < .01).

Chopra presented the results at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online.

Postoperative radiotherapy is indicated for women with cervical and endometrial cancers who have high-risk features, but long-term follow-up has shown an increase in GI symptom burden and toxicity in long-term survivors after adjuvant radiotherapy.

“The uptake of IMRT has been relatively slow in gynecological cancers,” said Chopra. She explained that previous data suggested a benefit with the use of IMRT, but long-term postoperative effects were unclear.

The new data amount to a “practice-change use” of IMRT for this indication, said Sue Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved with the study. “I see this as having potentially important future impacts on clinical practice.”

Yom explained that, although there have been studies in the United States on the use of postoperative IMRT for pelvic cancer, “this is the first phase 3 study that has shown definite long-term advantages with the use of IMRT, and I would consider it confirmatory.”

In 2015, the preliminary results of PARCER were presented at the plenary session at ASTRO. The results showed that patients treated with IG-IMRT had fewer late GI toxicities at a median follow-up of 20 months. However, the difference between groups was not statistically significant in this earlier analysis.
 

Now at 49 months’ follow-up

The study was conducted in three clinical sites of Tata Memorial Center and included a total of 300 patients with cervical cancer. The patients had undergone type III hysterectomy and had intermediate- or high-risk features, or they had undergone type I/II hysterectomy necessitating adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. They were randomly assigned to IG-IMRT (n = 151) or 3D-CRT (n = 149). Most patients (117 in the IG-IMRT arm and 114 in the 3D-CRT arm) received concurrent chemotherapy.

The primary endpoint was late GI toxicity of grade 2 or higher. Follow-up included clinical and quality-of-life evaluations, which were conducted every 3 months for 2 years and then every 6 months for years 2 to 5.

Chopra and colleagues evaluated 11 different GI-related side effects. Differences emerged over time between the two groups. Among the group that received IG-IMRT, significantly fewer patients reported moderate to severe acute diarrhea (17% in the IG-IMRT arm vs 27% in the 3D-CRT arm), late abdominal bloating (14% vs 28%), bowel obstruction (1% vs 7%), and anorexia/appetite loss (1% vs 7%).

Overall, for patients treated with IG-IMRT, grade 2 toxicity–free survival rates were significantly higher (78% with IG-IMRT vs 57% with 3D-CRT; P = .0009), as were grade 3 toxicity–free survival rates (97.6% vs 81.6%; P = .001).

As noted above, rates of disease-free survival were similar for both groups (73% with image-guided IMRT vs 68% with 3D-CRT; P = .30).

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Atomic Energy, Clinical Trials Center, in India, and by Varian International and the Terry Fox Foundation. Chopra and Yom have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For women who receive radiotherapy after undergoing hysterectomy for high-risk cervical cancer, image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) is superior to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) at reducing late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and is similarly efficacious, according to new findings.

“IG-IMRT should represent the new standard of care for postoperative pelvic radiation therapy in women with gynecological cancers,” said study lead author Supriya Chopra, MD, of the Tata Memorial Center in Mumbai, India.

She noted that the study, known as PARCER, is the first in gynecologic cancer to show the impact of advanced technology in reducing long-term morbidity and thus improving the experience of survivors.

At 4 years, rates of late GI toxicity of grade 2 or higher in the IG-IMRT and 3D-CRT arms were 19.2% and 36.2%, respectively (P = .005). Rates of toxicity of grade 3 or higher were 2.0% and 8.7%, respectively (P < .01).

Chopra presented the results at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online.

Postoperative radiotherapy is indicated for women with cervical and endometrial cancers who have high-risk features, but long-term follow-up has shown an increase in GI symptom burden and toxicity in long-term survivors after adjuvant radiotherapy.

“The uptake of IMRT has been relatively slow in gynecological cancers,” said Chopra. She explained that previous data suggested a benefit with the use of IMRT, but long-term postoperative effects were unclear.

The new data amount to a “practice-change use” of IMRT for this indication, said Sue Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved with the study. “I see this as having potentially important future impacts on clinical practice.”

Yom explained that, although there have been studies in the United States on the use of postoperative IMRT for pelvic cancer, “this is the first phase 3 study that has shown definite long-term advantages with the use of IMRT, and I would consider it confirmatory.”

In 2015, the preliminary results of PARCER were presented at the plenary session at ASTRO. The results showed that patients treated with IG-IMRT had fewer late GI toxicities at a median follow-up of 20 months. However, the difference between groups was not statistically significant in this earlier analysis.
 

Now at 49 months’ follow-up

The study was conducted in three clinical sites of Tata Memorial Center and included a total of 300 patients with cervical cancer. The patients had undergone type III hysterectomy and had intermediate- or high-risk features, or they had undergone type I/II hysterectomy necessitating adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. They were randomly assigned to IG-IMRT (n = 151) or 3D-CRT (n = 149). Most patients (117 in the IG-IMRT arm and 114 in the 3D-CRT arm) received concurrent chemotherapy.

The primary endpoint was late GI toxicity of grade 2 or higher. Follow-up included clinical and quality-of-life evaluations, which were conducted every 3 months for 2 years and then every 6 months for years 2 to 5.

Chopra and colleagues evaluated 11 different GI-related side effects. Differences emerged over time between the two groups. Among the group that received IG-IMRT, significantly fewer patients reported moderate to severe acute diarrhea (17% in the IG-IMRT arm vs 27% in the 3D-CRT arm), late abdominal bloating (14% vs 28%), bowel obstruction (1% vs 7%), and anorexia/appetite loss (1% vs 7%).

Overall, for patients treated with IG-IMRT, grade 2 toxicity–free survival rates were significantly higher (78% with IG-IMRT vs 57% with 3D-CRT; P = .0009), as were grade 3 toxicity–free survival rates (97.6% vs 81.6%; P = .001).

As noted above, rates of disease-free survival were similar for both groups (73% with image-guided IMRT vs 68% with 3D-CRT; P = .30).

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Atomic Energy, Clinical Trials Center, in India, and by Varian International and the Terry Fox Foundation. Chopra and Yom have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For women who receive radiotherapy after undergoing hysterectomy for high-risk cervical cancer, image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) is superior to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) at reducing late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and is similarly efficacious, according to new findings.

“IG-IMRT should represent the new standard of care for postoperative pelvic radiation therapy in women with gynecological cancers,” said study lead author Supriya Chopra, MD, of the Tata Memorial Center in Mumbai, India.

She noted that the study, known as PARCER, is the first in gynecologic cancer to show the impact of advanced technology in reducing long-term morbidity and thus improving the experience of survivors.

At 4 years, rates of late GI toxicity of grade 2 or higher in the IG-IMRT and 3D-CRT arms were 19.2% and 36.2%, respectively (P = .005). Rates of toxicity of grade 3 or higher were 2.0% and 8.7%, respectively (P < .01).

Chopra presented the results at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online.

Postoperative radiotherapy is indicated for women with cervical and endometrial cancers who have high-risk features, but long-term follow-up has shown an increase in GI symptom burden and toxicity in long-term survivors after adjuvant radiotherapy.

“The uptake of IMRT has been relatively slow in gynecological cancers,” said Chopra. She explained that previous data suggested a benefit with the use of IMRT, but long-term postoperative effects were unclear.

The new data amount to a “practice-change use” of IMRT for this indication, said Sue Yom, MD, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved with the study. “I see this as having potentially important future impacts on clinical practice.”

Yom explained that, although there have been studies in the United States on the use of postoperative IMRT for pelvic cancer, “this is the first phase 3 study that has shown definite long-term advantages with the use of IMRT, and I would consider it confirmatory.”

In 2015, the preliminary results of PARCER were presented at the plenary session at ASTRO. The results showed that patients treated with IG-IMRT had fewer late GI toxicities at a median follow-up of 20 months. However, the difference between groups was not statistically significant in this earlier analysis.
 

Now at 49 months’ follow-up

The study was conducted in three clinical sites of Tata Memorial Center and included a total of 300 patients with cervical cancer. The patients had undergone type III hysterectomy and had intermediate- or high-risk features, or they had undergone type I/II hysterectomy necessitating adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. They were randomly assigned to IG-IMRT (n = 151) or 3D-CRT (n = 149). Most patients (117 in the IG-IMRT arm and 114 in the 3D-CRT arm) received concurrent chemotherapy.

The primary endpoint was late GI toxicity of grade 2 or higher. Follow-up included clinical and quality-of-life evaluations, which were conducted every 3 months for 2 years and then every 6 months for years 2 to 5.

Chopra and colleagues evaluated 11 different GI-related side effects. Differences emerged over time between the two groups. Among the group that received IG-IMRT, significantly fewer patients reported moderate to severe acute diarrhea (17% in the IG-IMRT arm vs 27% in the 3D-CRT arm), late abdominal bloating (14% vs 28%), bowel obstruction (1% vs 7%), and anorexia/appetite loss (1% vs 7%).

Overall, for patients treated with IG-IMRT, grade 2 toxicity–free survival rates were significantly higher (78% with IG-IMRT vs 57% with 3D-CRT; P = .0009), as were grade 3 toxicity–free survival rates (97.6% vs 81.6%; P = .001).

As noted above, rates of disease-free survival were similar for both groups (73% with image-guided IMRT vs 68% with 3D-CRT; P = .30).

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Atomic Energy, Clinical Trials Center, in India, and by Varian International and the Terry Fox Foundation. Chopra and Yom have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many female radiation oncologists find their career choice strongly influences when they start a family, and some deal with infertility and pregnancy-related discrimination, a U.S. cross-sectional survey suggests.

Courtesy MD Anderson Cancer Center

Results from the survey were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Female radiation oncologists often spend their childbearing years in training and establishing careers,” commented lead investigator Anna Lee, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Currently, physician fertility and family planning are rarely discussed or taught in medical school or postgraduate training,” Dr. Lee said.

Dr. Lee and colleagues conducted a national anonymous cross-sectional online survey of female oncologists of all types and all career levels (including trainees). The team circulated a 39-item questionnaire exploring attitudes toward and experiences related to family planning and assisted reproductive technology (ART) by email and social media channels.

A total of 351 radiation oncologists participated, representing one-fifth of the specialty’s entire female workforce nationally and making this study the largest to date on family planning among these physicians.

Most respondents were aged 31-40 years (60%) and married (79%), had children (68%), and were in training (26%) or academic practice (48%).
 

Survey results

Fully 74% of respondents reported that their career plans strongly influenced the timing of when to start a family, and 29% said family planning considerations influenced their decision regarding their choice of academia versus private practice, Dr. Lee reported.

Overall, 24% of respondents indicated that they had difficulty with infertility or required fertility counseling/treatment, 66% said they wished fertility preservation was discussed at some point during their training, and 22% said either that ART would have benefited them if it had been available or that they were planning to or had already used fertility preservation.

On the topic of maternity leave, some respondents reported that their institution either had no formal leave policy during training or provided less than 1 month of leave (23%) and that they felt pressure to take less time off than was policy (15%).

“Of note, 32 women in our survey were not offered non–radiation-exposing assignments during pregnancy, and an additional 57 had to specifically ask for them,” Dr. Lee remarked.

About one-third of respondents each reported that they did not feel supported during training for issues related to fertility and/or pregnancy (33%) and that they experienced discrimination for being pregnant (32%) and taking maternity leave (30%).

“Systemic changes are necessary early in medical education and training to ensure women are supported and able to advance equitably in the field. As less than a third of the current radiation oncology workforce are women, improvement upon these issues will be necessary to draw more women into the field,” Dr. Lee commented. “Education on ART risks, benefits, and success rates can help physicians and those in training in their family planning, while the lack of education and structured policy can exacerbate the emotional, physical, and financial impact of infertility.

“Until recently, there has been a dearth of policy at the programmatic, institutional, and national level allowing time and protection for pregnancy and maternity leave,” she added. “Thankfully, this summer, the American Board of Medical Specialties announced a progressive leave policy for residents and fellows.”

The new policy, which goes into effect July 2021, allows a minimum of 6 weeks away without exhausting time allowed for vacation or sick leave and without requiring an extension in training.
 

When career and biology collide

“The collision of professional and biological clocks for women in medicine is an important issue highlighted by this study,” Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

“Prior work focused on women in medicine more generally. A deeper dive into the experiences of women in a specific field may be even more compelling to drive change on the part of professional societies and organizations,” Dr. Jagsi added.

The infertility rate observed in the study could have potentially been skewed by the preponderance of younger respondents (resulting in underestimation) or by greater participation of those interested in the subject (resulting in overestimation), she noted. However, it aligns well with the rate in a study Dr. Jagsi and colleagues conducted among female physicians generally using somewhat different methods. That study was published in the Journal of Women’s Health.

Concern about radiation exposure and its potential reproductive health effects should not deter women from choosing radiation oncology as a specialty, according to Dr. Jagsi.

“Radiation exposure is actually very low in radiation oncology, much lower than in specialties like interventional cardiology, where physicians are in the room where fluoroscopy is being used. It is actually an important misconception about this field that merits correction,” she stressed. “Rather, the fertility concerns are related to the expectations of training and demands of work during the prime childbearing years more generally that can lead women to delay pregnancy, which is an issue common to all medical specialties.”

“The investigators’ conclusions are very reasonable,” Dr. Jagsi said. “Although one might quibble whether the exact proportions reflect the experiences of all women in the field perfectly due to the possibility of selection bias, one cannot question whether a substantial number of women are experiencing these challenges and that they merit intervention.”

The study did not receive specific funding. Dr. Lee and Dr. Jagsi disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lee A et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract LBA 6.

Many female radiation oncologists find their career choice strongly influences when they start a family, and some deal with infertility and pregnancy-related discrimination, a U.S. cross-sectional survey suggests.

Courtesy MD Anderson Cancer Center

Results from the survey were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Female radiation oncologists often spend their childbearing years in training and establishing careers,” commented lead investigator Anna Lee, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Currently, physician fertility and family planning are rarely discussed or taught in medical school or postgraduate training,” Dr. Lee said.

Dr. Lee and colleagues conducted a national anonymous cross-sectional online survey of female oncologists of all types and all career levels (including trainees). The team circulated a 39-item questionnaire exploring attitudes toward and experiences related to family planning and assisted reproductive technology (ART) by email and social media channels.

A total of 351 radiation oncologists participated, representing one-fifth of the specialty’s entire female workforce nationally and making this study the largest to date on family planning among these physicians.

Most respondents were aged 31-40 years (60%) and married (79%), had children (68%), and were in training (26%) or academic practice (48%).
 

Survey results

Fully 74% of respondents reported that their career plans strongly influenced the timing of when to start a family, and 29% said family planning considerations influenced their decision regarding their choice of academia versus private practice, Dr. Lee reported.

Overall, 24% of respondents indicated that they had difficulty with infertility or required fertility counseling/treatment, 66% said they wished fertility preservation was discussed at some point during their training, and 22% said either that ART would have benefited them if it had been available or that they were planning to or had already used fertility preservation.

On the topic of maternity leave, some respondents reported that their institution either had no formal leave policy during training or provided less than 1 month of leave (23%) and that they felt pressure to take less time off than was policy (15%).

“Of note, 32 women in our survey were not offered non–radiation-exposing assignments during pregnancy, and an additional 57 had to specifically ask for them,” Dr. Lee remarked.

About one-third of respondents each reported that they did not feel supported during training for issues related to fertility and/or pregnancy (33%) and that they experienced discrimination for being pregnant (32%) and taking maternity leave (30%).

“Systemic changes are necessary early in medical education and training to ensure women are supported and able to advance equitably in the field. As less than a third of the current radiation oncology workforce are women, improvement upon these issues will be necessary to draw more women into the field,” Dr. Lee commented. “Education on ART risks, benefits, and success rates can help physicians and those in training in their family planning, while the lack of education and structured policy can exacerbate the emotional, physical, and financial impact of infertility.

“Until recently, there has been a dearth of policy at the programmatic, institutional, and national level allowing time and protection for pregnancy and maternity leave,” she added. “Thankfully, this summer, the American Board of Medical Specialties announced a progressive leave policy for residents and fellows.”

The new policy, which goes into effect July 2021, allows a minimum of 6 weeks away without exhausting time allowed for vacation or sick leave and without requiring an extension in training.
 

When career and biology collide

“The collision of professional and biological clocks for women in medicine is an important issue highlighted by this study,” Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

“Prior work focused on women in medicine more generally. A deeper dive into the experiences of women in a specific field may be even more compelling to drive change on the part of professional societies and organizations,” Dr. Jagsi added.

The infertility rate observed in the study could have potentially been skewed by the preponderance of younger respondents (resulting in underestimation) or by greater participation of those interested in the subject (resulting in overestimation), she noted. However, it aligns well with the rate in a study Dr. Jagsi and colleagues conducted among female physicians generally using somewhat different methods. That study was published in the Journal of Women’s Health.

Concern about radiation exposure and its potential reproductive health effects should not deter women from choosing radiation oncology as a specialty, according to Dr. Jagsi.

“Radiation exposure is actually very low in radiation oncology, much lower than in specialties like interventional cardiology, where physicians are in the room where fluoroscopy is being used. It is actually an important misconception about this field that merits correction,” she stressed. “Rather, the fertility concerns are related to the expectations of training and demands of work during the prime childbearing years more generally that can lead women to delay pregnancy, which is an issue common to all medical specialties.”

“The investigators’ conclusions are very reasonable,” Dr. Jagsi said. “Although one might quibble whether the exact proportions reflect the experiences of all women in the field perfectly due to the possibility of selection bias, one cannot question whether a substantial number of women are experiencing these challenges and that they merit intervention.”

The study did not receive specific funding. Dr. Lee and Dr. Jagsi disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lee A et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract LBA 6.

Many female radiation oncologists find their career choice strongly influences when they start a family, and some deal with infertility and pregnancy-related discrimination, a U.S. cross-sectional survey suggests.

Courtesy MD Anderson Cancer Center

Results from the survey were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Female radiation oncologists often spend their childbearing years in training and establishing careers,” commented lead investigator Anna Lee, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Currently, physician fertility and family planning are rarely discussed or taught in medical school or postgraduate training,” Dr. Lee said.

Dr. Lee and colleagues conducted a national anonymous cross-sectional online survey of female oncologists of all types and all career levels (including trainees). The team circulated a 39-item questionnaire exploring attitudes toward and experiences related to family planning and assisted reproductive technology (ART) by email and social media channels.

A total of 351 radiation oncologists participated, representing one-fifth of the specialty’s entire female workforce nationally and making this study the largest to date on family planning among these physicians.

Most respondents were aged 31-40 years (60%) and married (79%), had children (68%), and were in training (26%) or academic practice (48%).
 

Survey results

Fully 74% of respondents reported that their career plans strongly influenced the timing of when to start a family, and 29% said family planning considerations influenced their decision regarding their choice of academia versus private practice, Dr. Lee reported.

Overall, 24% of respondents indicated that they had difficulty with infertility or required fertility counseling/treatment, 66% said they wished fertility preservation was discussed at some point during their training, and 22% said either that ART would have benefited them if it had been available or that they were planning to or had already used fertility preservation.

On the topic of maternity leave, some respondents reported that their institution either had no formal leave policy during training or provided less than 1 month of leave (23%) and that they felt pressure to take less time off than was policy (15%).

“Of note, 32 women in our survey were not offered non–radiation-exposing assignments during pregnancy, and an additional 57 had to specifically ask for them,” Dr. Lee remarked.

About one-third of respondents each reported that they did not feel supported during training for issues related to fertility and/or pregnancy (33%) and that they experienced discrimination for being pregnant (32%) and taking maternity leave (30%).

“Systemic changes are necessary early in medical education and training to ensure women are supported and able to advance equitably in the field. As less than a third of the current radiation oncology workforce are women, improvement upon these issues will be necessary to draw more women into the field,” Dr. Lee commented. “Education on ART risks, benefits, and success rates can help physicians and those in training in their family planning, while the lack of education and structured policy can exacerbate the emotional, physical, and financial impact of infertility.

“Until recently, there has been a dearth of policy at the programmatic, institutional, and national level allowing time and protection for pregnancy and maternity leave,” she added. “Thankfully, this summer, the American Board of Medical Specialties announced a progressive leave policy for residents and fellows.”

The new policy, which goes into effect July 2021, allows a minimum of 6 weeks away without exhausting time allowed for vacation or sick leave and without requiring an extension in training.
 

When career and biology collide

“The collision of professional and biological clocks for women in medicine is an important issue highlighted by this study,” Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

“Prior work focused on women in medicine more generally. A deeper dive into the experiences of women in a specific field may be even more compelling to drive change on the part of professional societies and organizations,” Dr. Jagsi added.

The infertility rate observed in the study could have potentially been skewed by the preponderance of younger respondents (resulting in underestimation) or by greater participation of those interested in the subject (resulting in overestimation), she noted. However, it aligns well with the rate in a study Dr. Jagsi and colleagues conducted among female physicians generally using somewhat different methods. That study was published in the Journal of Women’s Health.

Concern about radiation exposure and its potential reproductive health effects should not deter women from choosing radiation oncology as a specialty, according to Dr. Jagsi.

“Radiation exposure is actually very low in radiation oncology, much lower than in specialties like interventional cardiology, where physicians are in the room where fluoroscopy is being used. It is actually an important misconception about this field that merits correction,” she stressed. “Rather, the fertility concerns are related to the expectations of training and demands of work during the prime childbearing years more generally that can lead women to delay pregnancy, which is an issue common to all medical specialties.”

“The investigators’ conclusions are very reasonable,” Dr. Jagsi said. “Although one might quibble whether the exact proportions reflect the experiences of all women in the field perfectly due to the possibility of selection bias, one cannot question whether a substantial number of women are experiencing these challenges and that they merit intervention.”

The study did not receive specific funding. Dr. Lee and Dr. Jagsi disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lee A et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract LBA 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Safety measures for lab monitoring of mineralocorticoid receptor agonist therapy, performance measures for sacubitril/valsartan, cardiac resynchronization therapy and titration of medications, and quality measures based on patient-reported outcomes are among the updates the joint task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have made to performance and quality measures for managing adults with heart failure.

The revisions, published online Nov. 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, update the 2011 ACC/AHA heart failure measure set, writing committee vice chair Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, said in an interview. The 2011 measure set predates the 2015 approval of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure in adults.
 

Measures stress dosages, strength of evidence

“For the first time the heart failure performance measure sets also focus on not just the use of guideline-recommended medication at any dose, but on utilizing the doses that are evidence-based and guideline recommended so long as they are well tolerated,” said Dr. Fonarow, interim chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The measure set now includes assessment of patients being treated with doses of medications at 50% or greater of target dose in the absence of contraindications or documented intolerance.”

The update includes seven new performance measures, two quality measures, and one structural measure. The performance measures come from the strongest recommendations – that is, a class of recommendation of 1 (strong) or 3 (no benefit or harmful, process to be avoided) – in the 2017 ACC/AHA/Heart Failure Society of American heart failure guideline update published in Circulation.

In addition to the 2017 update, the writing committee also reviewed existing performance measures. “Those management strategies, diagnostic testing, medications, and devices with the strongest evidence and highest level of guideline recommendations were further considered for inclusion in the performance measure set,” Dr. Fonarow said. “The measures went through extensive review by peer reviewers and approval from the organizations represented.”

Specifically, the update includes measures for monitoring serum potassium after starting mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists therapy, and cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction already on guideline-directed therapy. “This therapy can significantly improve functional capacity and outcomes in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Fonarow said.
 

New and retired measures

The update adds two performance measures for titration of medications based on dose, either reaching 50% of the recommended dose for a variety of medications, including ARNI, or documenting that the dose wasn’t tolerated for other reason for not using the dose.

The new structural measure calls for facility participation in a heart failure registry. The revised measure set now consists of 18 measures in all.

The update retired one measure from the 2011 set: left ventricular ejection fraction assessment for inpatients. The committee cited its use above 97% as the reason, but LVEF in outpatients remains a measure.

The following tree measures have been revised:

• Patient self-care education has moved from performance measure to quality measure because of concerns about the accuracy of self-care education documentation and limited evidence of improved outcomes with better documentation.
• ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy for left ventricular systolic dysfunction adds ARNI therapy to align with the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA update.
• Postdischarge appointments shifts from performance to quality measure and include a 7-day limit.

Measures future research should focus on, noted Dr. Fonarow, include the use of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for heart failure, including in patients without diabetes. “Since the ACC/AHA heart failure guidelines had not yet been updated to recommend these therapies they could not be included in this performance measure set,” he said.

He also said “an urgent need” exists for further research into treatments for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction along with optimal implementation strategies.  

“If these ACC/AHA heart failure performance measures were applied in all settings in which patients with heart failure in the United States are being cared for, and optimal and equitable conformity with each of these measures were achieved, over 100,000 lives a year of patients with heart failure could be saved,” he said. “There’s in an urgent need to measure and improve heart failure care quality.”

Dr. Fonarow reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CHF Solutions, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

SOURCE: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 2;76:2527-64.

Safety measures for lab monitoring of mineralocorticoid receptor agonist therapy, performance measures for sacubitril/valsartan, cardiac resynchronization therapy and titration of medications, and quality measures based on patient-reported outcomes are among the updates the joint task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have made to performance and quality measures for managing adults with heart failure.

The revisions, published online Nov. 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, update the 2011 ACC/AHA heart failure measure set, writing committee vice chair Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, said in an interview. The 2011 measure set predates the 2015 approval of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure in adults.
 

Measures stress dosages, strength of evidence

“For the first time the heart failure performance measure sets also focus on not just the use of guideline-recommended medication at any dose, but on utilizing the doses that are evidence-based and guideline recommended so long as they are well tolerated,” said Dr. Fonarow, interim chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The measure set now includes assessment of patients being treated with doses of medications at 50% or greater of target dose in the absence of contraindications or documented intolerance.”

The update includes seven new performance measures, two quality measures, and one structural measure. The performance measures come from the strongest recommendations – that is, a class of recommendation of 1 (strong) or 3 (no benefit or harmful, process to be avoided) – in the 2017 ACC/AHA/Heart Failure Society of American heart failure guideline update published in Circulation.

In addition to the 2017 update, the writing committee also reviewed existing performance measures. “Those management strategies, diagnostic testing, medications, and devices with the strongest evidence and highest level of guideline recommendations were further considered for inclusion in the performance measure set,” Dr. Fonarow said. “The measures went through extensive review by peer reviewers and approval from the organizations represented.”

Specifically, the update includes measures for monitoring serum potassium after starting mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists therapy, and cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction already on guideline-directed therapy. “This therapy can significantly improve functional capacity and outcomes in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Fonarow said.
 

New and retired measures

The update adds two performance measures for titration of medications based on dose, either reaching 50% of the recommended dose for a variety of medications, including ARNI, or documenting that the dose wasn’t tolerated for other reason for not using the dose.

The new structural measure calls for facility participation in a heart failure registry. The revised measure set now consists of 18 measures in all.

The update retired one measure from the 2011 set: left ventricular ejection fraction assessment for inpatients. The committee cited its use above 97% as the reason, but LVEF in outpatients remains a measure.

The following tree measures have been revised:

• Patient self-care education has moved from performance measure to quality measure because of concerns about the accuracy of self-care education documentation and limited evidence of improved outcomes with better documentation.
• ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy for left ventricular systolic dysfunction adds ARNI therapy to align with the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA update.
• Postdischarge appointments shifts from performance to quality measure and include a 7-day limit.

Measures future research should focus on, noted Dr. Fonarow, include the use of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for heart failure, including in patients without diabetes. “Since the ACC/AHA heart failure guidelines had not yet been updated to recommend these therapies they could not be included in this performance measure set,” he said.

He also said “an urgent need” exists for further research into treatments for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction along with optimal implementation strategies.  

“If these ACC/AHA heart failure performance measures were applied in all settings in which patients with heart failure in the United States are being cared for, and optimal and equitable conformity with each of these measures were achieved, over 100,000 lives a year of patients with heart failure could be saved,” he said. “There’s in an urgent need to measure and improve heart failure care quality.”

Dr. Fonarow reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CHF Solutions, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

SOURCE: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 2;76:2527-64.

Safety measures for lab monitoring of mineralocorticoid receptor agonist therapy, performance measures for sacubitril/valsartan, cardiac resynchronization therapy and titration of medications, and quality measures based on patient-reported outcomes are among the updates the joint task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have made to performance and quality measures for managing adults with heart failure.

The revisions, published online Nov. 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, update the 2011 ACC/AHA heart failure measure set, writing committee vice chair Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, said in an interview. The 2011 measure set predates the 2015 approval of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure in adults.
 

Measures stress dosages, strength of evidence

“For the first time the heart failure performance measure sets also focus on not just the use of guideline-recommended medication at any dose, but on utilizing the doses that are evidence-based and guideline recommended so long as they are well tolerated,” said Dr. Fonarow, interim chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The measure set now includes assessment of patients being treated with doses of medications at 50% or greater of target dose in the absence of contraindications or documented intolerance.”

The update includes seven new performance measures, two quality measures, and one structural measure. The performance measures come from the strongest recommendations – that is, a class of recommendation of 1 (strong) or 3 (no benefit or harmful, process to be avoided) – in the 2017 ACC/AHA/Heart Failure Society of American heart failure guideline update published in Circulation.

In addition to the 2017 update, the writing committee also reviewed existing performance measures. “Those management strategies, diagnostic testing, medications, and devices with the strongest evidence and highest level of guideline recommendations were further considered for inclusion in the performance measure set,” Dr. Fonarow said. “The measures went through extensive review by peer reviewers and approval from the organizations represented.”

Specifically, the update includes measures for monitoring serum potassium after starting mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists therapy, and cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction already on guideline-directed therapy. “This therapy can significantly improve functional capacity and outcomes in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Fonarow said.
 

New and retired measures

The update adds two performance measures for titration of medications based on dose, either reaching 50% of the recommended dose for a variety of medications, including ARNI, or documenting that the dose wasn’t tolerated for other reason for not using the dose.

The new structural measure calls for facility participation in a heart failure registry. The revised measure set now consists of 18 measures in all.

The update retired one measure from the 2011 set: left ventricular ejection fraction assessment for inpatients. The committee cited its use above 97% as the reason, but LVEF in outpatients remains a measure.

The following tree measures have been revised:

• Patient self-care education has moved from performance measure to quality measure because of concerns about the accuracy of self-care education documentation and limited evidence of improved outcomes with better documentation.
• ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy for left ventricular systolic dysfunction adds ARNI therapy to align with the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA update.
• Postdischarge appointments shifts from performance to quality measure and include a 7-day limit.

Measures future research should focus on, noted Dr. Fonarow, include the use of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for heart failure, including in patients without diabetes. “Since the ACC/AHA heart failure guidelines had not yet been updated to recommend these therapies they could not be included in this performance measure set,” he said.

He also said “an urgent need” exists for further research into treatments for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction along with optimal implementation strategies.  

“If these ACC/AHA heart failure performance measures were applied in all settings in which patients with heart failure in the United States are being cared for, and optimal and equitable conformity with each of these measures were achieved, over 100,000 lives a year of patients with heart failure could be saved,” he said. “There’s in an urgent need to measure and improve heart failure care quality.”

Dr. Fonarow reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CHF Solutions, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

SOURCE: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 2;76:2527-64.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America led the health sector in spending on lobbying through the first three quarters of 2020, and health care as a whole spent more than any of the other 12 sectors of the U.S. economy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

PhRMA spent $20.7 million on lobbying through the end of September, good enough for third on the overall list of U.S. companies and organizations. Three other members of the health sector made the top 10: the American Hospital Association ($18.3 million), BlueCross/BlueShield ($16.3 million), and the American Medical Association ($15.2 million), the center reported.

Total spending by the health sector was $464 million from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, topping the finance/insurance/real estate sector at $403 million, and miscellaneous business at $371 million. Miscellaneous business is the home of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the annual leader in such spending for the last 20 years, based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records.

The largest share of health sector spending came from pharmaceuticals/health products, with a total of almost $233 million, just slightly more than the sector’s four other constituents combined: hospitals/nursing homes ($80 million), health services/HMOs ($75 million), health professionals ($67 million), and miscellaneous health ($9.5 million), the center said on OpenSecrets.org.

Taking one step down from the sector level, that $233 million made pharmaceuticals/health products the highest spending of about 100 industries in 2020, nearly doubling the efforts of electronics manufacturing and equipment ($118 million), which came a distant second. Hospitals/nursing homes was eighth on the industry list, the center noted.

[email protected]

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America led the health sector in spending on lobbying through the first three quarters of 2020, and health care as a whole spent more than any of the other 12 sectors of the U.S. economy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

PhRMA spent $20.7 million on lobbying through the end of September, good enough for third on the overall list of U.S. companies and organizations. Three other members of the health sector made the top 10: the American Hospital Association ($18.3 million), BlueCross/BlueShield ($16.3 million), and the American Medical Association ($15.2 million), the center reported.

Total spending by the health sector was $464 million from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, topping the finance/insurance/real estate sector at $403 million, and miscellaneous business at $371 million. Miscellaneous business is the home of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the annual leader in such spending for the last 20 years, based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records.

The largest share of health sector spending came from pharmaceuticals/health products, with a total of almost $233 million, just slightly more than the sector’s four other constituents combined: hospitals/nursing homes ($80 million), health services/HMOs ($75 million), health professionals ($67 million), and miscellaneous health ($9.5 million), the center said on OpenSecrets.org.

Taking one step down from the sector level, that $233 million made pharmaceuticals/health products the highest spending of about 100 industries in 2020, nearly doubling the efforts of electronics manufacturing and equipment ($118 million), which came a distant second. Hospitals/nursing homes was eighth on the industry list, the center noted.

[email protected]

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America led the health sector in spending on lobbying through the first three quarters of 2020, and health care as a whole spent more than any of the other 12 sectors of the U.S. economy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

PhRMA spent $20.7 million on lobbying through the end of September, good enough for third on the overall list of U.S. companies and organizations. Three other members of the health sector made the top 10: the American Hospital Association ($18.3 million), BlueCross/BlueShield ($16.3 million), and the American Medical Association ($15.2 million), the center reported.

Total spending by the health sector was $464 million from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, topping the finance/insurance/real estate sector at $403 million, and miscellaneous business at $371 million. Miscellaneous business is the home of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the annual leader in such spending for the last 20 years, based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records.

The largest share of health sector spending came from pharmaceuticals/health products, with a total of almost $233 million, just slightly more than the sector’s four other constituents combined: hospitals/nursing homes ($80 million), health services/HMOs ($75 million), health professionals ($67 million), and miscellaneous health ($9.5 million), the center said on OpenSecrets.org.

Taking one step down from the sector level, that $233 million made pharmaceuticals/health products the highest spending of about 100 industries in 2020, nearly doubling the efforts of electronics manufacturing and equipment ($118 million), which came a distant second. Hospitals/nursing homes was eighth on the industry list, the center noted.

[email protected]

Within minutes of her arrival at Community North Hospital in Indianapolis, Ramya Yeleti’s vital signs plummeted; her pulse was at 45 beats per minute and her ejection fraction was hovering near 10%. “I definitely thought there was a chance I would close my eyes and never open them again, but I only had a few seconds to process that,” she recalled. Then everything went black. Ramya fell unconscious as shock pads were positioned and a swarm of clinicians prepared to insert an Impella heart pump through a catheter into her aorta.

The third-year medical student and aspiring psychiatrist had been doing in-person neurology rotations in July when she began to experience fever and uncontrolled vomiting. Her initial thought was that she must have caught the flu from a patient.

After all, Ramya, along with her father Ram Yeleti, MD, mother Indira, and twin sister Divya, had all weathered COVID-19 in previous months and later tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The only family member who had been spared was her younger brother Rohith.

Indira suffered a severe case, requiring ICU care for 2 days but no ventilator; the others experienced mostly mild symptoms. Ramya — who was studying for her third-year board exams after classes at Marian University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Indianapolis went virtual in March — was left with lingering fatigue; however, her cough and muscle aches abated and her sense of taste and smell returned. When she started rotations, she thought her life was getting back to normal.

Ramya’s flu symptoms did not improve. A university-mandated rapid COVID test came back negative, but 2 more days of vomiting started to worry both her and her father, who is a cardiologist and chief physician executive at Community Health Network in Indianapolis. After Ramya felt some chest pain, she asked her father to listen to her heart. All sounded normal, and Ram prescribed ondansetron for her nausea.

But the antiemetic didn’t work, and by the next morning both father and daughter were convinced that they needed to head to the emergency department.

“I wanted to double-check if I was missing something about her being dehydrated,” Ram told Medscape Medical News. “Several things can cause protracted nausea, like hepatitis, appendicitis, or another infection. I feel terribly guilty I didn’t realize she had a heart condition.”
 

A surprising turn for the worst

Ramya’s subtle symptoms quickly gave way to the dramatic cardiac crisis that unfolded just after her arrival at Community North. “Her EKG looked absolutely horrendous, like a 75-year-old having a heart attack,” Ram said.

As a cardiologist, he knew his daughter’s situation was growing dire when he heard physicians shouting that the Impella wasn’t working and she needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

“At that point, I didn’t think she’d survive,” her father recalled. “We had 10 physicians in the room who worked on her for 5 hours to get her stabilized.”

“It was especially traumatic because, obviously, I knew exactly what was happening,” he added. “You can’t sugarcoat anything.”

After being connected to the heart–lung equipment, Ramya was transferred to IU Health Methodist Hospital, also in Indianapolis, where she was tested again for COVID-19. Unlike the rapid test administered just days earlier, the PCR assay came back positive.

“I knew she had acute myocarditis, but coronavirus never crossed my mind,” said Ram.

“As we were dealing with her heart, we were also dealing with this challenge: she was coming back positive for COVID-19 again,” said Roopa Rao, MD, the heart failure transplant cardiologist at IU Health who treated Ramya.

“We weren’t sure whether we were dealing with an active infection or dead virus” from her previous infection, Rao said, “so we started treating her like she had active COVID-19 and gave her remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and steroids, which was the protocol in our hospital.”

A biopsy of Ramya’s heart tissue, along with blood tests, indicated a past parvovirus infection. It’s possible that Ramya’s previous coronavirus infection made her susceptible to heart damage from a newer parvovirus infection, said Rao. Either virus, or both together, could have been responsible for the calamity.

Although it was unheard of during Ramya’s cardiac crisis in early August, evolving evidence now raises the possibility that she is one of a handful of people in the world to be reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Also emerging are cases of COVID-related myocarditis and other extreme heart complications, particularly in young people.

“At the time, it wasn’t really clear if people could have another infection so quickly,” Rao told Medscape Medical News. “It is possible she is one of these rare individuals to have COVID-19 twice. I’m hoping at some point we will have some clarity.”

“I would favor a coinfection as probably the triggering factor for her sickness,” she said. “It may take some time, but like any other disease — and it doesn’t look like COVID will go away magically — I hope we’ll have some answers down the road.”
 

Another wrinkle

The next 48 hours brought astonishing news: Ramya’s heart function had rebounded to nearly normal, and her ejection fraction increased to about 45%. Heart transplantation wouldn’t be necessary, although Rao stood poised to follow through if ECMO only sustained, rather than improved, Ramya’s prognosis.

“Ramya was so sick that if she didn’t recover, the only option would be a heart transplant,” said Rao. “But we wanted to do everything to keep that heart.”

After steroid and COVID treatment, Ramya’s heart started to come back. “It didn’t make sense to me,” said Rao. “I don’t know what helped. If we hadn’t done ECMO, her heart probably wouldn’t have recovered, so I would say we have to support these patients and give them time for the heart to recover, even to the point of ECMO.”

Despite the good news, Ramya’s survival still hung in the balance. When she was disconnected from ECMO, clinicians discovered that the Impella device had caused a rare complication, damaging her mitral valve. The valve could be repaired surgically, but both Rao and Ram felt great trepidation at the prospect of cardiopulmonary bypass during the open-heart procedure.

“They would need to stop her heart and restart it, and I was concerned it would not restart,” Ram explained. “I didn’t like the idea of open-heart surgery, but my biggest fear was she was not going to survive it because of a really fresh, sick heart.”

The cardiologists’ fears did, in fact, come to pass: it took an hour to coax Ramya’s heart back at the end of surgery. But, just as the surgeon was preparing to reconnect Ramya to ECMO in desperation, “her heart recovered again,” Rao reported.

“Some things you never forget in life,” she said. “I can’t describe how everyone in the OR felt, all taking care of her. I told Ramya, ‘you are a fighter’.”
 

New strength

Six days would pass before Ramya woke up and learned of the astounding series of events that saved her. She knew “something was really wrong” because of the incision at the center of her chest, but learning she’d been on ECMO and the heart transplant list drove home how close to death she’d actually come.

“Most people don’t get off ECMO; they die on it,” she said. “And the chances of dying on the heart transplant list are very high. It was very strange to me that this was my story all of a sudden, when a week and a half earlier I was on rotation.”

Ongoing physical therapy over the past 3 months has transformed Ramya from a state of profound physical weakness to a place of relative strength. The now-fourth-year med student is turning 26 in November and is hungry to restart in-person rotations. Her downtime has been filled in part with researching myocarditis and collaborating with Rao on her own case study for journal publication.

But the mental trauma from her experience has girded her in ways she knows will make her stronger personally and professionally in the years ahead.

“It’s still very hard. I’m still recovering,” she acknowledged. “I described it to my therapist as an invisible wound on my brain.”

“When I came out of the hospital, I still had ECMO wounds, deep gashes on my legs that affected how fast and how long I could walk,” she said. “I felt like the same thing was going on my brain — a huge cut no one could see.”

Her intention to specialize in psychiatry has become more pressing now that Ramya has realized the impact of trauma on mental health.

“My body failing me was awful, but I could handle it,” she said. “Losing any part of my mind would have been way worse. I want to take care of that in my patients.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Within minutes of her arrival at Community North Hospital in Indianapolis, Ramya Yeleti’s vital signs plummeted; her pulse was at 45 beats per minute and her ejection fraction was hovering near 10%. “I definitely thought there was a chance I would close my eyes and never open them again, but I only had a few seconds to process that,” she recalled. Then everything went black. Ramya fell unconscious as shock pads were positioned and a swarm of clinicians prepared to insert an Impella heart pump through a catheter into her aorta.

The third-year medical student and aspiring psychiatrist had been doing in-person neurology rotations in July when she began to experience fever and uncontrolled vomiting. Her initial thought was that she must have caught the flu from a patient.

After all, Ramya, along with her father Ram Yeleti, MD, mother Indira, and twin sister Divya, had all weathered COVID-19 in previous months and later tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The only family member who had been spared was her younger brother Rohith.

Indira suffered a severe case, requiring ICU care for 2 days but no ventilator; the others experienced mostly mild symptoms. Ramya — who was studying for her third-year board exams after classes at Marian University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Indianapolis went virtual in March — was left with lingering fatigue; however, her cough and muscle aches abated and her sense of taste and smell returned. When she started rotations, she thought her life was getting back to normal.

Ramya’s flu symptoms did not improve. A university-mandated rapid COVID test came back negative, but 2 more days of vomiting started to worry both her and her father, who is a cardiologist and chief physician executive at Community Health Network in Indianapolis. After Ramya felt some chest pain, she asked her father to listen to her heart. All sounded normal, and Ram prescribed ondansetron for her nausea.

But the antiemetic didn’t work, and by the next morning both father and daughter were convinced that they needed to head to the emergency department.

“I wanted to double-check if I was missing something about her being dehydrated,” Ram told Medscape Medical News. “Several things can cause protracted nausea, like hepatitis, appendicitis, or another infection. I feel terribly guilty I didn’t realize she had a heart condition.”
 

A surprising turn for the worst

Ramya’s subtle symptoms quickly gave way to the dramatic cardiac crisis that unfolded just after her arrival at Community North. “Her EKG looked absolutely horrendous, like a 75-year-old having a heart attack,” Ram said.

As a cardiologist, he knew his daughter’s situation was growing dire when he heard physicians shouting that the Impella wasn’t working and she needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

“At that point, I didn’t think she’d survive,” her father recalled. “We had 10 physicians in the room who worked on her for 5 hours to get her stabilized.”

“It was especially traumatic because, obviously, I knew exactly what was happening,” he added. “You can’t sugarcoat anything.”

After being connected to the heart–lung equipment, Ramya was transferred to IU Health Methodist Hospital, also in Indianapolis, where she was tested again for COVID-19. Unlike the rapid test administered just days earlier, the PCR assay came back positive.

“I knew she had acute myocarditis, but coronavirus never crossed my mind,” said Ram.

“As we were dealing with her heart, we were also dealing with this challenge: she was coming back positive for COVID-19 again,” said Roopa Rao, MD, the heart failure transplant cardiologist at IU Health who treated Ramya.

“We weren’t sure whether we were dealing with an active infection or dead virus” from her previous infection, Rao said, “so we started treating her like she had active COVID-19 and gave her remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and steroids, which was the protocol in our hospital.”

A biopsy of Ramya’s heart tissue, along with blood tests, indicated a past parvovirus infection. It’s possible that Ramya’s previous coronavirus infection made her susceptible to heart damage from a newer parvovirus infection, said Rao. Either virus, or both together, could have been responsible for the calamity.

Although it was unheard of during Ramya’s cardiac crisis in early August, evolving evidence now raises the possibility that she is one of a handful of people in the world to be reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Also emerging are cases of COVID-related myocarditis and other extreme heart complications, particularly in young people.

“At the time, it wasn’t really clear if people could have another infection so quickly,” Rao told Medscape Medical News. “It is possible she is one of these rare individuals to have COVID-19 twice. I’m hoping at some point we will have some clarity.”

“I would favor a coinfection as probably the triggering factor for her sickness,” she said. “It may take some time, but like any other disease — and it doesn’t look like COVID will go away magically — I hope we’ll have some answers down the road.”
 

Another wrinkle

The next 48 hours brought astonishing news: Ramya’s heart function had rebounded to nearly normal, and her ejection fraction increased to about 45%. Heart transplantation wouldn’t be necessary, although Rao stood poised to follow through if ECMO only sustained, rather than improved, Ramya’s prognosis.

“Ramya was so sick that if she didn’t recover, the only option would be a heart transplant,” said Rao. “But we wanted to do everything to keep that heart.”

After steroid and COVID treatment, Ramya’s heart started to come back. “It didn’t make sense to me,” said Rao. “I don’t know what helped. If we hadn’t done ECMO, her heart probably wouldn’t have recovered, so I would say we have to support these patients and give them time for the heart to recover, even to the point of ECMO.”

Despite the good news, Ramya’s survival still hung in the balance. When she was disconnected from ECMO, clinicians discovered that the Impella device had caused a rare complication, damaging her mitral valve. The valve could be repaired surgically, but both Rao and Ram felt great trepidation at the prospect of cardiopulmonary bypass during the open-heart procedure.

“They would need to stop her heart and restart it, and I was concerned it would not restart,” Ram explained. “I didn’t like the idea of open-heart surgery, but my biggest fear was she was not going to survive it because of a really fresh, sick heart.”

The cardiologists’ fears did, in fact, come to pass: it took an hour to coax Ramya’s heart back at the end of surgery. But, just as the surgeon was preparing to reconnect Ramya to ECMO in desperation, “her heart recovered again,” Rao reported.

“Some things you never forget in life,” she said. “I can’t describe how everyone in the OR felt, all taking care of her. I told Ramya, ‘you are a fighter’.”
 

New strength

Six days would pass before Ramya woke up and learned of the astounding series of events that saved her. She knew “something was really wrong” because of the incision at the center of her chest, but learning she’d been on ECMO and the heart transplant list drove home how close to death she’d actually come.

“Most people don’t get off ECMO; they die on it,” she said. “And the chances of dying on the heart transplant list are very high. It was very strange to me that this was my story all of a sudden, when a week and a half earlier I was on rotation.”

Ongoing physical therapy over the past 3 months has transformed Ramya from a state of profound physical weakness to a place of relative strength. The now-fourth-year med student is turning 26 in November and is hungry to restart in-person rotations. Her downtime has been filled in part with researching myocarditis and collaborating with Rao on her own case study for journal publication.

But the mental trauma from her experience has girded her in ways she knows will make her stronger personally and professionally in the years ahead.

“It’s still very hard. I’m still recovering,” she acknowledged. “I described it to my therapist as an invisible wound on my brain.”

“When I came out of the hospital, I still had ECMO wounds, deep gashes on my legs that affected how fast and how long I could walk,” she said. “I felt like the same thing was going on my brain — a huge cut no one could see.”

Her intention to specialize in psychiatry has become more pressing now that Ramya has realized the impact of trauma on mental health.

“My body failing me was awful, but I could handle it,” she said. “Losing any part of my mind would have been way worse. I want to take care of that in my patients.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Within minutes of her arrival at Community North Hospital in Indianapolis, Ramya Yeleti’s vital signs plummeted; her pulse was at 45 beats per minute and her ejection fraction was hovering near 10%. “I definitely thought there was a chance I would close my eyes and never open them again, but I only had a few seconds to process that,” she recalled. Then everything went black. Ramya fell unconscious as shock pads were positioned and a swarm of clinicians prepared to insert an Impella heart pump through a catheter into her aorta.

The third-year medical student and aspiring psychiatrist had been doing in-person neurology rotations in July when she began to experience fever and uncontrolled vomiting. Her initial thought was that she must have caught the flu from a patient.

After all, Ramya, along with her father Ram Yeleti, MD, mother Indira, and twin sister Divya, had all weathered COVID-19 in previous months and later tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The only family member who had been spared was her younger brother Rohith.

Indira suffered a severe case, requiring ICU care for 2 days but no ventilator; the others experienced mostly mild symptoms. Ramya — who was studying for her third-year board exams after classes at Marian University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Indianapolis went virtual in March — was left with lingering fatigue; however, her cough and muscle aches abated and her sense of taste and smell returned. When she started rotations, she thought her life was getting back to normal.

Ramya’s flu symptoms did not improve. A university-mandated rapid COVID test came back negative, but 2 more days of vomiting started to worry both her and her father, who is a cardiologist and chief physician executive at Community Health Network in Indianapolis. After Ramya felt some chest pain, she asked her father to listen to her heart. All sounded normal, and Ram prescribed ondansetron for her nausea.

But the antiemetic didn’t work, and by the next morning both father and daughter were convinced that they needed to head to the emergency department.

“I wanted to double-check if I was missing something about her being dehydrated,” Ram told Medscape Medical News. “Several things can cause protracted nausea, like hepatitis, appendicitis, or another infection. I feel terribly guilty I didn’t realize she had a heart condition.”
 

A surprising turn for the worst

Ramya’s subtle symptoms quickly gave way to the dramatic cardiac crisis that unfolded just after her arrival at Community North. “Her EKG looked absolutely horrendous, like a 75-year-old having a heart attack,” Ram said.

As a cardiologist, he knew his daughter’s situation was growing dire when he heard physicians shouting that the Impella wasn’t working and she needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

“At that point, I didn’t think she’d survive,” her father recalled. “We had 10 physicians in the room who worked on her for 5 hours to get her stabilized.”

“It was especially traumatic because, obviously, I knew exactly what was happening,” he added. “You can’t sugarcoat anything.”

After being connected to the heart–lung equipment, Ramya was transferred to IU Health Methodist Hospital, also in Indianapolis, where she was tested again for COVID-19. Unlike the rapid test administered just days earlier, the PCR assay came back positive.

“I knew she had acute myocarditis, but coronavirus never crossed my mind,” said Ram.

“As we were dealing with her heart, we were also dealing with this challenge: she was coming back positive for COVID-19 again,” said Roopa Rao, MD, the heart failure transplant cardiologist at IU Health who treated Ramya.

“We weren’t sure whether we were dealing with an active infection or dead virus” from her previous infection, Rao said, “so we started treating her like she had active COVID-19 and gave her remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and steroids, which was the protocol in our hospital.”

A biopsy of Ramya’s heart tissue, along with blood tests, indicated a past parvovirus infection. It’s possible that Ramya’s previous coronavirus infection made her susceptible to heart damage from a newer parvovirus infection, said Rao. Either virus, or both together, could have been responsible for the calamity.

Although it was unheard of during Ramya’s cardiac crisis in early August, evolving evidence now raises the possibility that she is one of a handful of people in the world to be reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Also emerging are cases of COVID-related myocarditis and other extreme heart complications, particularly in young people.

“At the time, it wasn’t really clear if people could have another infection so quickly,” Rao told Medscape Medical News. “It is possible she is one of these rare individuals to have COVID-19 twice. I’m hoping at some point we will have some clarity.”

“I would favor a coinfection as probably the triggering factor for her sickness,” she said. “It may take some time, but like any other disease — and it doesn’t look like COVID will go away magically — I hope we’ll have some answers down the road.”
 

Another wrinkle

The next 48 hours brought astonishing news: Ramya’s heart function had rebounded to nearly normal, and her ejection fraction increased to about 45%. Heart transplantation wouldn’t be necessary, although Rao stood poised to follow through if ECMO only sustained, rather than improved, Ramya’s prognosis.

“Ramya was so sick that if she didn’t recover, the only option would be a heart transplant,” said Rao. “But we wanted to do everything to keep that heart.”

After steroid and COVID treatment, Ramya’s heart started to come back. “It didn’t make sense to me,” said Rao. “I don’t know what helped. If we hadn’t done ECMO, her heart probably wouldn’t have recovered, so I would say we have to support these patients and give them time for the heart to recover, even to the point of ECMO.”

Despite the good news, Ramya’s survival still hung in the balance. When she was disconnected from ECMO, clinicians discovered that the Impella device had caused a rare complication, damaging her mitral valve. The valve could be repaired surgically, but both Rao and Ram felt great trepidation at the prospect of cardiopulmonary bypass during the open-heart procedure.

“They would need to stop her heart and restart it, and I was concerned it would not restart,” Ram explained. “I didn’t like the idea of open-heart surgery, but my biggest fear was she was not going to survive it because of a really fresh, sick heart.”

The cardiologists’ fears did, in fact, come to pass: it took an hour to coax Ramya’s heart back at the end of surgery. But, just as the surgeon was preparing to reconnect Ramya to ECMO in desperation, “her heart recovered again,” Rao reported.

“Some things you never forget in life,” she said. “I can’t describe how everyone in the OR felt, all taking care of her. I told Ramya, ‘you are a fighter’.”
 

New strength

Six days would pass before Ramya woke up and learned of the astounding series of events that saved her. She knew “something was really wrong” because of the incision at the center of her chest, but learning she’d been on ECMO and the heart transplant list drove home how close to death she’d actually come.

“Most people don’t get off ECMO; they die on it,” she said. “And the chances of dying on the heart transplant list are very high. It was very strange to me that this was my story all of a sudden, when a week and a half earlier I was on rotation.”

Ongoing physical therapy over the past 3 months has transformed Ramya from a state of profound physical weakness to a place of relative strength. The now-fourth-year med student is turning 26 in November and is hungry to restart in-person rotations. Her downtime has been filled in part with researching myocarditis and collaborating with Rao on her own case study for journal publication.

But the mental trauma from her experience has girded her in ways she knows will make her stronger personally and professionally in the years ahead.

“It’s still very hard. I’m still recovering,” she acknowledged. “I described it to my therapist as an invisible wound on my brain.”

“When I came out of the hospital, I still had ECMO wounds, deep gashes on my legs that affected how fast and how long I could walk,” she said. “I felt like the same thing was going on my brain — a huge cut no one could see.”

Her intention to specialize in psychiatry has become more pressing now that Ramya has realized the impact of trauma on mental health.

“My body failing me was awful, but I could handle it,” she said. “Losing any part of my mind would have been way worse. I want to take care of that in my patients.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For reasons unknown, about one in six people who recovered from COVID-19 subsequently retested positive at least 2 weeks later, researchers reported in a study in Italy.

Sore throat and rhinitis were the only symptoms associated with a positive result. “Patients who continued to have respiratory symptoms, especially, were more likely to have a new positive test result,” lead author Francesco Landi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“This suggests the persistence of respiratory symptoms should not be underestimated and should be adequately assessed in all patients considered recovered from COVID-19,” he said.

“The study results are interesting,” Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunobiologist at Yale University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, both in New Haven, Conn.,, said in an interview. “There are other reports of RNA detection postdischarge, but this study ... found that only two symptoms out of many – sore throat and rhinitis – were higher in those with PCR [polymerase chain reaction]-positive status.”

The study was published online Sept. 18 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The findings could carry important implications for people who continue to be symptomatic. “It is reasonable to be cautious and avoid close contact with others, wear a face mask, and possibly undergo an additional nasopharyngeal swab,” said Dr. Landi, associate professor of internal medicine at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.

“One of most interesting findings is that persistent symptoms do not correlate with PCR positivity, suggesting that symptoms are in many cases not due to ongoing viral replication,” Jonathan Karn, PhD, professor and chair of the department of molecular biology and microbiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“The key technical problem, which they have discussed, is that a viral RNA signal in the PCR assay does not necessarily mean that infectious virus is present,” Dr. Karn said. He added that new comprehensive viral RNA analyses would be needed to answer this question.
 

Official COVID-19 recovery

To identify risk factors and COVID-19 survivors more likely to retest positive, Dr. Landi and members of the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group evaluated 131 people after hospital discharge.

All participants met World Health Organization criteria for release from isolation, including two negative test results at least 24 hours apart, and were studied between April 21 and May 21. Mean age was 56 and 39% were women. Only a slightly higher mean body mass index of 27.6 kg/m² in the positive group versus 25.9 in the negative group, was significant.

Although 51% of survivors reported fatigue, 44% had dyspnea, and 17% were coughing, the rates did not differ significantly between groups. In contrast, 18% of positive survivors and 4% of negative survivors had a sore throat (P = .04), and 27% versus 12%, respectively, reported rhinitis (P = .05).

People returned for follow-up visits a mean 17 days after the second negative swab test.
 

Asymptomatic COVID-19 carriers

“These findings indicate that a noteworthy rate of recovered patients with COVID-19 could still be asymptomatic carriers of the virus,” the researchers noted in the paper. “Even in the absence of specific guidelines, the 22 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 again were suggested to quarantine for a second time.”

No family member or close contact of the positive survivors reported SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients continued to wear masks and observe social distancing recommendations, which makes it “very difficult to affirm whether these patients were really contagious,” the researchers noted.
 

Next steps

Evaluating all COVID-19 survivors to identify any who retest positive “will be a crucial contribution to a better understanding of both the natural history of COVID-19 as well as the public health implications of viral shedding,” the authors wrote.

One study limitation is that the reverse transcriptase–PCR test reveals genetic sequences specific to COVID-19. “It is important to underline that this is not a viral culture and cannot determine whether the virus is viable and transmissible,” the researchers noted.

“In this respect, we are trying to better understand if the persistence of long-time positive [reverse transcriptase]–PCR test for COVID-19 is really correlated to a potential contagiousness,” they added.

Dr. Landi and colleagues said their findings should be considered preliminary, and larger data samples are warranted to validate the results.

Dr. Landi and Dr. Karn disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki disclosed a research grant from Condair, a 5% or greater equity interest in RIGImmune, and income of $250 or more from PureTec.

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

For reasons unknown, about one in six people who recovered from COVID-19 subsequently retested positive at least 2 weeks later, researchers reported in a study in Italy.

Sore throat and rhinitis were the only symptoms associated with a positive result. “Patients who continued to have respiratory symptoms, especially, were more likely to have a new positive test result,” lead author Francesco Landi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“This suggests the persistence of respiratory symptoms should not be underestimated and should be adequately assessed in all patients considered recovered from COVID-19,” he said.

“The study results are interesting,” Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunobiologist at Yale University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, both in New Haven, Conn.,, said in an interview. “There are other reports of RNA detection postdischarge, but this study ... found that only two symptoms out of many – sore throat and rhinitis – were higher in those with PCR [polymerase chain reaction]-positive status.”

The study was published online Sept. 18 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The findings could carry important implications for people who continue to be symptomatic. “It is reasonable to be cautious and avoid close contact with others, wear a face mask, and possibly undergo an additional nasopharyngeal swab,” said Dr. Landi, associate professor of internal medicine at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.

“One of most interesting findings is that persistent symptoms do not correlate with PCR positivity, suggesting that symptoms are in many cases not due to ongoing viral replication,” Jonathan Karn, PhD, professor and chair of the department of molecular biology and microbiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“The key technical problem, which they have discussed, is that a viral RNA signal in the PCR assay does not necessarily mean that infectious virus is present,” Dr. Karn said. He added that new comprehensive viral RNA analyses would be needed to answer this question.
 

Official COVID-19 recovery

To identify risk factors and COVID-19 survivors more likely to retest positive, Dr. Landi and members of the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group evaluated 131 people after hospital discharge.

All participants met World Health Organization criteria for release from isolation, including two negative test results at least 24 hours apart, and were studied between April 21 and May 21. Mean age was 56 and 39% were women. Only a slightly higher mean body mass index of 27.6 kg/m² in the positive group versus 25.9 in the negative group, was significant.

Although 51% of survivors reported fatigue, 44% had dyspnea, and 17% were coughing, the rates did not differ significantly between groups. In contrast, 18% of positive survivors and 4% of negative survivors had a sore throat (P = .04), and 27% versus 12%, respectively, reported rhinitis (P = .05).

People returned for follow-up visits a mean 17 days after the second negative swab test.
 

Asymptomatic COVID-19 carriers

“These findings indicate that a noteworthy rate of recovered patients with COVID-19 could still be asymptomatic carriers of the virus,” the researchers noted in the paper. “Even in the absence of specific guidelines, the 22 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 again were suggested to quarantine for a second time.”

No family member or close contact of the positive survivors reported SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients continued to wear masks and observe social distancing recommendations, which makes it “very difficult to affirm whether these patients were really contagious,” the researchers noted.
 

Next steps

Evaluating all COVID-19 survivors to identify any who retest positive “will be a crucial contribution to a better understanding of both the natural history of COVID-19 as well as the public health implications of viral shedding,” the authors wrote.

One study limitation is that the reverse transcriptase–PCR test reveals genetic sequences specific to COVID-19. “It is important to underline that this is not a viral culture and cannot determine whether the virus is viable and transmissible,” the researchers noted.

“In this respect, we are trying to better understand if the persistence of long-time positive [reverse transcriptase]–PCR test for COVID-19 is really correlated to a potential contagiousness,” they added.

Dr. Landi and colleagues said their findings should be considered preliminary, and larger data samples are warranted to validate the results.

Dr. Landi and Dr. Karn disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki disclosed a research grant from Condair, a 5% or greater equity interest in RIGImmune, and income of $250 or more from PureTec.

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

For reasons unknown, about one in six people who recovered from COVID-19 subsequently retested positive at least 2 weeks later, researchers reported in a study in Italy.

Sore throat and rhinitis were the only symptoms associated with a positive result. “Patients who continued to have respiratory symptoms, especially, were more likely to have a new positive test result,” lead author Francesco Landi, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“This suggests the persistence of respiratory symptoms should not be underestimated and should be adequately assessed in all patients considered recovered from COVID-19,” he said.

“The study results are interesting,” Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, an immunobiologist at Yale University and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, both in New Haven, Conn.,, said in an interview. “There are other reports of RNA detection postdischarge, but this study ... found that only two symptoms out of many – sore throat and rhinitis – were higher in those with PCR [polymerase chain reaction]-positive status.”

The study was published online Sept. 18 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The findings could carry important implications for people who continue to be symptomatic. “It is reasonable to be cautious and avoid close contact with others, wear a face mask, and possibly undergo an additional nasopharyngeal swab,” said Dr. Landi, associate professor of internal medicine at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.

“One of most interesting findings is that persistent symptoms do not correlate with PCR positivity, suggesting that symptoms are in many cases not due to ongoing viral replication,” Jonathan Karn, PhD, professor and chair of the department of molecular biology and microbiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview.

“The key technical problem, which they have discussed, is that a viral RNA signal in the PCR assay does not necessarily mean that infectious virus is present,” Dr. Karn said. He added that new comprehensive viral RNA analyses would be needed to answer this question.
 

Official COVID-19 recovery

To identify risk factors and COVID-19 survivors more likely to retest positive, Dr. Landi and members of the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group evaluated 131 people after hospital discharge.

All participants met World Health Organization criteria for release from isolation, including two negative test results at least 24 hours apart, and were studied between April 21 and May 21. Mean age was 56 and 39% were women. Only a slightly higher mean body mass index of 27.6 kg/m² in the positive group versus 25.9 in the negative group, was significant.

Although 51% of survivors reported fatigue, 44% had dyspnea, and 17% were coughing, the rates did not differ significantly between groups. In contrast, 18% of positive survivors and 4% of negative survivors had a sore throat (P = .04), and 27% versus 12%, respectively, reported rhinitis (P = .05).

People returned for follow-up visits a mean 17 days after the second negative swab test.
 

Asymptomatic COVID-19 carriers

“These findings indicate that a noteworthy rate of recovered patients with COVID-19 could still be asymptomatic carriers of the virus,” the researchers noted in the paper. “Even in the absence of specific guidelines, the 22 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 again were suggested to quarantine for a second time.”

No family member or close contact of the positive survivors reported SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients continued to wear masks and observe social distancing recommendations, which makes it “very difficult to affirm whether these patients were really contagious,” the researchers noted.
 

Next steps

Evaluating all COVID-19 survivors to identify any who retest positive “will be a crucial contribution to a better understanding of both the natural history of COVID-19 as well as the public health implications of viral shedding,” the authors wrote.

One study limitation is that the reverse transcriptase–PCR test reveals genetic sequences specific to COVID-19. “It is important to underline that this is not a viral culture and cannot determine whether the virus is viable and transmissible,” the researchers noted.

“In this respect, we are trying to better understand if the persistence of long-time positive [reverse transcriptase]–PCR test for COVID-19 is really correlated to a potential contagiousness,” they added.

Dr. Landi and colleagues said their findings should be considered preliminary, and larger data samples are warranted to validate the results.

Dr. Landi and Dr. Karn disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki disclosed a research grant from Condair, a 5% or greater equity interest in RIGImmune, and income of $250 or more from PureTec.

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

Federal advisers who will help determine which Americans get the first COVID vaccines took an in-depth look Oct. 30 at the challenges they face in selecting priority groups.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will face two key decisions once a COVID vaccine wins clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

ACIP will need to decide whether to recommend its use in adults (the age group in which vaccines are currently being tested). The group will also need to offer direction on which groups should get priority in vaccine allocation, inasmuch as early supplies will not be sufficient to vaccinate everyone.

At the Oct. 30 meeting, CDC’s Kathleen Dooling, MD, MPH, suggested that ACIP plan on tackling these issues as two separate questions when it comes time to weigh in on an approved vaccine. Although there was no formal vote among ACIP members at the meeting, Dooling’s proposal for tackling a future recommendation in a two-part fashion drew positive feedback.

ACIP member Katherine A. Poehling, MD, MPH, suggested that the panel and CDC be ready to reexamine the situation frequently regarding COVID vaccination. “Perhaps we could think about reviewing data on a monthly basis and updating the recommendation, so that we can account for the concerns and balance both the benefits and the [potential] harm,” Poehling said.

Dooling agreed. “Both the vaccine recommendation and allocation will be revisited in what is a very dynamic situation,” Dooling replied to Poehling. “So all new evidence will be brought to ACIP, and certainly the allocation as vaccine distribution proceeds will need to be adjusted accordingly.”
 

Ethics and limited evidence

During the meeting, ACIP members repeatedly expressed discomfort with the prospect of having to weigh in on widespread use of COVID vaccines on the basis of limited evidence.

Within months, FDA may opt for a special clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for one or more of the experimental COVID vaccines now in advanced testing. Many of FDA’s past EUA clearances were granted for test kits. For those EUA approvals, the agency considered risks of false results but not longer-term, direct harm to patients from these products.

With a COVID vaccine, there will be strong pressure to distribute doses as quickly as possible with the hope of curbing the pandemic, which has already led to more than 229,000 deaths in the United States alone and has disrupted lives and economies around the world. But questions will persist about the possibility of serious complications from these vaccines, ACIP members noted.

“My personal struggle is the ethical side and how to balance these two,” said ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, who noted that he expects his fellow panelists to share this concern.

Currently, four experimental COVID vaccines likely to be used in the United States have advanced to phase 3 testing. Pfizer Inc and BioNtech have enrolled more than 42,000 participants in a test of their candidate, BNT162b2 vaccine, and rival Moderna has enrolled about 30,000 participants in a test of its mRNA-1273 vaccine, CDC staff said.

The other two advanced COVID vaccine candidates have overcome recent hurdles. AstraZeneca Plc on Oct. 23 announced that FDA had removed a hold on the testing of its AZD1222 vaccine candidate; the trial will enroll approximately 30,000 people. Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen unit also announced that day the lifting of a safety pause for its Ad26.COV2.S vaccine; the phase 3 trial for that vaccine will enroll approximately 60,000 volunteers. Federal agencies, states, and territories have developed plans for future distribution of COVID vaccines, CDC staff said in briefing materials for today’s ACIP meeting.

Several ACIP members raised many of the same concerns that members of an FDA advisory committee raised at a meeting earlier in October. ACIP and FDA advisers honed in on the FDA’s decision to set a median follow-up duration of 2 months in phase 3 trials in connection with expected EUA applications for COVID-19 vaccines.

“I struggle with following people for 2 months after their second vaccination as a time point to start making final decisions about safety,” said ACIP member Sharon E. Frey, MD, a professor at St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. “I just want to put that out there.”
 

Medical front line, then who?

There is consensus that healthcare workers be in the first stage ― Phase 1 ― of distribution. That recommendation was made in a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Phase 1A would include first responders; Phase 1B might include people of all ages who have two or more comorbidities that put them at significantly higher risk for COVID-19 or death, as well as older adults living in congregate or overcrowded settings, the NASEM report said.

A presentation from the CDC’s Matthew Biggerstaff, ScD, MPH, underscored challenges in distributing what are expected to be limited initial supplies of COVID vaccines.

Biggerstaff showed several scenarios the CDC’s Data, Analytics, and Modeling Task Force had studied. The initial allocation of vaccines would be for healthcare workers, followed by what the CDC called Phase 1B.

Choices for a rollout may include next giving COVID vaccines to people at high risk, such as persons who have one or more chronic medical conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, or obesity. Other options for the rollout could be to vaccinate people aged 65 years and older or essential workers whose employment puts them in contact with the public, thus raising the risk of contracting the virus.

The CDC’s research found that the greatest impact in preventing death was to initially vaccinate adults aged 65 and older in Phase 1B. The agency staff described this approach as likely to result in an about “1 to 11% increase in averted deaths across the scenarios.”

Initially vaccinating essential workers or high-risk adults in Phase 1B would avert the most infections. The agency staff described this approach as yielding about “1 to 5% increase in averted infections across the scenarios,” Biggerstaff said during his presentation.

The following are other findings of the CDC staff:

The earlier the vaccine rollout relative to increasing transmission, the greater the averted percentage and differences between the strategies.

Differences were not substantial in some scenarios.

The need to continue efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 should be emphasized.

Adverse effects

ACIP members also heard about strategies for tracking potential side effects of future vaccines. A presentation by Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force/Vaccine Safety Team, included details about a new smartphone-based active surveillance program for COVID-19 vaccine safety.

Known as v-safe, this system would use Web-based survey monitoring and incorporate text messaging. It would conduct electronic health checks on vaccine recipients, which would occur daily during the first week post vaccination and weekly thereafter for 6 weeks from the time of vaccination.

Clinicians “can play an important role in helping CDC enroll patients in v-safe at the time of vaccination,” Shimabukuro noted in his presentation. This would add another task, though, for clinicians, the CDC staff noted.
 

Pregnancy and breastfeeding are special concerns

Of special concern with the rollout of a COVID vaccine are recommendations regarding pregnancy and breastfeeding. Women constitute about 75% of the healthcare workforce, CDC staff noted.

At the time the initial ACIP COVID vaccination recommendations are made, there could be approximately 330,000 healthcare personnel who are pregnant or who have recently given birth. Available data indicate potentially increased risks for severe maternal illness and preterm birth associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, said CDC’s Megan Wallace, DrPH, MPH, in a presentation for the Friday meeting.

In an Oct. 27 letter to ACIP, Chair Jose Romero, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), urged the panel to ensure that pregnant women and new mothers in the healthcare workforce have priority access to a COVID vaccine. Pregnant and lactating women were “noticeably and alarmingly absent from the NASEM vaccine allocation plan for COVID-19,” wrote Christopher M. Zahn, MD, vice president for practice activities at ACOG, in the letter to Romero.

“ACOG urges ACIP to incorporate pregnant and lactating women clearly and explicitly into its COVID-19 vaccine allocation and prioritization framework,” Zahn wrote. “Should an Emergency Use Authorization be executed for one or more COVID-19 vaccines and provide a permissive recommendation for pregnant and lactating women, pregnant health care workers, pregnant first responders, and pregnant individuals with underlying conditions should be prioritized for vaccination alongside their non-pregnant peers.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers who will help determine which Americans get the first COVID vaccines took an in-depth look Oct. 30 at the challenges they face in selecting priority groups.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will face two key decisions once a COVID vaccine wins clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

ACIP will need to decide whether to recommend its use in adults (the age group in which vaccines are currently being tested). The group will also need to offer direction on which groups should get priority in vaccine allocation, inasmuch as early supplies will not be sufficient to vaccinate everyone.

At the Oct. 30 meeting, CDC’s Kathleen Dooling, MD, MPH, suggested that ACIP plan on tackling these issues as two separate questions when it comes time to weigh in on an approved vaccine. Although there was no formal vote among ACIP members at the meeting, Dooling’s proposal for tackling a future recommendation in a two-part fashion drew positive feedback.

ACIP member Katherine A. Poehling, MD, MPH, suggested that the panel and CDC be ready to reexamine the situation frequently regarding COVID vaccination. “Perhaps we could think about reviewing data on a monthly basis and updating the recommendation, so that we can account for the concerns and balance both the benefits and the [potential] harm,” Poehling said.

Dooling agreed. “Both the vaccine recommendation and allocation will be revisited in what is a very dynamic situation,” Dooling replied to Poehling. “So all new evidence will be brought to ACIP, and certainly the allocation as vaccine distribution proceeds will need to be adjusted accordingly.”
 

Ethics and limited evidence

During the meeting, ACIP members repeatedly expressed discomfort with the prospect of having to weigh in on widespread use of COVID vaccines on the basis of limited evidence.

Within months, FDA may opt for a special clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for one or more of the experimental COVID vaccines now in advanced testing. Many of FDA’s past EUA clearances were granted for test kits. For those EUA approvals, the agency considered risks of false results but not longer-term, direct harm to patients from these products.

With a COVID vaccine, there will be strong pressure to distribute doses as quickly as possible with the hope of curbing the pandemic, which has already led to more than 229,000 deaths in the United States alone and has disrupted lives and economies around the world. But questions will persist about the possibility of serious complications from these vaccines, ACIP members noted.

“My personal struggle is the ethical side and how to balance these two,” said ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, who noted that he expects his fellow panelists to share this concern.

Currently, four experimental COVID vaccines likely to be used in the United States have advanced to phase 3 testing. Pfizer Inc and BioNtech have enrolled more than 42,000 participants in a test of their candidate, BNT162b2 vaccine, and rival Moderna has enrolled about 30,000 participants in a test of its mRNA-1273 vaccine, CDC staff said.

The other two advanced COVID vaccine candidates have overcome recent hurdles. AstraZeneca Plc on Oct. 23 announced that FDA had removed a hold on the testing of its AZD1222 vaccine candidate; the trial will enroll approximately 30,000 people. Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen unit also announced that day the lifting of a safety pause for its Ad26.COV2.S vaccine; the phase 3 trial for that vaccine will enroll approximately 60,000 volunteers. Federal agencies, states, and territories have developed plans for future distribution of COVID vaccines, CDC staff said in briefing materials for today’s ACIP meeting.

Several ACIP members raised many of the same concerns that members of an FDA advisory committee raised at a meeting earlier in October. ACIP and FDA advisers honed in on the FDA’s decision to set a median follow-up duration of 2 months in phase 3 trials in connection with expected EUA applications for COVID-19 vaccines.

“I struggle with following people for 2 months after their second vaccination as a time point to start making final decisions about safety,” said ACIP member Sharon E. Frey, MD, a professor at St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. “I just want to put that out there.”
 

Medical front line, then who?

There is consensus that healthcare workers be in the first stage ― Phase 1 ― of distribution. That recommendation was made in a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Phase 1A would include first responders; Phase 1B might include people of all ages who have two or more comorbidities that put them at significantly higher risk for COVID-19 or death, as well as older adults living in congregate or overcrowded settings, the NASEM report said.

A presentation from the CDC’s Matthew Biggerstaff, ScD, MPH, underscored challenges in distributing what are expected to be limited initial supplies of COVID vaccines.

Biggerstaff showed several scenarios the CDC’s Data, Analytics, and Modeling Task Force had studied. The initial allocation of vaccines would be for healthcare workers, followed by what the CDC called Phase 1B.

Choices for a rollout may include next giving COVID vaccines to people at high risk, such as persons who have one or more chronic medical conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, or obesity. Other options for the rollout could be to vaccinate people aged 65 years and older or essential workers whose employment puts them in contact with the public, thus raising the risk of contracting the virus.

The CDC’s research found that the greatest impact in preventing death was to initially vaccinate adults aged 65 and older in Phase 1B. The agency staff described this approach as likely to result in an about “1 to 11% increase in averted deaths across the scenarios.”

Initially vaccinating essential workers or high-risk adults in Phase 1B would avert the most infections. The agency staff described this approach as yielding about “1 to 5% increase in averted infections across the scenarios,” Biggerstaff said during his presentation.

The following are other findings of the CDC staff:

The earlier the vaccine rollout relative to increasing transmission, the greater the averted percentage and differences between the strategies.

Differences were not substantial in some scenarios.

The need to continue efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 should be emphasized.

Adverse effects

ACIP members also heard about strategies for tracking potential side effects of future vaccines. A presentation by Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force/Vaccine Safety Team, included details about a new smartphone-based active surveillance program for COVID-19 vaccine safety.

Known as v-safe, this system would use Web-based survey monitoring and incorporate text messaging. It would conduct electronic health checks on vaccine recipients, which would occur daily during the first week post vaccination and weekly thereafter for 6 weeks from the time of vaccination.

Clinicians “can play an important role in helping CDC enroll patients in v-safe at the time of vaccination,” Shimabukuro noted in his presentation. This would add another task, though, for clinicians, the CDC staff noted.
 

Pregnancy and breastfeeding are special concerns

Of special concern with the rollout of a COVID vaccine are recommendations regarding pregnancy and breastfeeding. Women constitute about 75% of the healthcare workforce, CDC staff noted.

At the time the initial ACIP COVID vaccination recommendations are made, there could be approximately 330,000 healthcare personnel who are pregnant or who have recently given birth. Available data indicate potentially increased risks for severe maternal illness and preterm birth associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, said CDC’s Megan Wallace, DrPH, MPH, in a presentation for the Friday meeting.

In an Oct. 27 letter to ACIP, Chair Jose Romero, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), urged the panel to ensure that pregnant women and new mothers in the healthcare workforce have priority access to a COVID vaccine. Pregnant and lactating women were “noticeably and alarmingly absent from the NASEM vaccine allocation plan for COVID-19,” wrote Christopher M. Zahn, MD, vice president for practice activities at ACOG, in the letter to Romero.

“ACOG urges ACIP to incorporate pregnant and lactating women clearly and explicitly into its COVID-19 vaccine allocation and prioritization framework,” Zahn wrote. “Should an Emergency Use Authorization be executed for one or more COVID-19 vaccines and provide a permissive recommendation for pregnant and lactating women, pregnant health care workers, pregnant first responders, and pregnant individuals with underlying conditions should be prioritized for vaccination alongside their non-pregnant peers.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal advisers who will help determine which Americans get the first COVID vaccines took an in-depth look Oct. 30 at the challenges they face in selecting priority groups.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will face two key decisions once a COVID vaccine wins clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

ACIP will need to decide whether to recommend its use in adults (the age group in which vaccines are currently being tested). The group will also need to offer direction on which groups should get priority in vaccine allocation, inasmuch as early supplies will not be sufficient to vaccinate everyone.

At the Oct. 30 meeting, CDC’s Kathleen Dooling, MD, MPH, suggested that ACIP plan on tackling these issues as two separate questions when it comes time to weigh in on an approved vaccine. Although there was no formal vote among ACIP members at the meeting, Dooling’s proposal for tackling a future recommendation in a two-part fashion drew positive feedback.

ACIP member Katherine A. Poehling, MD, MPH, suggested that the panel and CDC be ready to reexamine the situation frequently regarding COVID vaccination. “Perhaps we could think about reviewing data on a monthly basis and updating the recommendation, so that we can account for the concerns and balance both the benefits and the [potential] harm,” Poehling said.

Dooling agreed. “Both the vaccine recommendation and allocation will be revisited in what is a very dynamic situation,” Dooling replied to Poehling. “So all new evidence will be brought to ACIP, and certainly the allocation as vaccine distribution proceeds will need to be adjusted accordingly.”
 

Ethics and limited evidence

During the meeting, ACIP members repeatedly expressed discomfort with the prospect of having to weigh in on widespread use of COVID vaccines on the basis of limited evidence.

Within months, FDA may opt for a special clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for one or more of the experimental COVID vaccines now in advanced testing. Many of FDA’s past EUA clearances were granted for test kits. For those EUA approvals, the agency considered risks of false results but not longer-term, direct harm to patients from these products.

With a COVID vaccine, there will be strong pressure to distribute doses as quickly as possible with the hope of curbing the pandemic, which has already led to more than 229,000 deaths in the United States alone and has disrupted lives and economies around the world. But questions will persist about the possibility of serious complications from these vaccines, ACIP members noted.

“My personal struggle is the ethical side and how to balance these two,” said ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, who noted that he expects his fellow panelists to share this concern.

Currently, four experimental COVID vaccines likely to be used in the United States have advanced to phase 3 testing. Pfizer Inc and BioNtech have enrolled more than 42,000 participants in a test of their candidate, BNT162b2 vaccine, and rival Moderna has enrolled about 30,000 participants in a test of its mRNA-1273 vaccine, CDC staff said.

The other two advanced COVID vaccine candidates have overcome recent hurdles. AstraZeneca Plc on Oct. 23 announced that FDA had removed a hold on the testing of its AZD1222 vaccine candidate; the trial will enroll approximately 30,000 people. Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen unit also announced that day the lifting of a safety pause for its Ad26.COV2.S vaccine; the phase 3 trial for that vaccine will enroll approximately 60,000 volunteers. Federal agencies, states, and territories have developed plans for future distribution of COVID vaccines, CDC staff said in briefing materials for today’s ACIP meeting.

Several ACIP members raised many of the same concerns that members of an FDA advisory committee raised at a meeting earlier in October. ACIP and FDA advisers honed in on the FDA’s decision to set a median follow-up duration of 2 months in phase 3 trials in connection with expected EUA applications for COVID-19 vaccines.

“I struggle with following people for 2 months after their second vaccination as a time point to start making final decisions about safety,” said ACIP member Sharon E. Frey, MD, a professor at St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. “I just want to put that out there.”
 

Medical front line, then who?

There is consensus that healthcare workers be in the first stage ― Phase 1 ― of distribution. That recommendation was made in a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Phase 1A would include first responders; Phase 1B might include people of all ages who have two or more comorbidities that put them at significantly higher risk for COVID-19 or death, as well as older adults living in congregate or overcrowded settings, the NASEM report said.

A presentation from the CDC’s Matthew Biggerstaff, ScD, MPH, underscored challenges in distributing what are expected to be limited initial supplies of COVID vaccines.

Biggerstaff showed several scenarios the CDC’s Data, Analytics, and Modeling Task Force had studied. The initial allocation of vaccines would be for healthcare workers, followed by what the CDC called Phase 1B.

Choices for a rollout may include next giving COVID vaccines to people at high risk, such as persons who have one or more chronic medical conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, or obesity. Other options for the rollout could be to vaccinate people aged 65 years and older or essential workers whose employment puts them in contact with the public, thus raising the risk of contracting the virus.

The CDC’s research found that the greatest impact in preventing death was to initially vaccinate adults aged 65 and older in Phase 1B. The agency staff described this approach as likely to result in an about “1 to 11% increase in averted deaths across the scenarios.”

Initially vaccinating essential workers or high-risk adults in Phase 1B would avert the most infections. The agency staff described this approach as yielding about “1 to 5% increase in averted infections across the scenarios,” Biggerstaff said during his presentation.

The following are other findings of the CDC staff:

The earlier the vaccine rollout relative to increasing transmission, the greater the averted percentage and differences between the strategies.

Differences were not substantial in some scenarios.

The need to continue efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 should be emphasized.

Adverse effects

ACIP members also heard about strategies for tracking potential side effects of future vaccines. A presentation by Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force/Vaccine Safety Team, included details about a new smartphone-based active surveillance program for COVID-19 vaccine safety.

Known as v-safe, this system would use Web-based survey monitoring and incorporate text messaging. It would conduct electronic health checks on vaccine recipients, which would occur daily during the first week post vaccination and weekly thereafter for 6 weeks from the time of vaccination.

Clinicians “can play an important role in helping CDC enroll patients in v-safe at the time of vaccination,” Shimabukuro noted in his presentation. This would add another task, though, for clinicians, the CDC staff noted.
 

Pregnancy and breastfeeding are special concerns

Of special concern with the rollout of a COVID vaccine are recommendations regarding pregnancy and breastfeeding. Women constitute about 75% of the healthcare workforce, CDC staff noted.

At the time the initial ACIP COVID vaccination recommendations are made, there could be approximately 330,000 healthcare personnel who are pregnant or who have recently given birth. Available data indicate potentially increased risks for severe maternal illness and preterm birth associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, said CDC’s Megan Wallace, DrPH, MPH, in a presentation for the Friday meeting.

In an Oct. 27 letter to ACIP, Chair Jose Romero, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), urged the panel to ensure that pregnant women and new mothers in the healthcare workforce have priority access to a COVID vaccine. Pregnant and lactating women were “noticeably and alarmingly absent from the NASEM vaccine allocation plan for COVID-19,” wrote Christopher M. Zahn, MD, vice president for practice activities at ACOG, in the letter to Romero.

“ACOG urges ACIP to incorporate pregnant and lactating women clearly and explicitly into its COVID-19 vaccine allocation and prioritization framework,” Zahn wrote. “Should an Emergency Use Authorization be executed for one or more COVID-19 vaccines and provide a permissive recommendation for pregnant and lactating women, pregnant health care workers, pregnant first responders, and pregnant individuals with underlying conditions should be prioritized for vaccination alongside their non-pregnant peers.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After years of dormancy, psychiatric drug development is showing signs of life. There is the novel antipsychotic lumateperone, recently approved for adults with schizophrenia. Brexanolone was approved last year for postpartum depression. And perhaps generating the most attention lately among psychiatrists – and people with depression – is the use of ketamine and esketamine for depression.

Columbia psychiatrist J. John Mann, MD, a professor of translational neuroscience and a mood disorder specialist, has been involved in several notable studies of ketamine in patients with depression. He and his colleagues’ recent research efforts include a randomized study into ketamine’s ability to reduce suicidal thoughts in bipolar depression and an MRI analysis illuminating the role that dosing plays in antidepressant effects.

Dr. Mann sat down with his Columbia colleague Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, to discuss how, nearly a year after its approval, ketamine fits into mental health care.
 

Dr. Sederer: Nearly 20 million people in this country alone suffer from clinical depression every year. That means they have a functional impairment in addition to their suffering and are at risk of taking their own lives. Depression is a very prevalent, painful, and disabling condition. The psychopharmacologic treatments we’ve had have been more or less the same for the past 20 or 30 years.

We’ve asked Dr. Mann to … talk to us about ketamine and its nasal preparation esketamine, which is a novel psychopharmacologic treatment. Dr. Mann, please tell us about ketamine, its utility, and the yet-to-be-answered questions.

Dr. Mann: Ketamine and esketamine, which is a component of ketamine itself, is different from traditional antidepressant medications in three fundamental ways.

The first is that it acts very quickly. Traditional antidepressants take 4, 6, 8 weeks to work. This means that the patient has to put up with a great deal of suffering while waiting for a response. And the probability of the medication working isn’t that high. About 50%-70% of individuals will respond eventually at the end of this ride. But ketamine, when it works, does so in 2 hours. That’s a totally different timescale.

The second aspect is that, when it does work, it often works very robustly, even though it’s a quick-acting antidepressant. The patient often quickly feels distinctly better.

Very often when you’re using traditional antidepressants, it takes a while for the improvement to reach the point that the patient is confident that they are clearly better, and too often that does not happen.

Dr. Sederer: As the treating doctor, you’re trying to keep that patient’s hope alive, even though we don’t have substantial evidence that they’re going to respond.

Dr. Mann: Exactly. One of the difficulties of keeping patients on track with traditional antidepressants is that, after the first dose or two, they have all the side effects and yet no benefit has emerged. In many ways patients sometimes feel that they’re going backwards. They have all of their depression plus the side effects of the medication.

But with ketamine, it’s rather different. You come in, you have the treatment, and many patients feel improved in a couple of hours. And not just a bit improved, but in many cases distinctly improved.

It’s very important for clinicians to appreciate that ketamine will work in patients who have a classically described treatment-resistant depression, meaning they’ve tried several other types of antidepressant medications that haven’t worked.

A prerequisite for treatment with ketamine is that they have had a number of treatment failures. The labeling for the intranasal esketamine states that you should try the other antidepressants first and then use this if they don’t work. The fact that ketamine can work even when the other medications have failed is a huge advantage.

Dr. Sederer: There is another feature of ketamine, in that it also has a pronounced benefit for suicidal ideation, which your research has reported on.

Dr. Mann: Yes, we’ve learned over the years that depression and suicidality are in some ways comorbid conditions. That both have to be addressed in order to keep somebody alive so that they can respond to treatment.

That’s a very important point. If the patient is suffering from depression and the antidepressant takes weeks to work, they may lose hope during that time. They may become overwhelmed by the suicidal ideation, no longer able to control or resist the impulse to take their life. A lot of the management is therefore to try to help support the patient (and family) so that these thoughts never become too compelling. Often we have to consider hospitalization to protect these patients so that they can stay alive long enough for the antidepressant to work. But ketamine not only has this very rapid effect for their depression, it also has a partly independent effect on suicidal ideation that is equally rapid and robust, which can render the patient safer.

Dr. Sederer: In other words, it’s effective and rapidly so for depression, with a bonus of reducing suicidality? This sounds almost too good to be true.

Dr. Mann: There are some limitations that we have to keep in mind. One limitation is that a single administration of ketamine will produce this robust improvement but it will only persist for most people for 5-7 days.

Dr. Sederer: Is the same duration true for scheduling the next treatment as well?

Dr. Mann: Yes, it is. The patient will gradually begin to deteriorate if you do not repeat the treatment. But as we showed in our randomized controlled clinical study, with ketamine for suicidal ideation, if you continue to deliver the medication, you can sustain the benefit.

Dr. Sederer: Can a person receive both ketamine and a conventional antidepressant at the same time?

Dr. Mann: Yes. In this study, half of the patients were actually continued on their previous medication while we added the ketamine on top of that. It worked very well.

In practice, people use two approaches. One approach used by most ketamine clinics is to give six doses of ketamine at a frequency of about two per week. Then they will reduce the frequency down to once a week for a few more doses and then once a month.

Dr. Sederer:: And this is a ketamine infusion?

Dr. Mann: Yes, this generally has been a ketamine infusion. This approach seems to work quite well. But that may not be necessary.

Another strategy is to give one, two, or three doses of ketamine. If the patient doesn’t respond robustly to two or three doses, they’re not going to respond to subsequent doses.

Dr. Sederer: So, initial responses are a predictor of future response?

Dr. Mann: Exactly. Now, if they haven’t done well with two or three doses, then you’ve got to use other treatments. But if they do well with the two or three, then you’ve got a choice: You can either complete the treatment course with ketamine and then continue them on antidepressant medications, or simply treat them with ketamine alone. What we tend to do is to treat with only antidepressant medications after a small number of ketamine treatments. We also use ketamine as a kind of “rescue medication” if they relapse into severe depression, though this is true for only a minority of patients.

Dr. Sederer: One of the things that we’ve learned is that antidepressants have a very beneficial effect for some people, but then they wear out and the person starts to relapse. Should ketamine be studied as an intervention for people who are no longer responding to the antidepressant(s) that they are on?

Dr. Mann: We do not really know the answer to that question. My experience treating very seriously ill patients is that sometimes the ketamine will work very well the first time or the second time but then in the future, if you try to use it as a rescue medication, it might not work that well. There is some clinical experience that suggests that that may be true for some people. But we have no idea about the frequency or timing with which this might happen. That’s all uncertain.

Moreover, most of our control clinical trial data come from either one dose of ketamine or from a few trials where people have received multiple doses of ketamine, followed by a bit of a taper. But there are very, very few of those types of studies. We’re still learning about the use of this medication.

Dr. Sederer: Importantly, you referenced the side effects of antidepressants. What are the side effects and risks of ketamine?

Dr. Mann: We know a lot more about the immediate short-term side effects of a single dose or a few doses of ketamine. Most people will get a kind of tripping experience. They’ll feel a bit unreal, or their circumstances or experiences of the world feel a bit distorted.

Some patients develop strange ideas. Most patients don’t enjoy those symptoms, even though I know ketamine is used as a party drug, and so on and so forth.

Dr. Sederer: It seems that the context is what matters.

Dr. Mann: Yes. And in a clinic context, most patients simply don’t enjoy these types of dissociative experiences, but they put up with them. They’re not severe, in general.

Dr. Sederer: Is part of the preparation of the patient telling them that this may happen?

Dr. Mann: Yes. We try to explain the potential for these symptoms and that most people get them. These side effects almost invariably terminate with the cessation of the administration.

Dr. Sederer: What’s the typical duration of the infusion you use?

Dr. Mann: Traditionally, infusion is 40 minutes and always in a clinic setting.

Dr. Sederer: And that’s because of the concern that a patient may have these symptoms?

Dr. Mann: Exactly. They may have dissociative effects that they’re disturbed by, and we need to monitor that. They’re probably going to remain under observation in the clinic for about the same amount of time because it takes about the same time for these effects to wear off.

The other consideration is that some people get a little nausea. In our experience with the intravenous ketamine, there’s also a problematic side effect that their blood pressure will be slightly raised. Therefore, it’s good to know that the person’s blood pressure is under control before they begin the treatments and that you’re monitoring it during administration.

Dr. Sederer: What are the differences you’re discovering between esketamine and ketamine?

Dr. Mann: It is a bit different. We’ve just completed a very important National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trial here at Columbia showing that with esketamine or ketamine itself, the dose and the blood levels are very closely related to the robustness of the clinical response.

When you give a drug intravenously, you give a very reliable dose. When you give the drug over 40 minutes, you’re spreading the dose administration over a period of time so that it doesn’t peak very high. The side effects appear to be proportional to the peak dose.

When you give it intranasally, you give the drug over a much shorter period of time. Even if you use more than one intranasal administration to give the whole dose, it’s still a relatively shorter time, compared with the 40 minutes.

Dr. Sederer: This means that to get the equivalent dose intranasally, the patient is going to have to experience a higher peak. Can you predict that those patients who are treated intranasally are going to have more side effects?

Dr. Mann: Right. And that should be explained to the patient. You will not need an intravenous line inserted, which some people might find highly appealing and advantageous, but you will probably have more side effects.

Also, in general, intranasal absorption of drugs is more variable. The predictability of the blood level and, therefore, the degree of antidepressant effect is not as good intranasally as intravenously.

Now, all of this is anecdotal clinical experience, based on theoretical pharmacology, because nobody has actually done a head-to-head control comparison.

Dr. Sederer: What about the cost of both of these preparations?

Dr. Mann: There is a bit of a range in pricing between ketamine clinics around the country. It’s always important to find out what they charge per administration. And then it makes a difference whether you have two or three administrations versus six plus further tapered administration. Clearly, the cost can vary a great deal.

Dr. Sederer: But it’s generally not covered by insurance, so most people are paying out of pocket.

Dr. Mann: Yes. The intranasal ketamine is still in negotiation at the moment, but it should be resolved before it’s fully marketed.

Dr. Sederer: Ketamine is used for major depression. Does it have utility in bipolar depression?

Dr. Mann: We and some others have done initial studies in bipolar depression. In our view, it’s probably going to be as effective in bipolar disorder as it is in major depressive disorder, unipolar depression.

We haven’t seen any manic episodes triggered, but we don’t give repeated doses. We allow research patients to stay on anticonvulsants or mood stabilizers, so that’s helpful. Generally, people with bipolar disorder who come for ketamine treatment for their depression are coming on a mood stabilizer, because that and perhaps other conventional antidepressants have not proven to be effective. So, I think that ketamine plus mood stabilizers seems to be very promising.

Dr. Sederer: I want to return to the antisuicidal properties that you had previously mentioned. I heard from a colleague about a patient who had been admitted to a psychiatric inpatient unit. The patient was in her 20s; she did not have major depression but was persistently suicidal, constantly trying to hurt herself in any way she could. But that seemed to be more a product of borderline personality disorder, with its impulsive and self-destructive problems.

In the end, they tried intranasal ketamine. The response was, just as you described, robust. Her self-injurious behavior dropped in a very pronounced way within a day or two. But she then did require administrations a couple of times a week in order to keep that suicidality at bay.

Based on that example, I’m wondering whether there is an application here for people who are suicidal yet who may not have features of major depression or bipolar depression.

Dr. Mann: It’s a very interesting suggestion for which we have no data-based answer. However, we have a clue from the study that we published in the American Journal of Psychiatry and have since published further analyses on.

The reasons that people die by suicide, or make suicide attempts, are not entirely attributable to the fact that they suffer from a mood disorder.

Dr. Sederer: Yes, because only a minority of individuals with a mood disorder ever make suicide attempts. But there is a subgroup at risk.

Dr. Mann: Here at Columbia, we’ve promulgated the stress-diathesis model for suicidal behavior. A stressor could be external life events, but the internal stressor would be something like an acute episode of depression.

But predisposition also plays an important role, which has several elements to it. One is decision-making. These are patients with a propensity to go for a short-term, quick relief. In other words, a patient would be seeking immediate relief rather than waiting for the delayed improvement from an antidepressant. They’re more prone to act on the pain of the depression and terminate their lives – to try to end their pain – rather than wait and hope that, in time, there’s a chance that the antidepressant will work.

Dr. Sederer: What else do you want to share with our viewers about this medication and how it’s used?

Dr. Mann: My goal in treating patients is to try to use the least amount of medication possible. We do not really know yet the long-term safety of ketamine treatment.

It’s been used for many decades in anesthesia, but people don’t get repeated anesthetic doses of ketamine. And higher doses of ketamine given repeatedly have been shown in preclinical studies to produce little lesions in the brain, which is not good. But we’re using much lower doses.

As we potentially move into a time when we could be giving multiple doses of ketamine to patients, we should remember that we need to be cautious about that. If we don’t need to give them more doses, we shouldn’t. We should know that there is a potential downside that we don’t fully understand yet to giving ketamine repeatedly.

And that’s aside from its abuse potential. We know that people have employed ketamine for physical and emotional pain, and when they administer it themselves, they tend to get dependent on it. In a clinic setting it’s given in a very formal and structured fashion, a bit like the administration of opioids. In that setting, it is much safer and the risk for abuse and diversion is minimized. But we need to remember that this drug does have abuse potential and perhaps not yet fully measurable neurotoxic effects.

Dr. Sederer: If physicians, nurses, and other professional clinicians want to learn more about this medication, what are the accurate, reliable sources of information to which you suggest they turn?

Dr. Mann: The National Institute of Mental Health’s website offers good and reliable information for patients and their families. It is an unbiased, scientific, and thoughtful source of information, and better than just trolling the Internet for information.

People are much more sophisticated now than they were 20 years ago in these matters, and scientific papers are much more accessible to the public. Reading papers in recognized journals is also a useful way to gain information.

For example, one of the major papers that we published in the American Journal of Psychiatry is available to anybody on the Internet to read. So, I encourage people to make their own inquiries and talk to more than one doctor. Informed patients and families are the best partners a doctor can ever have. We encourage that in all of our patients.

Dr. Sederer: I want to thank you very much, Dr. Mann, for your work in this area and for joining us here at Medscape and Columbia Psychiatry to teach us so much about what is truly a novel psychopharmacologic agent, yet one where we still have a lot more to learn.

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

After years of dormancy, psychiatric drug development is showing signs of life. There is the novel antipsychotic lumateperone, recently approved for adults with schizophrenia. Brexanolone was approved last year for postpartum depression. And perhaps generating the most attention lately among psychiatrists – and people with depression – is the use of ketamine and esketamine for depression.

Columbia psychiatrist J. John Mann, MD, a professor of translational neuroscience and a mood disorder specialist, has been involved in several notable studies of ketamine in patients with depression. He and his colleagues’ recent research efforts include a randomized study into ketamine’s ability to reduce suicidal thoughts in bipolar depression and an MRI analysis illuminating the role that dosing plays in antidepressant effects.

Dr. Mann sat down with his Columbia colleague Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, to discuss how, nearly a year after its approval, ketamine fits into mental health care.
 

Dr. Sederer: Nearly 20 million people in this country alone suffer from clinical depression every year. That means they have a functional impairment in addition to their suffering and are at risk of taking their own lives. Depression is a very prevalent, painful, and disabling condition. The psychopharmacologic treatments we’ve had have been more or less the same for the past 20 or 30 years.

We’ve asked Dr. Mann to … talk to us about ketamine and its nasal preparation esketamine, which is a novel psychopharmacologic treatment. Dr. Mann, please tell us about ketamine, its utility, and the yet-to-be-answered questions.

Dr. Mann: Ketamine and esketamine, which is a component of ketamine itself, is different from traditional antidepressant medications in three fundamental ways.

The first is that it acts very quickly. Traditional antidepressants take 4, 6, 8 weeks to work. This means that the patient has to put up with a great deal of suffering while waiting for a response. And the probability of the medication working isn’t that high. About 50%-70% of individuals will respond eventually at the end of this ride. But ketamine, when it works, does so in 2 hours. That’s a totally different timescale.

The second aspect is that, when it does work, it often works very robustly, even though it’s a quick-acting antidepressant. The patient often quickly feels distinctly better.

Very often when you’re using traditional antidepressants, it takes a while for the improvement to reach the point that the patient is confident that they are clearly better, and too often that does not happen.

Dr. Sederer: As the treating doctor, you’re trying to keep that patient’s hope alive, even though we don’t have substantial evidence that they’re going to respond.

Dr. Mann: Exactly. One of the difficulties of keeping patients on track with traditional antidepressants is that, after the first dose or two, they have all the side effects and yet no benefit has emerged. In many ways patients sometimes feel that they’re going backwards. They have all of their depression plus the side effects of the medication.

But with ketamine, it’s rather different. You come in, you have the treatment, and many patients feel improved in a couple of hours. And not just a bit improved, but in many cases distinctly improved.

It’s very important for clinicians to appreciate that ketamine will work in patients who have a classically described treatment-resistant depression, meaning they’ve tried several other types of antidepressant medications that haven’t worked.

A prerequisite for treatment with ketamine is that they have had a number of treatment failures. The labeling for the intranasal esketamine states that you should try the other antidepressants first and then use this if they don’t work. The fact that ketamine can work even when the other medications have failed is a huge advantage.

Dr. Sederer: There is another feature of ketamine, in that it also has a pronounced benefit for suicidal ideation, which your research has reported on.

Dr. Mann: Yes, we’ve learned over the years that depression and suicidality are in some ways comorbid conditions. That both have to be addressed in order to keep somebody alive so that they can respond to treatment.

That’s a very important point. If the patient is suffering from depression and the antidepressant takes weeks to work, they may lose hope during that time. They may become overwhelmed by the suicidal ideation, no longer able to control or resist the impulse to take their life. A lot of the management is therefore to try to help support the patient (and family) so that these thoughts never become too compelling. Often we have to consider hospitalization to protect these patients so that they can stay alive long enough for the antidepressant to work. But ketamine not only has this very rapid effect for their depression, it also has a partly independent effect on suicidal ideation that is equally rapid and robust, which can render the patient safer.

Dr. Sederer: In other words, it’s effective and rapidly so for depression, with a bonus of reducing suicidality? This sounds almost too good to be true.

Dr. Mann: There are some limitations that we have to keep in mind. One limitation is that a single administration of ketamine will produce this robust improvement but it will only persist for most people for 5-7 days.

Dr. Sederer: Is the same duration true for scheduling the next treatment as well?

Dr. Mann: Yes, it is. The patient will gradually begin to deteriorate if you do not repeat the treatment. But as we showed in our randomized controlled clinical study, with ketamine for suicidal ideation, if you continue to deliver the medication, you can sustain the benefit.

Dr. Sederer: Can a person receive both ketamine and a conventional antidepressant at the same time?

Dr. Mann: Yes. In this study, half of the patients were actually continued on their previous medication while we added the ketamine on top of that. It worked very well.

In practice, people use two approaches. One approach used by most ketamine clinics is to give six doses of ketamine at a frequency of about two per week. Then they will reduce the frequency down to once a week for a few more doses and then once a month.

Dr. Sederer:: And this is a ketamine infusion?

Dr. Mann: Yes, this generally has been a ketamine infusion. This approach seems to work quite well. But that may not be necessary.

Another strategy is to give one, two, or three doses of ketamine. If the patient doesn’t respond robustly to two or three doses, they’re not going to respond to subsequent doses.

Dr. Sederer: So, initial responses are a predictor of future response?

Dr. Mann: Exactly. Now, if they haven’t done well with two or three doses, then you’ve got to use other treatments. But if they do well with the two or three, then you’ve got a choice: You can either complete the treatment course with ketamine and then continue them on antidepressant medications, or simply treat them with ketamine alone. What we tend to do is to treat with only antidepressant medications after a small number of ketamine treatments. We also use ketamine as a kind of “rescue medication” if they relapse into severe depression, though this is true for only a minority of patients.

Dr. Sederer: One of the things that we’ve learned is that antidepressants have a very beneficial effect for some people, but then they wear out and the person starts to relapse. Should ketamine be studied as an intervention for people who are no longer responding to the antidepressant(s) that they are on?

Dr. Mann: We do not really know the answer to that question. My experience treating very seriously ill patients is that sometimes the ketamine will work very well the first time or the second time but then in the future, if you try to use it as a rescue medication, it might not work that well. There is some clinical experience that suggests that that may be true for some people. But we have no idea about the frequency or timing with which this might happen. That’s all uncertain.

Moreover, most of our control clinical trial data come from either one dose of ketamine or from a few trials where people have received multiple doses of ketamine, followed by a bit of a taper. But there are very, very few of those types of studies. We’re still learning about the use of this medication.

Dr. Sederer: Importantly, you referenced the side effects of antidepressants. What are the side effects and risks of ketamine?

Dr. Mann: We know a lot more about the immediate short-term side effects of a single dose or a few doses of ketamine. Most people will get a kind of tripping experience. They’ll feel a bit unreal, or their circumstances or experiences of the world feel a bit distorted.

Some patients develop strange ideas. Most patients don’t enjoy those symptoms, even though I know ketamine is used as a party drug, and so on and so forth.

Dr. Sederer: It seems that the context is what matters.

Dr. Mann: Yes. And in a clinic context, most patients simply don’t enjoy these types of dissociative experiences, but they put up with them. They’re not severe, in general.

Dr. Sederer: Is part of the preparation of the patient telling them that this may happen?

Dr. Mann: Yes. We try to explain the potential for these symptoms and that most people get them. These side effects almost invariably terminate with the cessation of the administration.

Dr. Sederer: What’s the typical duration of the infusion you use?

Dr. Mann: Traditionally, infusion is 40 minutes and always in a clinic setting.

Dr. Sederer: And that’s because of the concern that a patient may have these symptoms?

Dr. Mann: Exactly. They may have dissociative effects that they’re disturbed by, and we need to monitor that. They’re probably going to remain under observation in the clinic for about the same amount of time because it takes about the same time for these effects to wear off.

The other consideration is that some people get a little nausea. In our experience with the intravenous ketamine, there’s also a problematic side effect that their blood pressure will be slightly raised. Therefore, it’s good to know that the person’s blood pressure is under control before they begin the treatments and that you’re monitoring it during administration.

Dr. Sederer: What are the differences you’re discovering between esketamine and ketamine?

Dr. Mann: It is a bit different. We’ve just completed a very important National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trial here at Columbia showing that with esketamine or ketamine itself, the dose and the blood levels are very closely related to the robustness of the clinical response.

When you give a drug intravenously, you give a very reliable dose. When you give the drug over 40 minutes, you’re spreading the dose administration over a period of time so that it doesn’t peak very high. The side effects appear to be proportional to the peak dose.

When you give it intranasally, you give the drug over a much shorter period of time. Even if you use more than one intranasal administration to give the whole dose, it’s still a relatively shorter time, compared with the 40 minutes.

Dr. Sederer: This means that to get the equivalent dose intranasally, the patient is going to have to experience a higher peak. Can you predict that those patients who are treated intranasally are going to have more side effects?

Dr. Mann: Right. And that should be explained to the patient. You will not need an intravenous line inserted, which some people might find highly appealing and advantageous, but you will probably have more side effects.

Also, in general, intranasal absorption of drugs is more variable. The predictability of the blood level and, therefore, the degree of antidepressant effect is not as good intranasally as intravenously.

Now, all of this is anecdotal clinical experience, based on theoretical pharmacology, because nobody has actually done a head-to-head control comparison.

Dr. Sederer: What about the cost of both of these preparations?

Dr. Mann: There is a bit of a range in pricing between ketamine clinics around the country. It’s always important to find out what they charge per administration. And then it makes a difference whether you have two or three administrations versus six plus further tapered administration. Clearly, the cost can vary a great deal.

Dr. Sederer: But it’s generally not covered by insurance, so most people are paying out of pocket.

Dr. Mann: Yes. The intranasal ketamine is still in negotiation at the moment, but it should be resolved before it’s fully marketed.

Dr. Sederer: Ketamine is used for major depression. Does it have utility in bipolar depression?

Dr. Mann: We and some others have done initial studies in bipolar depression. In our view, it’s probably going to be as effective in bipolar disorder as it is in major depressive disorder, unipolar depression.

We haven’t seen any manic episodes triggered, but we don’t give repeated doses. We allow research patients to stay on anticonvulsants or mood stabilizers, so that’s helpful. Generally, people with bipolar disorder who come for ketamine treatment for their depression are coming on a mood stabilizer, because that and perhaps other conventional antidepressants have not proven to be effective. So, I think that ketamine plus mood stabilizers seems to be very promising.

Dr. Sederer: I want to return to the antisuicidal properties that you had previously mentioned. I heard from a colleague about a patient who had been admitted to a psychiatric inpatient unit. The patient was in her 20s; she did not have major depression but was persistently suicidal, constantly trying to hurt herself in any way she could. But that seemed to be more a product of borderline personality disorder, with its impulsive and self-destructive problems.

In the end, they tried intranasal ketamine. The response was, just as you described, robust. Her self-injurious behavior dropped in a very pronounced way within a day or two. But she then did require administrations a couple of times a week in order to keep that suicidality at bay.

Based on that example, I’m wondering whether there is an application here for people who are suicidal yet who may not have features of major depression or bipolar depression.

Dr. Mann: It’s a very interesting suggestion for which we have no data-based answer. However, we have a clue from the study that we published in the American Journal of Psychiatry and have since published further analyses on.

The reasons that people die by suicide, or make suicide attempts, are not entirely attributable to the fact that they suffer from a mood disorder.

Dr. Sederer: Yes, because only a minority of individuals with a mood disorder ever make suicide attempts. But there is a subgroup at risk.

Dr. Mann: Here at Columbia, we’ve promulgated the stress-diathesis model for suicidal behavior. A stressor could be external life events, but the internal stressor would be something like an acute episode of depression.

But predisposition also plays an important role, which has several elements to it. One is decision-making. These are patients with a propensity to go for a short-term, quick relief. In other words, a patient would be seeking immediate relief rather than waiting for the delayed improvement from an antidepressant. They’re more prone to act on the pain of the depression and terminate their lives – to try to end their pain – rather than wait and hope that, in time, there’s a chance that the antidepressant will work.

Dr. Sederer: What else do you want to share with our viewers about this medication and how it’s used?

Dr. Mann: My goal in treating patients is to try to use the least amount of medication possible. We do not really know yet the long-term safety of ketamine treatment.

It’s been used for many decades in anesthesia, but people don’t get repeated anesthetic doses of ketamine. And higher doses of ketamine given repeatedly have been shown in preclinical studies to produce little lesions in the brain, which is not good. But we’re using much lower doses.

As we potentially move into a time when we could be giving multiple doses of ketamine to patients, we should remember that we need to be cautious about that. If we don’t need to give them more doses, we shouldn’t. We should know that there is a potential downside that we don’t fully understand yet to giving ketamine repeatedly.

And that’s aside from its abuse potential. We know that people have employed ketamine for physical and emotional pain, and when they administer it themselves, they tend to get dependent on it. In a clinic setting it’s given in a very formal and structured fashion, a bit like the administration of opioids. In that setting, it is much safer and the risk for abuse and diversion is minimized. But we need to remember that this drug does have abuse potential and perhaps not yet fully measurable neurotoxic effects.

Dr. Sederer: If physicians, nurses, and other professional clinicians want to learn more about this medication, what are the accurate, reliable sources of information to which you suggest they turn?

Dr. Mann: The National Institute of Mental Health’s website offers good and reliable information for patients and their families. It is an unbiased, scientific, and thoughtful source of information, and better than just trolling the Internet for information.

People are much more sophisticated now than they were 20 years ago in these matters, and scientific papers are much more accessible to the public. Reading papers in recognized journals is also a useful way to gain information.

For example, one of the major papers that we published in the American Journal of Psychiatry is available to anybody on the Internet to read. So, I encourage people to make their own inquiries and talk to more than one doctor. Informed patients and families are the best partners a doctor can ever have. We encourage that in all of our patients.

Dr. Sederer: I want to thank you very much, Dr. Mann, for your work in this area and for joining us here at Medscape and Columbia Psychiatry to teach us so much about what is truly a novel psychopharmacologic agent, yet one where we still have a lot more to learn.

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

After years of dormancy, psychiatric drug development is showing signs of life. There is the novel antipsychotic lumateperone, recently approved for adults with schizophrenia. Brexanolone was approved last year for postpartum depression. And perhaps generating the most attention lately among psychiatrists – and people with depression – is the use of ketamine and esketamine for depression.

Columbia psychiatrist J. John Mann, MD, a professor of translational neuroscience and a mood disorder specialist, has been involved in several notable studies of ketamine in patients with depression. He and his colleagues’ recent research efforts include a randomized study into ketamine’s ability to reduce suicidal thoughts in bipolar depression and an MRI analysis illuminating the role that dosing plays in antidepressant effects.

Dr. Mann sat down with his Columbia colleague Lloyd I. Sederer, MD, to discuss how, nearly a year after its approval, ketamine fits into mental health care.
 

Dr. Sederer: Nearly 20 million people in this country alone suffer from clinical depression every year. That means they have a functional impairment in addition to their suffering and are at risk of taking their own lives. Depression is a very prevalent, painful, and disabling condition. The psychopharmacologic treatments we’ve had have been more or less the same for the past 20 or 30 years.

We’ve asked Dr. Mann to … talk to us about ketamine and its nasal preparation esketamine, which is a novel psychopharmacologic treatment. Dr. Mann, please tell us about ketamine, its utility, and the yet-to-be-answered questions.

Dr. Mann: Ketamine and esketamine, which is a component of ketamine itself, is different from traditional antidepressant medications in three fundamental ways.

The first is that it acts very quickly. Traditional antidepressants take 4, 6, 8 weeks to work. This means that the patient has to put up with a great deal of suffering while waiting for a response. And the probability of the medication working isn’t that high. About 50%-70% of individuals will respond eventually at the end of this ride. But ketamine, when it works, does so in 2 hours. That’s a totally different timescale.

The second aspect is that, when it does work, it often works very robustly, even though it’s a quick-acting antidepressant. The patient often quickly feels distinctly better.

Very often when you’re using traditional antidepressants, it takes a while for the improvement to reach the point that the patient is confident that they are clearly better, and too often that does not happen.

Dr. Sederer: As the treating doctor, you’re trying to keep that patient’s hope alive, even though we don’t have substantial evidence that they’re going to respond.

Dr. Mann: Exactly. One of the difficulties of keeping patients on track with traditional antidepressants is that, after the first dose or two, they have all the side effects and yet no benefit has emerged. In many ways patients sometimes feel that they’re going backwards. They have all of their depression plus the side effects of the medication.

But with ketamine, it’s rather different. You come in, you have the treatment, and many patients feel improved in a couple of hours. And not just a bit improved, but in many cases distinctly improved.

It’s very important for clinicians to appreciate that ketamine will work in patients who have a classically described treatment-resistant depression, meaning they’ve tried several other types of antidepressant medications that haven’t worked.

A prerequisite for treatment with ketamine is that they have had a number of treatment failures. The labeling for the intranasal esketamine states that you should try the other antidepressants first and then use this if they don’t work. The fact that ketamine can work even when the other medications have failed is a huge advantage.

Dr. Sederer: There is another feature of ketamine, in that it also has a pronounced benefit for suicidal ideation, which your research has reported on.

Dr. Mann: Yes, we’ve learned over the years that depression and suicidality are in some ways comorbid conditions. That both have to be addressed in order to keep somebody alive so that they can respond to treatment.

That’s a very important point. If the patient is suffering from depression and the antidepressant takes weeks to work, they may lose hope during that time. They may become overwhelmed by the suicidal ideation, no longer able to control or resist the impulse to take their life. A lot of the management is therefore to try to help support the patient (and family) so that these thoughts never become too compelling. Often we have to consider hospitalization to protect these patients so that they can stay alive long enough for the antidepressant to work. But ketamine not only has this very rapid effect for their depression, it also has a partly independent effect on suicidal ideation that is equally rapid and robust, which can render the patient safer.

Dr. Sederer: In other words, it’s effective and rapidly so for depression, with a bonus of reducing suicidality? This sounds almost too good to be true.

Dr. Mann: There are some limitations that we have to keep in mind. One limitation is that a single administration of ketamine will produce this robust improvement but it will only persist for most people for 5-7 days.

Dr. Sederer: Is the same duration true for scheduling the next treatment as well?

Dr. Mann: Yes, it is. The patient will gradually begin to deteriorate if you do not repeat the treatment. But as we showed in our randomized controlled clinical study, with ketamine for suicidal ideation, if you continue to deliver the medication, you can sustain the benefit.

Dr. Sederer: Can a person receive both ketamine and a conventional antidepressant at the same time?

Dr. Mann: Yes. In this study, half of the patients were actually continued on their previous medication while we added the ketamine on top of that. It worked very well.

In practice, people use two approaches. One approach used by most ketamine clinics is to give six doses of ketamine at a frequency of about two per week. Then they will reduce the frequency down to once a week for a few more doses and then once a month.

Dr. Sederer:: And this is a ketamine infusion?

Dr. Mann: Yes, this generally has been a ketamine infusion. This approach seems to work quite well. But that may not be necessary.

Another strategy is to give one, two, or three doses of ketamine. If the patient doesn’t respond robustly to two or three doses, they’re not going to respond to subsequent doses.

Dr. Sederer: So, initial responses are a predictor of future response?

Dr. Mann: Exactly. Now, if they haven’t done well with two or three doses, then you’ve got to use other treatments. But if they do well with the two or three, then you’ve got a choice: You can either complete the treatment course with ketamine and then continue them on antidepressant medications, or simply treat them with ketamine alone. What we tend to do is to treat with only antidepressant medications after a small number of ketamine treatments. We also use ketamine as a kind of “rescue medication” if they relapse into severe depression, though this is true for only a minority of patients.

Dr. Sederer: One of the things that we’ve learned is that antidepressants have a very beneficial effect for some people, but then they wear out and the person starts to relapse. Should ketamine be studied as an intervention for people who are no longer responding to the antidepressant(s) that they are on?

Dr. Mann: We do not really know the answer to that question. My experience treating very seriously ill patients is that sometimes the ketamine will work very well the first time or the second time but then in the future, if you try to use it as a rescue medication, it might not work that well. There is some clinical experience that suggests that that may be true for some people. But we have no idea about the frequency or timing with which this might happen. That’s all uncertain.

Moreover, most of our control clinical trial data come from either one dose of ketamine or from a few trials where people have received multiple doses of ketamine, followed by a bit of a taper. But there are very, very few of those types of studies. We’re still learning about the use of this medication.

Dr. Sederer: Importantly, you referenced the side effects of antidepressants. What are the side effects and risks of ketamine?

Dr. Mann: We know a lot more about the immediate short-term side effects of a single dose or a few doses of ketamine. Most people will get a kind of tripping experience. They’ll feel a bit unreal, or their circumstances or experiences of the world feel a bit distorted.

Some patients develop strange ideas. Most patients don’t enjoy those symptoms, even though I know ketamine is used as a party drug, and so on and so forth.

Dr. Sederer: It seems that the context is what matters.

Dr. Mann: Yes. And in a clinic context, most patients simply don’t enjoy these types of dissociative experiences, but they put up with them. They’re not severe, in general.

Dr. Sederer: Is part of the preparation of the patient telling them that this may happen?

Dr. Mann: Yes. We try to explain the potential for these symptoms and that most people get them. These side effects almost invariably terminate with the cessation of the administration.

Dr. Sederer: What’s the typical duration of the infusion you use?

Dr. Mann: Traditionally, infusion is 40 minutes and always in a clinic setting.

Dr. Sederer: And that’s because of the concern that a patient may have these symptoms?

Dr. Mann: Exactly. They may have dissociative effects that they’re disturbed by, and we need to monitor that. They’re probably going to remain under observation in the clinic for about the same amount of time because it takes about the same time for these effects to wear off.

The other consideration is that some people get a little nausea. In our experience with the intravenous ketamine, there’s also a problematic side effect that their blood pressure will be slightly raised. Therefore, it’s good to know that the person’s blood pressure is under control before they begin the treatments and that you’re monitoring it during administration.

Dr. Sederer: What are the differences you’re discovering between esketamine and ketamine?

Dr. Mann: It is a bit different. We’ve just completed a very important National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trial here at Columbia showing that with esketamine or ketamine itself, the dose and the blood levels are very closely related to the robustness of the clinical response.

When you give a drug intravenously, you give a very reliable dose. When you give the drug over 40 minutes, you’re spreading the dose administration over a period of time so that it doesn’t peak very high. The side effects appear to be proportional to the peak dose.

When you give it intranasally, you give the drug over a much shorter period of time. Even if you use more than one intranasal administration to give the whole dose, it’s still a relatively shorter time, compared with the 40 minutes.

Dr. Sederer: This means that to get the equivalent dose intranasally, the patient is going to have to experience a higher peak. Can you predict that those patients who are treated intranasally are going to have more side effects?

Dr. Mann: Right. And that should be explained to the patient. You will not need an intravenous line inserted, which some people might find highly appealing and advantageous, but you will probably have more side effects.

Also, in general, intranasal absorption of drugs is more variable. The predictability of the blood level and, therefore, the degree of antidepressant effect is not as good intranasally as intravenously.

Now, all of this is anecdotal clinical experience, based on theoretical pharmacology, because nobody has actually done a head-to-head control comparison.

Dr. Sederer: What about the cost of both of these preparations?

Dr. Mann: There is a bit of a range in pricing between ketamine clinics around the country. It’s always important to find out what they charge per administration. And then it makes a difference whether you have two or three administrations versus six plus further tapered administration. Clearly, the cost can vary a great deal.

Dr. Sederer: But it’s generally not covered by insurance, so most people are paying out of pocket.

Dr. Mann: Yes. The intranasal ketamine is still in negotiation at the moment, but it should be resolved before it’s fully marketed.

Dr. Sederer: Ketamine is used for major depression. Does it have utility in bipolar depression?

Dr. Mann: We and some others have done initial studies in bipolar depression. In our view, it’s probably going to be as effective in bipolar disorder as it is in major depressive disorder, unipolar depression.

We haven’t seen any manic episodes triggered, but we don’t give repeated doses. We allow research patients to stay on anticonvulsants or mood stabilizers, so that’s helpful. Generally, people with bipolar disorder who come for ketamine treatment for their depression are coming on a mood stabilizer, because that and perhaps other conventional antidepressants have not proven to be effective. So, I think that ketamine plus mood stabilizers seems to be very promising.

Dr. Sederer: I want to return to the antisuicidal properties that you had previously mentioned. I heard from a colleague about a patient who had been admitted to a psychiatric inpatient unit. The patient was in her 20s; she did not have major depression but was persistently suicidal, constantly trying to hurt herself in any way she could. But that seemed to be more a product of borderline personality disorder, with its impulsive and self-destructive problems.

In the end, they tried intranasal ketamine. The response was, just as you described, robust. Her self-injurious behavior dropped in a very pronounced way within a day or two. But she then did require administrations a couple of times a week in order to keep that suicidality at bay.

Based on that example, I’m wondering whether there is an application here for people who are suicidal yet who may not have features of major depression or bipolar depression.

Dr. Mann: It’s a very interesting suggestion for which we have no data-based answer. However, we have a clue from the study that we published in the American Journal of Psychiatry and have since published further analyses on.

The reasons that people die by suicide, or make suicide attempts, are not entirely attributable to the fact that they suffer from a mood disorder.

Dr. Sederer: Yes, because only a minority of individuals with a mood disorder ever make suicide attempts. But there is a subgroup at risk.

Dr. Mann: Here at Columbia, we’ve promulgated the stress-diathesis model for suicidal behavior. A stressor could be external life events, but the internal stressor would be something like an acute episode of depression.

But predisposition also plays an important role, which has several elements to it. One is decision-making. These are patients with a propensity to go for a short-term, quick relief. In other words, a patient would be seeking immediate relief rather than waiting for the delayed improvement from an antidepressant. They’re more prone to act on the pain of the depression and terminate their lives – to try to end their pain – rather than wait and hope that, in time, there’s a chance that the antidepressant will work.

Dr. Sederer: What else do you want to share with our viewers about this medication and how it’s used?

Dr. Mann: My goal in treating patients is to try to use the least amount of medication possible. We do not really know yet the long-term safety of ketamine treatment.

It’s been used for many decades in anesthesia, but people don’t get repeated anesthetic doses of ketamine. And higher doses of ketamine given repeatedly have been shown in preclinical studies to produce little lesions in the brain, which is not good. But we’re using much lower doses.

As we potentially move into a time when we could be giving multiple doses of ketamine to patients, we should remember that we need to be cautious about that. If we don’t need to give them more doses, we shouldn’t. We should know that there is a potential downside that we don’t fully understand yet to giving ketamine repeatedly.

And that’s aside from its abuse potential. We know that people have employed ketamine for physical and emotional pain, and when they administer it themselves, they tend to get dependent on it. In a clinic setting it’s given in a very formal and structured fashion, a bit like the administration of opioids. In that setting, it is much safer and the risk for abuse and diversion is minimized. But we need to remember that this drug does have abuse potential and perhaps not yet fully measurable neurotoxic effects.

Dr. Sederer: If physicians, nurses, and other professional clinicians want to learn more about this medication, what are the accurate, reliable sources of information to which you suggest they turn?

Dr. Mann: The National Institute of Mental Health’s website offers good and reliable information for patients and their families. It is an unbiased, scientific, and thoughtful source of information, and better than just trolling the Internet for information.

People are much more sophisticated now than they were 20 years ago in these matters, and scientific papers are much more accessible to the public. Reading papers in recognized journals is also a useful way to gain information.

For example, one of the major papers that we published in the American Journal of Psychiatry is available to anybody on the Internet to read. So, I encourage people to make their own inquiries and talk to more than one doctor. Informed patients and families are the best partners a doctor can ever have. We encourage that in all of our patients.

Dr. Sederer: I want to thank you very much, Dr. Mann, for your work in this area and for joining us here at Medscape and Columbia Psychiatry to teach us so much about what is truly a novel psychopharmacologic agent, yet one where we still have a lot more to learn.

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