Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Study Overview

Objective. To examine the effect of an advance care planning video intervention in nursing homes on resident outcomes of hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, and hospice enrollment.

Design. Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants. The study was conducted in 360 nursing homes located in 32 states across the United States. The facilities were owned by 2 for-profit nursing home chains; facilities with more than 50 beds were eligible to be included in the study. Facilities deemed by corporate leaders to have serious organizational problems or that lacked the ability to transfer electronic health records were excluded. The facilities, stratified by the primary outcome hospitalizations per 1000 person-days, were then randomized to intervention and control in a 1:2 ratio. Leaders from facilities in the intervention group received letters describing their selection to participate in the advance care planning video program, and all facilities invited agreed to participate. Participants (residents in nursing homes) were enrolled from February 1, 2016, to May 31, 2018. Each participant was followed for 12 months after enrollment. All residents living in intervention facilities were offered the opportunity to watch intervention videos. The target population of the study was residents with advanced illness, including advanced dementia or advanced cardiopulmonary disease, as defined by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) variables, who were aged 65 and older, were long-stay residents (100 days or more), and were enrolled as Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Secondary analysis included residents without advanced illness meeting other criteria.

Intervention. The intervention consisted of a selection of 5 short videos (6 to 10 minutes each), which had been previously developed and tested in smaller randomized trials. These videos cover the topics of general goals of care, goals of care for advanced dementia, hospice, hospitalization, and advance care planning for healthy patients, and use narration and images of typical treatments representing intensive medical care, basic medical care, and comfort care. The video for goals of care for advanced dementia targeted proxies of residents rather than residents themselves.

The implementation strategy for the video program included using a program manager to oversee the organization of the program’s rollout (a manager for each for-profit nursing home chain) and 2 champions at each facility (typically social workers were tasked with showing videos to patients and families). Champions received training from the study investigators and the manager and were asked to choose and offer selected videos to residents or proxies within 7 days of admission or readmission, every 6 months during a resident’s stay, and when specific decisions occurred, such as transition to hospice care, and on special occasions, such as out-of-town family visits.

Video offering and use were captured through documentation by a facility champion using a report tool embedded in the facility’s electronic health record. Champions met with the facility’s program manager and study team to review reports of video use, identify residents who had not been shown a video, and problem-solve on how to reach these residents. Facilities in the control group used their usual procedures for advance care planning.

Main outcome measures. Study outcomes included hospitalization transfers per 1000 person-days alive among long-stay residents with advanced illness (primary outcome); proportion of residents with at least 1 hospital transfer; proportion of residents with at least 1 burdensome treatment; and hospice enrollment (secondary outcomes). Secondary outcomes also included hospitalization transfers for long-stay residents without advanced illness. Hospital transfers were identified using Medicare claims for admissions, emergency department visits, and observation stays. Burdensome treatments were identified from Medicare claims and MDS, including tube feeding, parenteral therapy, invasive mechanical intervention, and intensive care unit admission. Fidelity to video intervention was measured by the proportion of residents offered the videos and the proportion of residents shown the videos at least once during the study period.

Main results. A total of 360 facilities were included in the study, 119 intervention and 241 control facilities. For the primary outcome, 4171 residents with advanced illness were included in the intervention group and 8308 residents with advanced illness were included in the control group. The average age was 83.6 years in both groups. In the intervention and control groups, respectively, 71.2% and 70.5% were female, 78.4% and 81.5% were White, 68.6% and 70.1% had advanced dementia at baseline, and 35.4% and 33.4% had advanced congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at baseline. Approximately 34% of residents received hospice care at baseline. In the intervention and control groups, 43.9% and 45.3% of residents died during follow-up, and the average length of follow-up in each group was 253.1 days and 252.6 days, respectively.

For the primary outcome of hospital transfers per 1000 person-days alive, there were 3.7 episodes (standard error 0.2) in the intervention group and 3.9 episodes in the control group (standard error 0.3); the difference was not statistically significant. For residents without advanced illness, there also was no difference in the hospital transfer rate. For other secondary outcomes, the proportion of residents in the intervention and control groups with 1 or more hospital transfer was 40.9% and 41.6%, respectively; the proportion with 1 or more burdensome treatment was 9.6% and 10.7%; and hospice enrollment was 24.9% and 25.5%. None of these differences was statistically significant. In the intervention group, 55.6% of residents or proxies were offered the video intervention and 21.9% were shown the videos at least once. There was substantial variability in the proportion of residents in the intervention group who were shown videos.

Conclusion. The advance planning video program did not lead to a reduction in hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, or changes in hospice enrollment. Acceptance of the intervention by residents was variable, and this may have contributed to the null finding.

Commentary

Nursing home residents often have advanced illness and limited functional ability. Hospital transfers may be burdensome and of limited clinical benefit for these patients, particularly for those with advanced illness and limited life expectancy, and are associated with markers of poor quality of end-of-life care, such as increased rates of stage IV decubitus ulcer and feeding-tube use towards the end of life.¹ Advance care planning is associated with less aggressive care towards the end of life for persons with advanced illness,² which ultimately improves the quality of end-of-life care for these individuals. Prior interventions to improve advance care planning have had variable effects, while video-based interventions to improve advance care planning have shown promise.³

This pragmatic randomized trial assessed the effect of an advance care planning video program on important clinical outcomes for nursing home residents, particularly those with advanced illness. The results, however, are disappointing, as the video intervention failed to improve hospital transfer rate and burdensome treatment in this population. The negative results could be attributed to the limited adoption of the video intervention in the study, as only 21.9% of residents in the intervention group were actually exposed to the intervention. What is not reported, and is difficult to assess, is whether the video intervention led to advance care planning, as would be demonstrated by advance directive documentation and acceptance of goals of care of comfort. A per-protocol analysis may be considered to demonstrate if there is an effect on residents who were exposed to the intervention. Nonetheless, the low adoption rate of the intervention may prompt further investigation of factors limiting adoption and perhaps lead to a redesigned trial aimed at enhancing adoption, with consideration of use of implementation trial designs.

As pointed out by the study investigators, other changes to nursing home practices, specifically on hospital transfer, likely occurred during the study period. A number of national initiatives to reduce unnecessary hospital transfer from nursing homes have been introduced, and a reduction in hospital transfers occurred between 2011 and 2017⁴; these initiatives could have impacted staff priorities and adoption of the study intervention relative to other co-occurring initiatives.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The authors of this study reported negative trial results, but their findings highlight important issues in conducting trials in the nursing home setting. Additional demonstration of actual effect on advance care planning discussions and documentation will further enhance our understanding of whether the intervention, as tested, yields changes in practice on advance care planning in nursing homes. The pragmatic clinical trial design used in this study accounts for real-world settings, but may have limited the study’s ability to account for and adjust for differences in staff, settings, and other conditions and factors that may impact adoption of and fidelity to the intervention. Quality improvement approaches, such as INTERACT, have targeted unnecessary hospital transfers and may yield positive results.⁵ Quality improvement approaches like INTERACT allow for a high degree of adaptation to local procedures and settings, which in clinical trials is difficult to do. However, in a real-world setting, such approaches may be necessary to improve care.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To examine the effect of an advance care planning video intervention in nursing homes on resident outcomes of hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, and hospice enrollment.

Design. Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants. The study was conducted in 360 nursing homes located in 32 states across the United States. The facilities were owned by 2 for-profit nursing home chains; facilities with more than 50 beds were eligible to be included in the study. Facilities deemed by corporate leaders to have serious organizational problems or that lacked the ability to transfer electronic health records were excluded. The facilities, stratified by the primary outcome hospitalizations per 1000 person-days, were then randomized to intervention and control in a 1:2 ratio. Leaders from facilities in the intervention group received letters describing their selection to participate in the advance care planning video program, and all facilities invited agreed to participate. Participants (residents in nursing homes) were enrolled from February 1, 2016, to May 31, 2018. Each participant was followed for 12 months after enrollment. All residents living in intervention facilities were offered the opportunity to watch intervention videos. The target population of the study was residents with advanced illness, including advanced dementia or advanced cardiopulmonary disease, as defined by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) variables, who were aged 65 and older, were long-stay residents (100 days or more), and were enrolled as Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Secondary analysis included residents without advanced illness meeting other criteria.

Intervention. The intervention consisted of a selection of 5 short videos (6 to 10 minutes each), which had been previously developed and tested in smaller randomized trials. These videos cover the topics of general goals of care, goals of care for advanced dementia, hospice, hospitalization, and advance care planning for healthy patients, and use narration and images of typical treatments representing intensive medical care, basic medical care, and comfort care. The video for goals of care for advanced dementia targeted proxies of residents rather than residents themselves.

The implementation strategy for the video program included using a program manager to oversee the organization of the program’s rollout (a manager for each for-profit nursing home chain) and 2 champions at each facility (typically social workers were tasked with showing videos to patients and families). Champions received training from the study investigators and the manager and were asked to choose and offer selected videos to residents or proxies within 7 days of admission or readmission, every 6 months during a resident’s stay, and when specific decisions occurred, such as transition to hospice care, and on special occasions, such as out-of-town family visits.

Video offering and use were captured through documentation by a facility champion using a report tool embedded in the facility’s electronic health record. Champions met with the facility’s program manager and study team to review reports of video use, identify residents who had not been shown a video, and problem-solve on how to reach these residents. Facilities in the control group used their usual procedures for advance care planning.

Main outcome measures. Study outcomes included hospitalization transfers per 1000 person-days alive among long-stay residents with advanced illness (primary outcome); proportion of residents with at least 1 hospital transfer; proportion of residents with at least 1 burdensome treatment; and hospice enrollment (secondary outcomes). Secondary outcomes also included hospitalization transfers for long-stay residents without advanced illness. Hospital transfers were identified using Medicare claims for admissions, emergency department visits, and observation stays. Burdensome treatments were identified from Medicare claims and MDS, including tube feeding, parenteral therapy, invasive mechanical intervention, and intensive care unit admission. Fidelity to video intervention was measured by the proportion of residents offered the videos and the proportion of residents shown the videos at least once during the study period.

Main results. A total of 360 facilities were included in the study, 119 intervention and 241 control facilities. For the primary outcome, 4171 residents with advanced illness were included in the intervention group and 8308 residents with advanced illness were included in the control group. The average age was 83.6 years in both groups. In the intervention and control groups, respectively, 71.2% and 70.5% were female, 78.4% and 81.5% were White, 68.6% and 70.1% had advanced dementia at baseline, and 35.4% and 33.4% had advanced congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at baseline. Approximately 34% of residents received hospice care at baseline. In the intervention and control groups, 43.9% and 45.3% of residents died during follow-up, and the average length of follow-up in each group was 253.1 days and 252.6 days, respectively.

For the primary outcome of hospital transfers per 1000 person-days alive, there were 3.7 episodes (standard error 0.2) in the intervention group and 3.9 episodes in the control group (standard error 0.3); the difference was not statistically significant. For residents without advanced illness, there also was no difference in the hospital transfer rate. For other secondary outcomes, the proportion of residents in the intervention and control groups with 1 or more hospital transfer was 40.9% and 41.6%, respectively; the proportion with 1 or more burdensome treatment was 9.6% and 10.7%; and hospice enrollment was 24.9% and 25.5%. None of these differences was statistically significant. In the intervention group, 55.6% of residents or proxies were offered the video intervention and 21.9% were shown the videos at least once. There was substantial variability in the proportion of residents in the intervention group who were shown videos.

Conclusion. The advance planning video program did not lead to a reduction in hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, or changes in hospice enrollment. Acceptance of the intervention by residents was variable, and this may have contributed to the null finding.

Commentary

Nursing home residents often have advanced illness and limited functional ability. Hospital transfers may be burdensome and of limited clinical benefit for these patients, particularly for those with advanced illness and limited life expectancy, and are associated with markers of poor quality of end-of-life care, such as increased rates of stage IV decubitus ulcer and feeding-tube use towards the end of life.¹ Advance care planning is associated with less aggressive care towards the end of life for persons with advanced illness,² which ultimately improves the quality of end-of-life care for these individuals. Prior interventions to improve advance care planning have had variable effects, while video-based interventions to improve advance care planning have shown promise.³

This pragmatic randomized trial assessed the effect of an advance care planning video program on important clinical outcomes for nursing home residents, particularly those with advanced illness. The results, however, are disappointing, as the video intervention failed to improve hospital transfer rate and burdensome treatment in this population. The negative results could be attributed to the limited adoption of the video intervention in the study, as only 21.9% of residents in the intervention group were actually exposed to the intervention. What is not reported, and is difficult to assess, is whether the video intervention led to advance care planning, as would be demonstrated by advance directive documentation and acceptance of goals of care of comfort. A per-protocol analysis may be considered to demonstrate if there is an effect on residents who were exposed to the intervention. Nonetheless, the low adoption rate of the intervention may prompt further investigation of factors limiting adoption and perhaps lead to a redesigned trial aimed at enhancing adoption, with consideration of use of implementation trial designs.

As pointed out by the study investigators, other changes to nursing home practices, specifically on hospital transfer, likely occurred during the study period. A number of national initiatives to reduce unnecessary hospital transfer from nursing homes have been introduced, and a reduction in hospital transfers occurred between 2011 and 2017⁴; these initiatives could have impacted staff priorities and adoption of the study intervention relative to other co-occurring initiatives.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The authors of this study reported negative trial results, but their findings highlight important issues in conducting trials in the nursing home setting. Additional demonstration of actual effect on advance care planning discussions and documentation will further enhance our understanding of whether the intervention, as tested, yields changes in practice on advance care planning in nursing homes. The pragmatic clinical trial design used in this study accounts for real-world settings, but may have limited the study’s ability to account for and adjust for differences in staff, settings, and other conditions and factors that may impact adoption of and fidelity to the intervention. Quality improvement approaches, such as INTERACT, have targeted unnecessary hospital transfers and may yield positive results.⁵ Quality improvement approaches like INTERACT allow for a high degree of adaptation to local procedures and settings, which in clinical trials is difficult to do. However, in a real-world setting, such approaches may be necessary to improve care.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To examine the effect of an advance care planning video intervention in nursing homes on resident outcomes of hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, and hospice enrollment.

Design. Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants. The study was conducted in 360 nursing homes located in 32 states across the United States. The facilities were owned by 2 for-profit nursing home chains; facilities with more than 50 beds were eligible to be included in the study. Facilities deemed by corporate leaders to have serious organizational problems or that lacked the ability to transfer electronic health records were excluded. The facilities, stratified by the primary outcome hospitalizations per 1000 person-days, were then randomized to intervention and control in a 1:2 ratio. Leaders from facilities in the intervention group received letters describing their selection to participate in the advance care planning video program, and all facilities invited agreed to participate. Participants (residents in nursing homes) were enrolled from February 1, 2016, to May 31, 2018. Each participant was followed for 12 months after enrollment. All residents living in intervention facilities were offered the opportunity to watch intervention videos. The target population of the study was residents with advanced illness, including advanced dementia or advanced cardiopulmonary disease, as defined by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) variables, who were aged 65 and older, were long-stay residents (100 days or more), and were enrolled as Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Secondary analysis included residents without advanced illness meeting other criteria.

Intervention. The intervention consisted of a selection of 5 short videos (6 to 10 minutes each), which had been previously developed and tested in smaller randomized trials. These videos cover the topics of general goals of care, goals of care for advanced dementia, hospice, hospitalization, and advance care planning for healthy patients, and use narration and images of typical treatments representing intensive medical care, basic medical care, and comfort care. The video for goals of care for advanced dementia targeted proxies of residents rather than residents themselves.

The implementation strategy for the video program included using a program manager to oversee the organization of the program’s rollout (a manager for each for-profit nursing home chain) and 2 champions at each facility (typically social workers were tasked with showing videos to patients and families). Champions received training from the study investigators and the manager and were asked to choose and offer selected videos to residents or proxies within 7 days of admission or readmission, every 6 months during a resident’s stay, and when specific decisions occurred, such as transition to hospice care, and on special occasions, such as out-of-town family visits.

Video offering and use were captured through documentation by a facility champion using a report tool embedded in the facility’s electronic health record. Champions met with the facility’s program manager and study team to review reports of video use, identify residents who had not been shown a video, and problem-solve on how to reach these residents. Facilities in the control group used their usual procedures for advance care planning.

Main outcome measures. Study outcomes included hospitalization transfers per 1000 person-days alive among long-stay residents with advanced illness (primary outcome); proportion of residents with at least 1 hospital transfer; proportion of residents with at least 1 burdensome treatment; and hospice enrollment (secondary outcomes). Secondary outcomes also included hospitalization transfers for long-stay residents without advanced illness. Hospital transfers were identified using Medicare claims for admissions, emergency department visits, and observation stays. Burdensome treatments were identified from Medicare claims and MDS, including tube feeding, parenteral therapy, invasive mechanical intervention, and intensive care unit admission. Fidelity to video intervention was measured by the proportion of residents offered the videos and the proportion of residents shown the videos at least once during the study period.

Main results. A total of 360 facilities were included in the study, 119 intervention and 241 control facilities. For the primary outcome, 4171 residents with advanced illness were included in the intervention group and 8308 residents with advanced illness were included in the control group. The average age was 83.6 years in both groups. In the intervention and control groups, respectively, 71.2% and 70.5% were female, 78.4% and 81.5% were White, 68.6% and 70.1% had advanced dementia at baseline, and 35.4% and 33.4% had advanced congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at baseline. Approximately 34% of residents received hospice care at baseline. In the intervention and control groups, 43.9% and 45.3% of residents died during follow-up, and the average length of follow-up in each group was 253.1 days and 252.6 days, respectively.

For the primary outcome of hospital transfers per 1000 person-days alive, there were 3.7 episodes (standard error 0.2) in the intervention group and 3.9 episodes in the control group (standard error 0.3); the difference was not statistically significant. For residents without advanced illness, there also was no difference in the hospital transfer rate. For other secondary outcomes, the proportion of residents in the intervention and control groups with 1 or more hospital transfer was 40.9% and 41.6%, respectively; the proportion with 1 or more burdensome treatment was 9.6% and 10.7%; and hospice enrollment was 24.9% and 25.5%. None of these differences was statistically significant. In the intervention group, 55.6% of residents or proxies were offered the video intervention and 21.9% were shown the videos at least once. There was substantial variability in the proportion of residents in the intervention group who were shown videos.

Conclusion. The advance planning video program did not lead to a reduction in hospital transfer, burdensome treatment, or changes in hospice enrollment. Acceptance of the intervention by residents was variable, and this may have contributed to the null finding.

Commentary

Nursing home residents often have advanced illness and limited functional ability. Hospital transfers may be burdensome and of limited clinical benefit for these patients, particularly for those with advanced illness and limited life expectancy, and are associated with markers of poor quality of end-of-life care, such as increased rates of stage IV decubitus ulcer and feeding-tube use towards the end of life.¹ Advance care planning is associated with less aggressive care towards the end of life for persons with advanced illness,² which ultimately improves the quality of end-of-life care for these individuals. Prior interventions to improve advance care planning have had variable effects, while video-based interventions to improve advance care planning have shown promise.³

This pragmatic randomized trial assessed the effect of an advance care planning video program on important clinical outcomes for nursing home residents, particularly those with advanced illness. The results, however, are disappointing, as the video intervention failed to improve hospital transfer rate and burdensome treatment in this population. The negative results could be attributed to the limited adoption of the video intervention in the study, as only 21.9% of residents in the intervention group were actually exposed to the intervention. What is not reported, and is difficult to assess, is whether the video intervention led to advance care planning, as would be demonstrated by advance directive documentation and acceptance of goals of care of comfort. A per-protocol analysis may be considered to demonstrate if there is an effect on residents who were exposed to the intervention. Nonetheless, the low adoption rate of the intervention may prompt further investigation of factors limiting adoption and perhaps lead to a redesigned trial aimed at enhancing adoption, with consideration of use of implementation trial designs.

As pointed out by the study investigators, other changes to nursing home practices, specifically on hospital transfer, likely occurred during the study period. A number of national initiatives to reduce unnecessary hospital transfer from nursing homes have been introduced, and a reduction in hospital transfers occurred between 2011 and 2017⁴; these initiatives could have impacted staff priorities and adoption of the study intervention relative to other co-occurring initiatives.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The authors of this study reported negative trial results, but their findings highlight important issues in conducting trials in the nursing home setting. Additional demonstration of actual effect on advance care planning discussions and documentation will further enhance our understanding of whether the intervention, as tested, yields changes in practice on advance care planning in nursing homes. The pragmatic clinical trial design used in this study accounts for real-world settings, but may have limited the study’s ability to account for and adjust for differences in staff, settings, and other conditions and factors that may impact adoption of and fidelity to the intervention. Quality improvement approaches, such as INTERACT, have targeted unnecessary hospital transfers and may yield positive results.⁵ Quality improvement approaches like INTERACT allow for a high degree of adaptation to local procedures and settings, which in clinical trials is difficult to do. However, in a real-world setting, such approaches may be necessary to improve care.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the highly selective oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist relugolix in men with advanced prostate cancer.

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either relugolix 120 mg once daily after receiving a single loading dose of 360 mg, or 22.5 mg of leuprolide acetate every 3 months. Patients in Japan and Taiwan received 11.25 mg of leuprolide. The randomization was stratified by age (> 75 years or ≤ 75 years), metastatic disease status, and geographic region (Asia, Europe, North and South America). The intervention period was 48 weeks.

Setting and participants. 1327 patients were screened, and 934 patients underwent randomization: 622 patients to the relugolix group and 308 to the leuprolide group. Patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate. All patients had to have 1 of the following: evidence of biochemical or clinical relapse after primary curative therapy, newly diagnosed hormone-sensitive metastatic disease, or advance localized disease unlikely to be cured by local primary intervention. The patients with disease progression or rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) had the option to receive enzalutamide or docetaxel after the confirmation of progression. Patients were excluded if they had a major cardiovascular event within 6 months of enrollment.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was sustained castration rate, defined as the cumulative probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL while on study treatment from week 5 through week 48. Secondary endpoints included noninferiority of relugolix to leuprolide in regard to sustained castration rate. Superiority testing was performed if the noninferiority margin of –10 percentage points was met. Additional secondary endpoints were probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL on day 4 and day 15 and the percentage of patients with a > 50% decrease in PSA at day 15 and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels at the end of week 24.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. Approximately 30% of the patients in each group had metastatic disease. Approximately 50% of patients enrolled had biochemical recurrence following primary treatment for prostate cancer. The mean PSA was 104.2 ng/mL in the relugolix group and 68.6 ng/mL in the leuprolide group. The majority of patients had at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor (ie, tobacco use, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or a history of a major adverse cardiac event [MACE]). Adherence to oral therapy was reported as 99% in both groups. The median follow-up time was 52 weeks; 90% of patients in the relugolix arm and 89% in the leuprolide arm completed 48 weeks of treatment.

Sustained testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL from day 29 through week 48 was seen in 96.7% of patients in the relugolix group and 88.8% in the leuprolide group, which was determined to be noninferior. Additionally, relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide in regard to sustained testosterone suppression (P < 0.001). These results were consistent across all subgroups. Relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide for all secondary endpoints, including cumulative probability of castration on day 4 (56% vs 0%) and day 15 (98.7% vs 12%) and testosterone suppression to ≤ 20 ng/dL on day 15 (78.4% vs 1%). Confirmed PSA response on day 15 was seen in 79.4% of patients in the relugolix arm and in 19.8% in the leuprolide arm (P < 0.001). FSH suppression was greater in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm by the end of week 24. An increase of testosterone levels from baseline was noted in the leuprolide patients at day 4, with the level decreasing to castrate level by day 29. In contrast, relugolix patients maintained castrate testosterone levels from day 4 throughout the intervention period. Testosterone recovery at 90 days was seen in 54% of patients in the relugolix group compared with 3% in the leuprolide group (P = 0.002).

The most frequent adverse event seen in both groups was hot flashes (54.3% in the relugolix group and 51.6% in the leuprolide group). The second most common adverse event report was fatigue, which occurred in 21.5% of patients in the relugolix arm and 18.5% in the leuprolide arm. Diarrhea was reported more frequently with relugolix than with leuprolide (12.2% vs 6.8%); however, diarrhea did not lead to discontinuation of therapy in any patient. Fatal events were reported more frequently in the leuprolide group (2.9%) compared with the relugolix group (1.1%). MACE were defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from any cause. After completing the intervention period of 48 weeks, the relugolix group had a 2.9% incidence of major cardiovascular events, compared with 6.2% in the leuprolide group. In patients having a medical history of cardiovascular events, the adverse event rate during the trial period was 3.6% in the relugolix group and 17.8% in leuprolide group. This translated into a 54% lower risk of MACE in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm.

Conclusion. The use of relugolix in advanced prostate cancer led to rapid, sustained suppression and faster recovery of testosterone level compared with leuprolide. Relugolix appeared safer to use for men with a medical history of cardiovascular events and showed a 54% lower risk of MACE than leuprolide.

Commentary

Relugolix is a highly selective oral GnRH antagonist that rapidly inhibits pituitary release of luteinizing hormone and FSH. The current phase 3 HERO trial highlights the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression, adding to potential therapeutic options for these men. Relugolix yielded superior sustained testosterone suppression to less than 50 ng/dL throughout the 48-week study period, meeting its primary endpoint. Additionally, relugolix showed superiority in all secondary endpoints across all subgroups of patients. To date, the only GnRH antagonist on the market is degarelix, which is given as a monthly subcutaneous injection.¹ Injection-site reactions remain an issue with this formulation.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and it is known that men with prostate cancer have a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease.² While data regarding adverse cardiac outcomes with androgen deprivation therapy have been mixed, it is thought that this therapy increases the risk for MACE. There is mounting evidence that GnRH antagonists may have a less detrimental effect on cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists. For example, a pooled analysis of 6 phase 3 trials showed a lower incidence of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease using the GnRH antagonist degarelix compared with GnRH agonists after 12 months of treatment.³ Furthermore, a more recent phase 2 randomized trial showed that 20% of patients treated with a GnRH agonist developed cardiovascular events, compared to 3% in the GnRH antagonist group. The absolute risk reduction of cardiovascular events at 12 months was 18%.⁴ The results of the current trial support such findings, showing a 54% reduction in MACE after 48 weeks of therapy when compared with leuprolide (2.9% in relugolix arm vs 6.2% in leuprolide arm). More importantly perhaps, in the subgroup of men with preexisting cardiovascular disease, the benefit was even greater, with a MACE incidence of 3.6% with relugolix compared with 17.8% with leuprolide.

Studies have also shown that second-generation antiandrogens such as enzalutamide are associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes. For example, data from the recently updated PROSPER trial, which evaluated the use of enzalutamide in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, showed an increased risk of adverse events, including falls, fatigue, hypertension, and death from cardiovascular events.⁵ Furthermore, adding second-generation antiandrogens to GnRH-agonist therapy is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease.³ These results were noted in all of the trials of second-generation antiandrogens, including enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide, in combination with GnRH agonists.^6-8 Taken together, one might consider whether the use of a GnRH antagonist would result in improved cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients.

In light of the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression highlighted in the current trial, it is likely that its efficacy in regard to cancer outcomes will be similar; however, to date there is no level 1 evidence to support this. Nevertheless, there is a clear association of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in men treated with GnRH agonists, and the notable 54% risk reduction seen in the current trial certainly would support considering the use of a GnRH antagonist for the subgroup of patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease or those at high risk for MACE. Further work is needed to define the role of GnRH antagonists in conjunction with second-generation antiandrogens to help mitigate cardiovascular toxicities.

Clinical Implications

The use of GnRH antagonists should be considered in men with advanced prostate cancer who have underlying cardiovascular disease to help mitigate the risk of MACE. Currently, degarelix is the only commercially available agent; however, pending regulatory approval, oral relugolix may be considered an appropriate oral option in such patients, with data supporting superior testosterone suppressive effects. Further follow-up will be needed.

–Saud Alsubait, MD, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
–Daniel Isaac, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the highly selective oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist relugolix in men with advanced prostate cancer.

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either relugolix 120 mg once daily after receiving a single loading dose of 360 mg, or 22.5 mg of leuprolide acetate every 3 months. Patients in Japan and Taiwan received 11.25 mg of leuprolide. The randomization was stratified by age (> 75 years or ≤ 75 years), metastatic disease status, and geographic region (Asia, Europe, North and South America). The intervention period was 48 weeks.

Setting and participants. 1327 patients were screened, and 934 patients underwent randomization: 622 patients to the relugolix group and 308 to the leuprolide group. Patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate. All patients had to have 1 of the following: evidence of biochemical or clinical relapse after primary curative therapy, newly diagnosed hormone-sensitive metastatic disease, or advance localized disease unlikely to be cured by local primary intervention. The patients with disease progression or rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) had the option to receive enzalutamide or docetaxel after the confirmation of progression. Patients were excluded if they had a major cardiovascular event within 6 months of enrollment.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was sustained castration rate, defined as the cumulative probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL while on study treatment from week 5 through week 48. Secondary endpoints included noninferiority of relugolix to leuprolide in regard to sustained castration rate. Superiority testing was performed if the noninferiority margin of –10 percentage points was met. Additional secondary endpoints were probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL on day 4 and day 15 and the percentage of patients with a > 50% decrease in PSA at day 15 and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels at the end of week 24.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. Approximately 30% of the patients in each group had metastatic disease. Approximately 50% of patients enrolled had biochemical recurrence following primary treatment for prostate cancer. The mean PSA was 104.2 ng/mL in the relugolix group and 68.6 ng/mL in the leuprolide group. The majority of patients had at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor (ie, tobacco use, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or a history of a major adverse cardiac event [MACE]). Adherence to oral therapy was reported as 99% in both groups. The median follow-up time was 52 weeks; 90% of patients in the relugolix arm and 89% in the leuprolide arm completed 48 weeks of treatment.

Sustained testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL from day 29 through week 48 was seen in 96.7% of patients in the relugolix group and 88.8% in the leuprolide group, which was determined to be noninferior. Additionally, relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide in regard to sustained testosterone suppression (P < 0.001). These results were consistent across all subgroups. Relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide for all secondary endpoints, including cumulative probability of castration on day 4 (56% vs 0%) and day 15 (98.7% vs 12%) and testosterone suppression to ≤ 20 ng/dL on day 15 (78.4% vs 1%). Confirmed PSA response on day 15 was seen in 79.4% of patients in the relugolix arm and in 19.8% in the leuprolide arm (P < 0.001). FSH suppression was greater in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm by the end of week 24. An increase of testosterone levels from baseline was noted in the leuprolide patients at day 4, with the level decreasing to castrate level by day 29. In contrast, relugolix patients maintained castrate testosterone levels from day 4 throughout the intervention period. Testosterone recovery at 90 days was seen in 54% of patients in the relugolix group compared with 3% in the leuprolide group (P = 0.002).

The most frequent adverse event seen in both groups was hot flashes (54.3% in the relugolix group and 51.6% in the leuprolide group). The second most common adverse event report was fatigue, which occurred in 21.5% of patients in the relugolix arm and 18.5% in the leuprolide arm. Diarrhea was reported more frequently with relugolix than with leuprolide (12.2% vs 6.8%); however, diarrhea did not lead to discontinuation of therapy in any patient. Fatal events were reported more frequently in the leuprolide group (2.9%) compared with the relugolix group (1.1%). MACE were defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from any cause. After completing the intervention period of 48 weeks, the relugolix group had a 2.9% incidence of major cardiovascular events, compared with 6.2% in the leuprolide group. In patients having a medical history of cardiovascular events, the adverse event rate during the trial period was 3.6% in the relugolix group and 17.8% in leuprolide group. This translated into a 54% lower risk of MACE in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm.

Conclusion. The use of relugolix in advanced prostate cancer led to rapid, sustained suppression and faster recovery of testosterone level compared with leuprolide. Relugolix appeared safer to use for men with a medical history of cardiovascular events and showed a 54% lower risk of MACE than leuprolide.

Commentary

Relugolix is a highly selective oral GnRH antagonist that rapidly inhibits pituitary release of luteinizing hormone and FSH. The current phase 3 HERO trial highlights the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression, adding to potential therapeutic options for these men. Relugolix yielded superior sustained testosterone suppression to less than 50 ng/dL throughout the 48-week study period, meeting its primary endpoint. Additionally, relugolix showed superiority in all secondary endpoints across all subgroups of patients. To date, the only GnRH antagonist on the market is degarelix, which is given as a monthly subcutaneous injection.¹ Injection-site reactions remain an issue with this formulation.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and it is known that men with prostate cancer have a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease.² While data regarding adverse cardiac outcomes with androgen deprivation therapy have been mixed, it is thought that this therapy increases the risk for MACE. There is mounting evidence that GnRH antagonists may have a less detrimental effect on cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists. For example, a pooled analysis of 6 phase 3 trials showed a lower incidence of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease using the GnRH antagonist degarelix compared with GnRH agonists after 12 months of treatment.³ Furthermore, a more recent phase 2 randomized trial showed that 20% of patients treated with a GnRH agonist developed cardiovascular events, compared to 3% in the GnRH antagonist group. The absolute risk reduction of cardiovascular events at 12 months was 18%.⁴ The results of the current trial support such findings, showing a 54% reduction in MACE after 48 weeks of therapy when compared with leuprolide (2.9% in relugolix arm vs 6.2% in leuprolide arm). More importantly perhaps, in the subgroup of men with preexisting cardiovascular disease, the benefit was even greater, with a MACE incidence of 3.6% with relugolix compared with 17.8% with leuprolide.

Studies have also shown that second-generation antiandrogens such as enzalutamide are associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes. For example, data from the recently updated PROSPER trial, which evaluated the use of enzalutamide in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, showed an increased risk of adverse events, including falls, fatigue, hypertension, and death from cardiovascular events.⁵ Furthermore, adding second-generation antiandrogens to GnRH-agonist therapy is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease.³ These results were noted in all of the trials of second-generation antiandrogens, including enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide, in combination with GnRH agonists.^6-8 Taken together, one might consider whether the use of a GnRH antagonist would result in improved cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients.

In light of the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression highlighted in the current trial, it is likely that its efficacy in regard to cancer outcomes will be similar; however, to date there is no level 1 evidence to support this. Nevertheless, there is a clear association of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in men treated with GnRH agonists, and the notable 54% risk reduction seen in the current trial certainly would support considering the use of a GnRH antagonist for the subgroup of patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease or those at high risk for MACE. Further work is needed to define the role of GnRH antagonists in conjunction with second-generation antiandrogens to help mitigate cardiovascular toxicities.

Clinical Implications

The use of GnRH antagonists should be considered in men with advanced prostate cancer who have underlying cardiovascular disease to help mitigate the risk of MACE. Currently, degarelix is the only commercially available agent; however, pending regulatory approval, oral relugolix may be considered an appropriate oral option in such patients, with data supporting superior testosterone suppressive effects. Further follow-up will be needed.

–Saud Alsubait, MD, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
–Daniel Isaac, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the highly selective oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist relugolix in men with advanced prostate cancer.

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either relugolix 120 mg once daily after receiving a single loading dose of 360 mg, or 22.5 mg of leuprolide acetate every 3 months. Patients in Japan and Taiwan received 11.25 mg of leuprolide. The randomization was stratified by age (> 75 years or ≤ 75 years), metastatic disease status, and geographic region (Asia, Europe, North and South America). The intervention period was 48 weeks.

Setting and participants. 1327 patients were screened, and 934 patients underwent randomization: 622 patients to the relugolix group and 308 to the leuprolide group. Patients had histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate. All patients had to have 1 of the following: evidence of biochemical or clinical relapse after primary curative therapy, newly diagnosed hormone-sensitive metastatic disease, or advance localized disease unlikely to be cured by local primary intervention. The patients with disease progression or rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) had the option to receive enzalutamide or docetaxel after the confirmation of progression. Patients were excluded if they had a major cardiovascular event within 6 months of enrollment.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint was sustained castration rate, defined as the cumulative probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL while on study treatment from week 5 through week 48. Secondary endpoints included noninferiority of relugolix to leuprolide in regard to sustained castration rate. Superiority testing was performed if the noninferiority margin of –10 percentage points was met. Additional secondary endpoints were probability of testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL on day 4 and day 15 and the percentage of patients with a > 50% decrease in PSA at day 15 and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels at the end of week 24.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. Approximately 30% of the patients in each group had metastatic disease. Approximately 50% of patients enrolled had biochemical recurrence following primary treatment for prostate cancer. The mean PSA was 104.2 ng/mL in the relugolix group and 68.6 ng/mL in the leuprolide group. The majority of patients had at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor (ie, tobacco use, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or a history of a major adverse cardiac event [MACE]). Adherence to oral therapy was reported as 99% in both groups. The median follow-up time was 52 weeks; 90% of patients in the relugolix arm and 89% in the leuprolide arm completed 48 weeks of treatment.

Sustained testosterone suppression to ≤ 50 ng/dL from day 29 through week 48 was seen in 96.7% of patients in the relugolix group and 88.8% in the leuprolide group, which was determined to be noninferior. Additionally, relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide in regard to sustained testosterone suppression (P < 0.001). These results were consistent across all subgroups. Relugolix was also found to be superior to leuprolide for all secondary endpoints, including cumulative probability of castration on day 4 (56% vs 0%) and day 15 (98.7% vs 12%) and testosterone suppression to ≤ 20 ng/dL on day 15 (78.4% vs 1%). Confirmed PSA response on day 15 was seen in 79.4% of patients in the relugolix arm and in 19.8% in the leuprolide arm (P < 0.001). FSH suppression was greater in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm by the end of week 24. An increase of testosterone levels from baseline was noted in the leuprolide patients at day 4, with the level decreasing to castrate level by day 29. In contrast, relugolix patients maintained castrate testosterone levels from day 4 throughout the intervention period. Testosterone recovery at 90 days was seen in 54% of patients in the relugolix group compared with 3% in the leuprolide group (P = 0.002).

The most frequent adverse event seen in both groups was hot flashes (54.3% in the relugolix group and 51.6% in the leuprolide group). The second most common adverse event report was fatigue, which occurred in 21.5% of patients in the relugolix arm and 18.5% in the leuprolide arm. Diarrhea was reported more frequently with relugolix than with leuprolide (12.2% vs 6.8%); however, diarrhea did not lead to discontinuation of therapy in any patient. Fatal events were reported more frequently in the leuprolide group (2.9%) compared with the relugolix group (1.1%). MACE were defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from any cause. After completing the intervention period of 48 weeks, the relugolix group had a 2.9% incidence of major cardiovascular events, compared with 6.2% in the leuprolide group. In patients having a medical history of cardiovascular events, the adverse event rate during the trial period was 3.6% in the relugolix group and 17.8% in leuprolide group. This translated into a 54% lower risk of MACE in the relugolix arm compared with the leuprolide arm.

Conclusion. The use of relugolix in advanced prostate cancer led to rapid, sustained suppression and faster recovery of testosterone level compared with leuprolide. Relugolix appeared safer to use for men with a medical history of cardiovascular events and showed a 54% lower risk of MACE than leuprolide.

Commentary

Relugolix is a highly selective oral GnRH antagonist that rapidly inhibits pituitary release of luteinizing hormone and FSH. The current phase 3 HERO trial highlights the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression, adding to potential therapeutic options for these men. Relugolix yielded superior sustained testosterone suppression to less than 50 ng/dL throughout the 48-week study period, meeting its primary endpoint. Additionally, relugolix showed superiority in all secondary endpoints across all subgroups of patients. To date, the only GnRH antagonist on the market is degarelix, which is given as a monthly subcutaneous injection.¹ Injection-site reactions remain an issue with this formulation.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and it is known that men with prostate cancer have a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease.² While data regarding adverse cardiac outcomes with androgen deprivation therapy have been mixed, it is thought that this therapy increases the risk for MACE. There is mounting evidence that GnRH antagonists may have a less detrimental effect on cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists. For example, a pooled analysis of 6 phase 3 trials showed a lower incidence of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease using the GnRH antagonist degarelix compared with GnRH agonists after 12 months of treatment.³ Furthermore, a more recent phase 2 randomized trial showed that 20% of patients treated with a GnRH agonist developed cardiovascular events, compared to 3% in the GnRH antagonist group. The absolute risk reduction of cardiovascular events at 12 months was 18%.⁴ The results of the current trial support such findings, showing a 54% reduction in MACE after 48 weeks of therapy when compared with leuprolide (2.9% in relugolix arm vs 6.2% in leuprolide arm). More importantly perhaps, in the subgroup of men with preexisting cardiovascular disease, the benefit was even greater, with a MACE incidence of 3.6% with relugolix compared with 17.8% with leuprolide.

Studies have also shown that second-generation antiandrogens such as enzalutamide are associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes. For example, data from the recently updated PROSPER trial, which evaluated the use of enzalutamide in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, showed an increased risk of adverse events, including falls, fatigue, hypertension, and death from cardiovascular events.⁵ Furthermore, adding second-generation antiandrogens to GnRH-agonist therapy is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease.³ These results were noted in all of the trials of second-generation antiandrogens, including enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide, in combination with GnRH agonists.^6-8 Taken together, one might consider whether the use of a GnRH antagonist would result in improved cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients.

In light of the efficacy of relugolix in regard to testosterone suppression highlighted in the current trial, it is likely that its efficacy in regard to cancer outcomes will be similar; however, to date there is no level 1 evidence to support this. Nevertheless, there is a clear association of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in men treated with GnRH agonists, and the notable 54% risk reduction seen in the current trial certainly would support considering the use of a GnRH antagonist for the subgroup of patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease or those at high risk for MACE. Further work is needed to define the role of GnRH antagonists in conjunction with second-generation antiandrogens to help mitigate cardiovascular toxicities.

Clinical Implications

The use of GnRH antagonists should be considered in men with advanced prostate cancer who have underlying cardiovascular disease to help mitigate the risk of MACE. Currently, degarelix is the only commercially available agent; however, pending regulatory approval, oral relugolix may be considered an appropriate oral option in such patients, with data supporting superior testosterone suppressive effects. Further follow-up will be needed.

–Saud Alsubait, MD, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
–Daniel Isaac, MD, MS

One of the take-away messages from a review of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is that clinicians treating this condition “need to be comfortable with uncertainty,” Melissa Hazen, MD, said at a synthesis of multiple published case series and personal experience summarized at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting.

She emphasized MIS-C patient care “requires flexibility,” and she advised clinicians managing these patients to open the lines of communication with the many specialists who often are required to deal with complications affecting an array of organ systems.

MIS-C might best be understood as the most serious manifestation of an immune-mediated response to COVID-19 infection that ranges from transient mild symptoms to the life-threatening multiple organ involvement that characterizes this newly recognized threat. Although “most children who encounter this pathogen only develop mild disease,” the spectrum of the disease can move in a subset of patients to a “Kawasaki-like illness” without hemodynamic instability and then to MIS-C “with highly elevated systemic inflammatory markers and multiple organ involvement,” explained Dr. Hazen, an attending physician in the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

A reliable profile of MIS-C is only beginning to emerge from the series of published case series, most of which have only recently reached publication, according to Dr. Hazen. In general, the description of the most common symptoms and their course has been relatively consistent.

In 186 cases of MIS-C collected in a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 148 (80%) were admitted to intensive care, 90 patients (48%) received vasoactive support, 37 (20%) received mechanical ventilation, and 4 (2%) died.¹ The median age was 8 years (range, 3-13 years) in this study. The case definition was fever for at least 24 hours, laboratory evidence of inflammation, multisystem organ involvement, and evidence of COVID-19 infection. In this cohort of 186 children, 92% had gastrointestinal, 80% had cardiovascular, 76% had hematologic, and 70% had respiratory system involvement.

In a different series of 95 cases collected in New York State, 79 (80%) were admitted to intensive care, 61 (62%) received vasoactive support, 10 (10%) received mechanical ventilation, 4 (4%) received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and 2 (2%) died. ² Thirty-one percent patients were aged 0-5 years, 42% were 6-12 years, and 26% were 13-20 years of age. In that series, for which the case definition was elevation of two or more inflammatory markers, virologic evidence of COVID-19 infection, 80% had gastrointestinal system involvement, and 53% had evidence of myocarditis.

In both of these series, as well as others published and unpublished, the peak in MIS-C cases has occurred about 3 to 4 weeks after peak COVID-19 activity, according to Diana Lee, MD, a pediatrician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. This pattern, reported by others, was observed in New York State, where 230 cases of MIS-C were collected from the beginning of May until the end of June, which reflected this 3- to 4-week delay in peak incidence.

“This does seem to be a rare syndrome since this [group of] 230 cases is amongst the entire population of children in New York State. So, yes, we should be keeping this in mind in our differential, but we should not forget all the other reasons that children can have a fever,” she said.

Both Dr. Hazen and Dr. Lee cautioned that MIS-C, despite a general consistency among published studies, remains a moving target in regard to how it is being characterized. In a 2-day period in May, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and New York State all issued descriptions of MIS-C, employing compatible but slightly different terminology and diagnostic criteria. Many questions regarding optimal methods of diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up remain unanswered.

Questions regarding the risk to the cardiovascular system, one of the organs most commonly affected in MIS-C, are among the most urgent. It is not now clear how best to monitor cardiovascular involvement, how to intervene, and how to follow patients in the postinfection period, according to Kevin G. Friedman, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an attending physician in the department of cardiology at Boston Children’s Hospital.

“The most frequent complication we have seen is ventricular dysfunction, which occurs in about half of these patients,” he reported. “Usually it is in the mild to moderate range, but occasionally patients have an ejection fraction of less than 40%.”

Coronary abnormalities, typically in the form of dilations or small aneurysms, occur in 10%-20% of children with MIS-C, according to Dr. Friedman. Giant aneurysms have been reported.

“Some of these findings can progress including in both the acute phase and, particularly for the coronary aneurysms, in the subacute phase. We recommend echocardiograms and EKGs at diagnosis and at 1-2 weeks to recheck coronary size or sooner if there are clinical indications,” Dr. Friedman advised.

Protocols like these are constantly under review as more information becomes available. There are as yet no guidelines, and practice differs across institutions, according to the investigators summarizing this information.

None of the speakers had any relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Feldstein LR et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in U.S. children and adolescents. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:334-46.

2. Dufort EM et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children in New York State. N Engl J Med 2020;383:347-58.

One of the take-away messages from a review of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is that clinicians treating this condition “need to be comfortable with uncertainty,” Melissa Hazen, MD, said at a synthesis of multiple published case series and personal experience summarized at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting.

She emphasized MIS-C patient care “requires flexibility,” and she advised clinicians managing these patients to open the lines of communication with the many specialists who often are required to deal with complications affecting an array of organ systems.

MIS-C might best be understood as the most serious manifestation of an immune-mediated response to COVID-19 infection that ranges from transient mild symptoms to the life-threatening multiple organ involvement that characterizes this newly recognized threat. Although “most children who encounter this pathogen only develop mild disease,” the spectrum of the disease can move in a subset of patients to a “Kawasaki-like illness” without hemodynamic instability and then to MIS-C “with highly elevated systemic inflammatory markers and multiple organ involvement,” explained Dr. Hazen, an attending physician in the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

A reliable profile of MIS-C is only beginning to emerge from the series of published case series, most of which have only recently reached publication, according to Dr. Hazen. In general, the description of the most common symptoms and their course has been relatively consistent.

In 186 cases of MIS-C collected in a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 148 (80%) were admitted to intensive care, 90 patients (48%) received vasoactive support, 37 (20%) received mechanical ventilation, and 4 (2%) died.¹ The median age was 8 years (range, 3-13 years) in this study. The case definition was fever for at least 24 hours, laboratory evidence of inflammation, multisystem organ involvement, and evidence of COVID-19 infection. In this cohort of 186 children, 92% had gastrointestinal, 80% had cardiovascular, 76% had hematologic, and 70% had respiratory system involvement.

In a different series of 95 cases collected in New York State, 79 (80%) were admitted to intensive care, 61 (62%) received vasoactive support, 10 (10%) received mechanical ventilation, 4 (4%) received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and 2 (2%) died. ² Thirty-one percent patients were aged 0-5 years, 42% were 6-12 years, and 26% were 13-20 years of age. In that series, for which the case definition was elevation of two or more inflammatory markers, virologic evidence of COVID-19 infection, 80% had gastrointestinal system involvement, and 53% had evidence of myocarditis.

In both of these series, as well as others published and unpublished, the peak in MIS-C cases has occurred about 3 to 4 weeks after peak COVID-19 activity, according to Diana Lee, MD, a pediatrician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. This pattern, reported by others, was observed in New York State, where 230 cases of MIS-C were collected from the beginning of May until the end of June, which reflected this 3- to 4-week delay in peak incidence.

“This does seem to be a rare syndrome since this [group of] 230 cases is amongst the entire population of children in New York State. So, yes, we should be keeping this in mind in our differential, but we should not forget all the other reasons that children can have a fever,” she said.

Both Dr. Hazen and Dr. Lee cautioned that MIS-C, despite a general consistency among published studies, remains a moving target in regard to how it is being characterized. In a 2-day period in May, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and New York State all issued descriptions of MIS-C, employing compatible but slightly different terminology and diagnostic criteria. Many questions regarding optimal methods of diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up remain unanswered.

Questions regarding the risk to the cardiovascular system, one of the organs most commonly affected in MIS-C, are among the most urgent. It is not now clear how best to monitor cardiovascular involvement, how to intervene, and how to follow patients in the postinfection period, according to Kevin G. Friedman, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an attending physician in the department of cardiology at Boston Children’s Hospital.

“The most frequent complication we have seen is ventricular dysfunction, which occurs in about half of these patients,” he reported. “Usually it is in the mild to moderate range, but occasionally patients have an ejection fraction of less than 40%.”

Coronary abnormalities, typically in the form of dilations or small aneurysms, occur in 10%-20% of children with MIS-C, according to Dr. Friedman. Giant aneurysms have been reported.

“Some of these findings can progress including in both the acute phase and, particularly for the coronary aneurysms, in the subacute phase. We recommend echocardiograms and EKGs at diagnosis and at 1-2 weeks to recheck coronary size or sooner if there are clinical indications,” Dr. Friedman advised.

Protocols like these are constantly under review as more information becomes available. There are as yet no guidelines, and practice differs across institutions, according to the investigators summarizing this information.

None of the speakers had any relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Feldstein LR et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in U.S. children and adolescents. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:334-46.

2. Dufort EM et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children in New York State. N Engl J Med 2020;383:347-58.

One of the take-away messages from a review of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is that clinicians treating this condition “need to be comfortable with uncertainty,” Melissa Hazen, MD, said at a synthesis of multiple published case series and personal experience summarized at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting.

She emphasized MIS-C patient care “requires flexibility,” and she advised clinicians managing these patients to open the lines of communication with the many specialists who often are required to deal with complications affecting an array of organ systems.

MIS-C might best be understood as the most serious manifestation of an immune-mediated response to COVID-19 infection that ranges from transient mild symptoms to the life-threatening multiple organ involvement that characterizes this newly recognized threat. Although “most children who encounter this pathogen only develop mild disease,” the spectrum of the disease can move in a subset of patients to a “Kawasaki-like illness” without hemodynamic instability and then to MIS-C “with highly elevated systemic inflammatory markers and multiple organ involvement,” explained Dr. Hazen, an attending physician in the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

A reliable profile of MIS-C is only beginning to emerge from the series of published case series, most of which have only recently reached publication, according to Dr. Hazen. In general, the description of the most common symptoms and their course has been relatively consistent.

In 186 cases of MIS-C collected in a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 148 (80%) were admitted to intensive care, 90 patients (48%) received vasoactive support, 37 (20%) received mechanical ventilation, and 4 (2%) died.¹ The median age was 8 years (range, 3-13 years) in this study. The case definition was fever for at least 24 hours, laboratory evidence of inflammation, multisystem organ involvement, and evidence of COVID-19 infection. In this cohort of 186 children, 92% had gastrointestinal, 80% had cardiovascular, 76% had hematologic, and 70% had respiratory system involvement.

In a different series of 95 cases collected in New York State, 79 (80%) were admitted to intensive care, 61 (62%) received vasoactive support, 10 (10%) received mechanical ventilation, 4 (4%) received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and 2 (2%) died. ² Thirty-one percent patients were aged 0-5 years, 42% were 6-12 years, and 26% were 13-20 years of age. In that series, for which the case definition was elevation of two or more inflammatory markers, virologic evidence of COVID-19 infection, 80% had gastrointestinal system involvement, and 53% had evidence of myocarditis.

In both of these series, as well as others published and unpublished, the peak in MIS-C cases has occurred about 3 to 4 weeks after peak COVID-19 activity, according to Diana Lee, MD, a pediatrician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. This pattern, reported by others, was observed in New York State, where 230 cases of MIS-C were collected from the beginning of May until the end of June, which reflected this 3- to 4-week delay in peak incidence.

“This does seem to be a rare syndrome since this [group of] 230 cases is amongst the entire population of children in New York State. So, yes, we should be keeping this in mind in our differential, but we should not forget all the other reasons that children can have a fever,” she said.

Both Dr. Hazen and Dr. Lee cautioned that MIS-C, despite a general consistency among published studies, remains a moving target in regard to how it is being characterized. In a 2-day period in May, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and New York State all issued descriptions of MIS-C, employing compatible but slightly different terminology and diagnostic criteria. Many questions regarding optimal methods of diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up remain unanswered.

Questions regarding the risk to the cardiovascular system, one of the organs most commonly affected in MIS-C, are among the most urgent. It is not now clear how best to monitor cardiovascular involvement, how to intervene, and how to follow patients in the postinfection period, according to Kevin G. Friedman, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an attending physician in the department of cardiology at Boston Children’s Hospital.

“The most frequent complication we have seen is ventricular dysfunction, which occurs in about half of these patients,” he reported. “Usually it is in the mild to moderate range, but occasionally patients have an ejection fraction of less than 40%.”

Coronary abnormalities, typically in the form of dilations or small aneurysms, occur in 10%-20% of children with MIS-C, according to Dr. Friedman. Giant aneurysms have been reported.

“Some of these findings can progress including in both the acute phase and, particularly for the coronary aneurysms, in the subacute phase. We recommend echocardiograms and EKGs at diagnosis and at 1-2 weeks to recheck coronary size or sooner if there are clinical indications,” Dr. Friedman advised.

Protocols like these are constantly under review as more information becomes available. There are as yet no guidelines, and practice differs across institutions, according to the investigators summarizing this information.

None of the speakers had any relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Feldstein LR et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in U.S. children and adolescents. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:334-46.

2. Dufort EM et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children in New York State. N Engl J Med 2020;383:347-58.

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its financial impact, the number of physician recruitment searches conducted by Merritt Hawkins has dropped by 30% since March 31, the firm reported.

“Rather than having many practice opportunities to choose from, physicians now may have to compete to secure practice opportunities that meet their needs,” the authors wrote in Merritt Hawkins’ report on the impact of COVID-19.

Most of the report concerns physician recruitment from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The data were mostly derived from searches that Merritt Hawkins conducted before the effects of the pandemic was fully felt.

Family medicine was again the most sought-after specialty, as it has been for the past 14 years. But demand for primary care doctors – including family physicians, internists, and pediatricians – leveled off, and average starting salaries for primary care doctors dropped during 2019-2020. In contrast, the number of searches conducted for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) increased by 54%, and their salaries increased slightly.

To explain the lackluster prospects for primary care before the pandemic, the authors cited research showing that patients were turning away from the traditional office visit model. At the same time, there was a rise in visits to NPs and PAs, including those in urgent care centers and retail clinics.

As a result of decreased demand for primary care physicians and the rising prevalence of telehealth, Merritt Hawkins expects primary care salaries to drop overall. With telehealth generating a larger portion of revenues, “it is uncertain whether primary care physicians will be able to sustain levels of reimbursement that were prevalent pre-COVID even at such time as the economy is improved and utilization increases,” the authors reported.

Demand for specialists was increasing prior to the COVID-19 crisis, partly as a result of the aging of the population. Seventy-eight percent of all searches were for medical specialists, compared with 67% 5 years ago. However, the pandemic has set back specialist searches. “Demand and compensation for specialists also will change as a result of COVID-19 in response to declines in the volume of medical procedures,” according to the authors.

In contrast, the recruitment of doctors who are on the front line of COVID-19 care is expected to increase. Among the fields anticipated to be in demand are emergency department specialists, infectious disease specialists, and pulmonology/critical care physicians. Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, said in an interview that this trend is already happening and will accelerate as COVID-19 hot spots arise across the country.

Specialists in different fields received either higher or lower offers than during the previous year. Starting salaries for noninvasive cardiologists, for example, dropped 7.3%; gastroenterologists earned 7.7% less; and neurologists, 6.9% less. In contrast, orthopedic surgeons saw offers surge 16.7%; radiologists, 9.3%; and pulmonologists/critical care specialists, 7.7%.

Physicians were offered salaries plus bonuses in three-quarters of searches. Relative value unit–based production remained the most common basis for bonuses. Quality/value-based metrics were used in computing 64% of bonuses – up from 56% the previous year – but still determined only 11% of total physician compensation.
 

Pandemic outlook

Whereas health care helped drive the U.S. economy in 2018-2019, the pace of job growth in health care has decreased since March. As a result of the pandemic, health care spending in the United States declined by 18% in the first quarter of 2020. Physician practice revenue dropped by 55% during the first quarter, and many small and solo practices are still struggling.

In a 2018 Merritt Hawkins survey, 18% of physicians said they had used telehealth to treat patients. Because of the pandemic, that percentage jumped to 48% in April 2020. But telehealth hasn’t made up for the loss of patient revenue from in-office procedures, tests, and other services, and it still isn’t being reimbursed at the same level as in-office visits.

With practices under severe financial strain, the authors explained, “A majority of private practices have curtailed most physician recruiting activity since the virus emerged.”

In some states, many specialty practices have been adversely affected by the suspension of elective procedures, and specialty practices that rely on nonessential procedures are unlikely to recruit additional physicians.
 

One-third of practices could close

The survival of many private practices is now in question. “Based on the losses physician practices have sustained as a result of COVID-19, some markets could lose up to 35% or more of their most vulnerable group practices while a large percent of others will be acquired,” the authors wrote.

Hospitals and health systems will acquire the bulk of these practices, in many cases at fire-sale prices, Mr. Singleton predicted. This enormous shift from private practice to employment, he added, “will have as much to do with the [physician] income levels we’re going to see as the demand for the specialties themselves.”

Right now, he said, Merritt Hawkins is fielding a huge number of requests from doctors seeking employment, but there aren’t many jobs out there. “We haven’t seen an employer-friendly market like this since the 1970s,” he noted. “Before the pandemic, a physician might have had five to 10 jobs to choose from. Now it’s the opposite: We have one job, and 5 to 10 physicians are applying for it.”

Singleton believes the market will adjust by the second quarter of next year. Even if the pandemic worsens, he said, the system will have made the necessary corrections and adjustments “because we have to start seeing patients again, both in terms of demand and economics. So these doctors will be in demand again and will have work.”
 

Contingent employment

Although the COVID-related falloff in revenue has hit private practices the hardest, some employed physicians have also found themselves in a bind. According to a Merritt Hawkins/Physicians Foundation survey conducted in April, 21% of physicians said they had been furloughed or had taken a pay cut.

Mr. Singleton views this trend as part of hospitals’ reassessment of how they’re going to deal with labor going forward. To cope with utilization ebbs and flows in response to the virus, hospitals are now considering what the report calls a “contingent labor/flex staffing model.”

Under this type of arrangement, which some hospitals have already adopted, physicians may no longer work full time in a single setting, Mr. Singleton said. They may be asked to conduct telehealth visits on nights and weekends and work 20 hours a week in the clinic, or they may have shifts in multiple hospitals or clinics.

“You can make as much or more on a temporary basis as on a permanent basis,” he said. “But you have to be more flexible. You may have to travel or do a different scope of work, or work in different settings.”

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

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its financial impact, the number of physician recruitment searches conducted by Merritt Hawkins has dropped by 30% since March 31, the firm reported.

“Rather than having many practice opportunities to choose from, physicians now may have to compete to secure practice opportunities that meet their needs,” the authors wrote in Merritt Hawkins’ report on the impact of COVID-19.

Most of the report concerns physician recruitment from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The data were mostly derived from searches that Merritt Hawkins conducted before the effects of the pandemic was fully felt.

Family medicine was again the most sought-after specialty, as it has been for the past 14 years. But demand for primary care doctors – including family physicians, internists, and pediatricians – leveled off, and average starting salaries for primary care doctors dropped during 2019-2020. In contrast, the number of searches conducted for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) increased by 54%, and their salaries increased slightly.

To explain the lackluster prospects for primary care before the pandemic, the authors cited research showing that patients were turning away from the traditional office visit model. At the same time, there was a rise in visits to NPs and PAs, including those in urgent care centers and retail clinics.

As a result of decreased demand for primary care physicians and the rising prevalence of telehealth, Merritt Hawkins expects primary care salaries to drop overall. With telehealth generating a larger portion of revenues, “it is uncertain whether primary care physicians will be able to sustain levels of reimbursement that were prevalent pre-COVID even at such time as the economy is improved and utilization increases,” the authors reported.

Demand for specialists was increasing prior to the COVID-19 crisis, partly as a result of the aging of the population. Seventy-eight percent of all searches were for medical specialists, compared with 67% 5 years ago. However, the pandemic has set back specialist searches. “Demand and compensation for specialists also will change as a result of COVID-19 in response to declines in the volume of medical procedures,” according to the authors.

In contrast, the recruitment of doctors who are on the front line of COVID-19 care is expected to increase. Among the fields anticipated to be in demand are emergency department specialists, infectious disease specialists, and pulmonology/critical care physicians. Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, said in an interview that this trend is already happening and will accelerate as COVID-19 hot spots arise across the country.

Specialists in different fields received either higher or lower offers than during the previous year. Starting salaries for noninvasive cardiologists, for example, dropped 7.3%; gastroenterologists earned 7.7% less; and neurologists, 6.9% less. In contrast, orthopedic surgeons saw offers surge 16.7%; radiologists, 9.3%; and pulmonologists/critical care specialists, 7.7%.

Physicians were offered salaries plus bonuses in three-quarters of searches. Relative value unit–based production remained the most common basis for bonuses. Quality/value-based metrics were used in computing 64% of bonuses – up from 56% the previous year – but still determined only 11% of total physician compensation.
 

Pandemic outlook

Whereas health care helped drive the U.S. economy in 2018-2019, the pace of job growth in health care has decreased since March. As a result of the pandemic, health care spending in the United States declined by 18% in the first quarter of 2020. Physician practice revenue dropped by 55% during the first quarter, and many small and solo practices are still struggling.

In a 2018 Merritt Hawkins survey, 18% of physicians said they had used telehealth to treat patients. Because of the pandemic, that percentage jumped to 48% in April 2020. But telehealth hasn’t made up for the loss of patient revenue from in-office procedures, tests, and other services, and it still isn’t being reimbursed at the same level as in-office visits.

With practices under severe financial strain, the authors explained, “A majority of private practices have curtailed most physician recruiting activity since the virus emerged.”

In some states, many specialty practices have been adversely affected by the suspension of elective procedures, and specialty practices that rely on nonessential procedures are unlikely to recruit additional physicians.
 

One-third of practices could close

The survival of many private practices is now in question. “Based on the losses physician practices have sustained as a result of COVID-19, some markets could lose up to 35% or more of their most vulnerable group practices while a large percent of others will be acquired,” the authors wrote.

Hospitals and health systems will acquire the bulk of these practices, in many cases at fire-sale prices, Mr. Singleton predicted. This enormous shift from private practice to employment, he added, “will have as much to do with the [physician] income levels we’re going to see as the demand for the specialties themselves.”

Right now, he said, Merritt Hawkins is fielding a huge number of requests from doctors seeking employment, but there aren’t many jobs out there. “We haven’t seen an employer-friendly market like this since the 1970s,” he noted. “Before the pandemic, a physician might have had five to 10 jobs to choose from. Now it’s the opposite: We have one job, and 5 to 10 physicians are applying for it.”

Singleton believes the market will adjust by the second quarter of next year. Even if the pandemic worsens, he said, the system will have made the necessary corrections and adjustments “because we have to start seeing patients again, both in terms of demand and economics. So these doctors will be in demand again and will have work.”
 

Contingent employment

Although the COVID-related falloff in revenue has hit private practices the hardest, some employed physicians have also found themselves in a bind. According to a Merritt Hawkins/Physicians Foundation survey conducted in April, 21% of physicians said they had been furloughed or had taken a pay cut.

Mr. Singleton views this trend as part of hospitals’ reassessment of how they’re going to deal with labor going forward. To cope with utilization ebbs and flows in response to the virus, hospitals are now considering what the report calls a “contingent labor/flex staffing model.”

Under this type of arrangement, which some hospitals have already adopted, physicians may no longer work full time in a single setting, Mr. Singleton said. They may be asked to conduct telehealth visits on nights and weekends and work 20 hours a week in the clinic, or they may have shifts in multiple hospitals or clinics.

“You can make as much or more on a temporary basis as on a permanent basis,” he said. “But you have to be more flexible. You may have to travel or do a different scope of work, or work in different settings.”

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

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and its financial impact, the number of physician recruitment searches conducted by Merritt Hawkins has dropped by 30% since March 31, the firm reported.

“Rather than having many practice opportunities to choose from, physicians now may have to compete to secure practice opportunities that meet their needs,” the authors wrote in Merritt Hawkins’ report on the impact of COVID-19.

Most of the report concerns physician recruitment from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. The data were mostly derived from searches that Merritt Hawkins conducted before the effects of the pandemic was fully felt.

Family medicine was again the most sought-after specialty, as it has been for the past 14 years. But demand for primary care doctors – including family physicians, internists, and pediatricians – leveled off, and average starting salaries for primary care doctors dropped during 2019-2020. In contrast, the number of searches conducted for nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) increased by 54%, and their salaries increased slightly.

To explain the lackluster prospects for primary care before the pandemic, the authors cited research showing that patients were turning away from the traditional office visit model. At the same time, there was a rise in visits to NPs and PAs, including those in urgent care centers and retail clinics.

As a result of decreased demand for primary care physicians and the rising prevalence of telehealth, Merritt Hawkins expects primary care salaries to drop overall. With telehealth generating a larger portion of revenues, “it is uncertain whether primary care physicians will be able to sustain levels of reimbursement that were prevalent pre-COVID even at such time as the economy is improved and utilization increases,” the authors reported.

Demand for specialists was increasing prior to the COVID-19 crisis, partly as a result of the aging of the population. Seventy-eight percent of all searches were for medical specialists, compared with 67% 5 years ago. However, the pandemic has set back specialist searches. “Demand and compensation for specialists also will change as a result of COVID-19 in response to declines in the volume of medical procedures,” according to the authors.

In contrast, the recruitment of doctors who are on the front line of COVID-19 care is expected to increase. Among the fields anticipated to be in demand are emergency department specialists, infectious disease specialists, and pulmonology/critical care physicians. Travis Singleton, executive vice president of Merritt Hawkins, said in an interview that this trend is already happening and will accelerate as COVID-19 hot spots arise across the country.

Specialists in different fields received either higher or lower offers than during the previous year. Starting salaries for noninvasive cardiologists, for example, dropped 7.3%; gastroenterologists earned 7.7% less; and neurologists, 6.9% less. In contrast, orthopedic surgeons saw offers surge 16.7%; radiologists, 9.3%; and pulmonologists/critical care specialists, 7.7%.

Physicians were offered salaries plus bonuses in three-quarters of searches. Relative value unit–based production remained the most common basis for bonuses. Quality/value-based metrics were used in computing 64% of bonuses – up from 56% the previous year – but still determined only 11% of total physician compensation.
 

Pandemic outlook

Whereas health care helped drive the U.S. economy in 2018-2019, the pace of job growth in health care has decreased since March. As a result of the pandemic, health care spending in the United States declined by 18% in the first quarter of 2020. Physician practice revenue dropped by 55% during the first quarter, and many small and solo practices are still struggling.

In a 2018 Merritt Hawkins survey, 18% of physicians said they had used telehealth to treat patients. Because of the pandemic, that percentage jumped to 48% in April 2020. But telehealth hasn’t made up for the loss of patient revenue from in-office procedures, tests, and other services, and it still isn’t being reimbursed at the same level as in-office visits.

With practices under severe financial strain, the authors explained, “A majority of private practices have curtailed most physician recruiting activity since the virus emerged.”

In some states, many specialty practices have been adversely affected by the suspension of elective procedures, and specialty practices that rely on nonessential procedures are unlikely to recruit additional physicians.
 

One-third of practices could close

The survival of many private practices is now in question. “Based on the losses physician practices have sustained as a result of COVID-19, some markets could lose up to 35% or more of their most vulnerable group practices while a large percent of others will be acquired,” the authors wrote.

Hospitals and health systems will acquire the bulk of these practices, in many cases at fire-sale prices, Mr. Singleton predicted. This enormous shift from private practice to employment, he added, “will have as much to do with the [physician] income levels we’re going to see as the demand for the specialties themselves.”

Right now, he said, Merritt Hawkins is fielding a huge number of requests from doctors seeking employment, but there aren’t many jobs out there. “We haven’t seen an employer-friendly market like this since the 1970s,” he noted. “Before the pandemic, a physician might have had five to 10 jobs to choose from. Now it’s the opposite: We have one job, and 5 to 10 physicians are applying for it.”

Singleton believes the market will adjust by the second quarter of next year. Even if the pandemic worsens, he said, the system will have made the necessary corrections and adjustments “because we have to start seeing patients again, both in terms of demand and economics. So these doctors will be in demand again and will have work.”
 

Contingent employment

Although the COVID-related falloff in revenue has hit private practices the hardest, some employed physicians have also found themselves in a bind. According to a Merritt Hawkins/Physicians Foundation survey conducted in April, 21% of physicians said they had been furloughed or had taken a pay cut.

Mr. Singleton views this trend as part of hospitals’ reassessment of how they’re going to deal with labor going forward. To cope with utilization ebbs and flows in response to the virus, hospitals are now considering what the report calls a “contingent labor/flex staffing model.”

Under this type of arrangement, which some hospitals have already adopted, physicians may no longer work full time in a single setting, Mr. Singleton said. They may be asked to conduct telehealth visits on nights and weekends and work 20 hours a week in the clinic, or they may have shifts in multiple hospitals or clinics.

“You can make as much or more on a temporary basis as on a permanent basis,” he said. “But you have to be more flexible. You may have to travel or do a different scope of work, or work in different settings.”

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

Let me start with these 3 words that really should never have to be said: Black Lives Matter.

It was hard to sit down to write this piece—not just because it’s a sunny Sunday morning, but because I’m still afraid I’ll get it wrong, show my white privilege, offend someone. George Floyd’s murder has been a reckoning for Black Americans, for the police, for the nation (maybe the world), and for me. I live in a multi-racial household, and we have redoubled our efforts to talk about racism and bias and question our assumptions as part of our daily conversations. After Mr. Floyd was killed, I decided that I would try to be less afraid of getting it wrong and be more outspoken about my support for Black Lives Matter and for the work that we need to do in this country, and in ourselves, to become more antiracist.

Here are some things that I know: I know that study after study has shown that health care and health outcomes are worse for Black people than for White people. I know that people of color are sickening and dying with COVID-19 before our eyes, just as other pandemics, such as HIV, differentially affect communities of color. I know, too, that a Black physician executive who lives around the corner from me has been stopped by our local police more than 10 times; I have been stopped by our local police exactly once.

I don’t know how to fix it. But I do know that my silence won’t help. Here are some things I am trying to do at home and at work: I am educating myself about race and racism. I’m not asking my Black peers, patients, or colleagues to teach me, but I am listening to what they tell me, when they want to tell me. I am reading books like Ibram Kendi’s How to Be Antiracist and Bernadine Evaristo’s Girl, Woman, Other. I challenge myself to read articles that I might have skipped over—because they were simply too painful. People of color don’t have a choice about facing their pain. I have that choice—it’s a privilege—and I choose to be an ally.

I’m speaking up even when I’m afraid that I might say the wrong thing. This can take several forms—questioning assumptions about race and racism when it comes up, which is often, in medicine. It also means amplifying the voices that don’t always get heard—asking a young person of color her opinion in a meeting, retweeting the thoughts of a Black colleague, thanking someone publicly or personally for a comment, an idea, or the kernel of something important. I ask people to correct me, and I try to be humble in accepting criticism or correction.

Being a better ally also means putting our money where our mouth is, supporting Black-owned businesses and restaurants, and donating to causes that support equality and justice. We can diversify our social media feeds. We have to be willing to be excluded from the conversation—if you’re white or straight or cis-gendered, it’s not about you—and be ready to feel uncomfortable. We can encourage our organizations to do better. I’m proud of my organization, which had already started working to make our organizational culture even more inclusive.

Black Lives Matter. I’m looking forward to a day when that is so obvious that we don’t have to say it. Until then, I’m going to be hard at work with my head, my ears, and my whole heart.

Let me start with these 3 words that really should never have to be said: Black Lives Matter.

It was hard to sit down to write this piece—not just because it’s a sunny Sunday morning, but because I’m still afraid I’ll get it wrong, show my white privilege, offend someone. George Floyd’s murder has been a reckoning for Black Americans, for the police, for the nation (maybe the world), and for me. I live in a multi-racial household, and we have redoubled our efforts to talk about racism and bias and question our assumptions as part of our daily conversations. After Mr. Floyd was killed, I decided that I would try to be less afraid of getting it wrong and be more outspoken about my support for Black Lives Matter and for the work that we need to do in this country, and in ourselves, to become more antiracist.

Here are some things that I know: I know that study after study has shown that health care and health outcomes are worse for Black people than for White people. I know that people of color are sickening and dying with COVID-19 before our eyes, just as other pandemics, such as HIV, differentially affect communities of color. I know, too, that a Black physician executive who lives around the corner from me has been stopped by our local police more than 10 times; I have been stopped by our local police exactly once.

I don’t know how to fix it. But I do know that my silence won’t help. Here are some things I am trying to do at home and at work: I am educating myself about race and racism. I’m not asking my Black peers, patients, or colleagues to teach me, but I am listening to what they tell me, when they want to tell me. I am reading books like Ibram Kendi’s How to Be Antiracist and Bernadine Evaristo’s Girl, Woman, Other. I challenge myself to read articles that I might have skipped over—because they were simply too painful. People of color don’t have a choice about facing their pain. I have that choice—it’s a privilege—and I choose to be an ally.

I’m speaking up even when I’m afraid that I might say the wrong thing. This can take several forms—questioning assumptions about race and racism when it comes up, which is often, in medicine. It also means amplifying the voices that don’t always get heard—asking a young person of color her opinion in a meeting, retweeting the thoughts of a Black colleague, thanking someone publicly or personally for a comment, an idea, or the kernel of something important. I ask people to correct me, and I try to be humble in accepting criticism or correction.

Being a better ally also means putting our money where our mouth is, supporting Black-owned businesses and restaurants, and donating to causes that support equality and justice. We can diversify our social media feeds. We have to be willing to be excluded from the conversation—if you’re white or straight or cis-gendered, it’s not about you—and be ready to feel uncomfortable. We can encourage our organizations to do better. I’m proud of my organization, which had already started working to make our organizational culture even more inclusive.

Black Lives Matter. I’m looking forward to a day when that is so obvious that we don’t have to say it. Until then, I’m going to be hard at work with my head, my ears, and my whole heart.

Let me start with these 3 words that really should never have to be said: Black Lives Matter.

It was hard to sit down to write this piece—not just because it’s a sunny Sunday morning, but because I’m still afraid I’ll get it wrong, show my white privilege, offend someone. George Floyd’s murder has been a reckoning for Black Americans, for the police, for the nation (maybe the world), and for me. I live in a multi-racial household, and we have redoubled our efforts to talk about racism and bias and question our assumptions as part of our daily conversations. After Mr. Floyd was killed, I decided that I would try to be less afraid of getting it wrong and be more outspoken about my support for Black Lives Matter and for the work that we need to do in this country, and in ourselves, to become more antiracist.

Here are some things that I know: I know that study after study has shown that health care and health outcomes are worse for Black people than for White people. I know that people of color are sickening and dying with COVID-19 before our eyes, just as other pandemics, such as HIV, differentially affect communities of color. I know, too, that a Black physician executive who lives around the corner from me has been stopped by our local police more than 10 times; I have been stopped by our local police exactly once.

I don’t know how to fix it. But I do know that my silence won’t help. Here are some things I am trying to do at home and at work: I am educating myself about race and racism. I’m not asking my Black peers, patients, or colleagues to teach me, but I am listening to what they tell me, when they want to tell me. I am reading books like Ibram Kendi’s How to Be Antiracist and Bernadine Evaristo’s Girl, Woman, Other. I challenge myself to read articles that I might have skipped over—because they were simply too painful. People of color don’t have a choice about facing their pain. I have that choice—it’s a privilege—and I choose to be an ally.

I’m speaking up even when I’m afraid that I might say the wrong thing. This can take several forms—questioning assumptions about race and racism when it comes up, which is often, in medicine. It also means amplifying the voices that don’t always get heard—asking a young person of color her opinion in a meeting, retweeting the thoughts of a Black colleague, thanking someone publicly or personally for a comment, an idea, or the kernel of something important. I ask people to correct me, and I try to be humble in accepting criticism or correction.

Being a better ally also means putting our money where our mouth is, supporting Black-owned businesses and restaurants, and donating to causes that support equality and justice. We can diversify our social media feeds. We have to be willing to be excluded from the conversation—if you’re white or straight or cis-gendered, it’s not about you—and be ready to feel uncomfortable. We can encourage our organizations to do better. I’m proud of my organization, which had already started working to make our organizational culture even more inclusive.

Black Lives Matter. I’m looking forward to a day when that is so obvious that we don’t have to say it. Until then, I’m going to be hard at work with my head, my ears, and my whole heart.

Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, MD, the only medical doctor on a current NFL roster, has become the first player to opt out of the 2020 NFL season, citing concerns over risk for COVID-19.

Canadian-born Duvernay-Tardif, right guard for the Kansas City Chiefs, announced on Twitter on July 24 what he called “one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make in my life.”

“There is no doubt in my mind the Chiefs’ medical staff have put together a strong plan to minimize the health risks associated with COVID-19, but some risks will remain,” he posted.

“Being at the frontline during this offseason has given me a different perspective on this pandemic and the stress it puts on individuals and our healthcare system. I cannot allow myself to potentially transmit the virus in our communities simply to play the sport that I love. If I am to take risks, I will do it caring for patients.”

According to CNN, Duvernay-Tardif, less than 3 months after helping the Chiefs win the Super Bowl in February, began working at a long-term care facility near Montreal in what he described as a “nursing role.”

Duvernay-Tardif wrote recently in an article for Sports Illustrated that he has not completed his residency and is not yet licensed to practice.

“My first day back in the hospital was April 24,” Duvernay-Tardif wrote. “I felt nervous the night before, but a good nervous, like before a game.”

Duvernay-Tardif has also served on the NFL Players’ Association COVID-19 task force, according to Yahoo News .

A spokesperson for Duvernay-Tardif told Medscape Medical News he was unavailable to comment about the announcement.

Starting His Dual Career

Duvernay-Tardif, 29, was drafted in the sixth round by the Chiefs in 2014.

According to Forbes , he spent 8 years (2010-2018) pursuing his medical degree while still playing college football for McGill University in Montreal. Duvernay-Tardif played offensive tackle for the Redmen and in his senior year (2013) won the Metras Trophy as most outstanding lineman in Canadian college football.

He explained in a previous Medscape interview how he managed his dual career; as a doctor he said he would like to focus on emergency medicine:

“I would say that at around 16-17 years of age, I was pretty convinced that medicine was for me,” he told Medscape.

“I was lucky that I didn’t have to do an undergrad program,” he continued. “In Canada, they have a fast-track program where instead of doing a full undergrad before getting into medical school, you can do a 1-year program where you can do all your physiology and biology classes all together.

“I had the chance to get into that program, and that’s how I was able to manage football and medicine at the same time. There’s no way I could have finished my med school doing part-time med school like I did for the past 4 years.”

ESPN explained the opt-out option: “According to an agreement approved by both the league and the union on [July 24], players considered high risk for COVID-19 can earn $350,000 and an accrued NFL season if they choose to opt out of the 2020 season. Players without risk can earn $150,000 for opting out. Duvernay-Tardif was scheduled to make $2.75 million this season.”

The danger of COVID-19 in professional sports has already been seen in Major League Baseball.

According to USA Today, the Miami Marlins have at least 14 players and staff who have tested positive for COVID-19, and major league baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred must decide whether to further delay the shortened season, cancel it, or allow it to continue.

MLB postponed the Marlins’ home opener July 27 against the Baltimore Orioles as well as the New York Yankees game in Philadelphia against the Phillies.

COVID-19 also shut down professional, college, high school, and recreational sports throughout much of the country beginning in March.

Medicine, Football Intersect

In the previous Medscape interview, Duvernay-Tardif talked about how medicine influenced his football career.

“For me, medicine was really helpful in the sense that I was better able to build a routine and question what works for me and what doesn’t. It gave me the ability to structure my work in order to optimize my time and to make sure that it’s pertinent.

“Another thing is the psychology and the sports psychology. I think there’s a little bit of a stigma around mental health issues in professional sports and everywhere, actually. I think because of medicine, I was more willing to question myself and more willing to use different tools in order to be a better football player.”
 

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

Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, MD, the only medical doctor on a current NFL roster, has become the first player to opt out of the 2020 NFL season, citing concerns over risk for COVID-19.

Canadian-born Duvernay-Tardif, right guard for the Kansas City Chiefs, announced on Twitter on July 24 what he called “one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make in my life.”

“There is no doubt in my mind the Chiefs’ medical staff have put together a strong plan to minimize the health risks associated with COVID-19, but some risks will remain,” he posted.

“Being at the frontline during this offseason has given me a different perspective on this pandemic and the stress it puts on individuals and our healthcare system. I cannot allow myself to potentially transmit the virus in our communities simply to play the sport that I love. If I am to take risks, I will do it caring for patients.”

According to CNN, Duvernay-Tardif, less than 3 months after helping the Chiefs win the Super Bowl in February, began working at a long-term care facility near Montreal in what he described as a “nursing role.”

Duvernay-Tardif wrote recently in an article for Sports Illustrated that he has not completed his residency and is not yet licensed to practice.

“My first day back in the hospital was April 24,” Duvernay-Tardif wrote. “I felt nervous the night before, but a good nervous, like before a game.”

Duvernay-Tardif has also served on the NFL Players’ Association COVID-19 task force, according to Yahoo News .

A spokesperson for Duvernay-Tardif told Medscape Medical News he was unavailable to comment about the announcement.

Starting His Dual Career

Duvernay-Tardif, 29, was drafted in the sixth round by the Chiefs in 2014.

According to Forbes , he spent 8 years (2010-2018) pursuing his medical degree while still playing college football for McGill University in Montreal. Duvernay-Tardif played offensive tackle for the Redmen and in his senior year (2013) won the Metras Trophy as most outstanding lineman in Canadian college football.

He explained in a previous Medscape interview how he managed his dual career; as a doctor he said he would like to focus on emergency medicine:

“I would say that at around 16-17 years of age, I was pretty convinced that medicine was for me,” he told Medscape.

“I was lucky that I didn’t have to do an undergrad program,” he continued. “In Canada, they have a fast-track program where instead of doing a full undergrad before getting into medical school, you can do a 1-year program where you can do all your physiology and biology classes all together.

“I had the chance to get into that program, and that’s how I was able to manage football and medicine at the same time. There’s no way I could have finished my med school doing part-time med school like I did for the past 4 years.”

ESPN explained the opt-out option: “According to an agreement approved by both the league and the union on [July 24], players considered high risk for COVID-19 can earn $350,000 and an accrued NFL season if they choose to opt out of the 2020 season. Players without risk can earn $150,000 for opting out. Duvernay-Tardif was scheduled to make $2.75 million this season.”

The danger of COVID-19 in professional sports has already been seen in Major League Baseball.

According to USA Today, the Miami Marlins have at least 14 players and staff who have tested positive for COVID-19, and major league baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred must decide whether to further delay the shortened season, cancel it, or allow it to continue.

MLB postponed the Marlins’ home opener July 27 against the Baltimore Orioles as well as the New York Yankees game in Philadelphia against the Phillies.

COVID-19 also shut down professional, college, high school, and recreational sports throughout much of the country beginning in March.

Medicine, Football Intersect

In the previous Medscape interview, Duvernay-Tardif talked about how medicine influenced his football career.

“For me, medicine was really helpful in the sense that I was better able to build a routine and question what works for me and what doesn’t. It gave me the ability to structure my work in order to optimize my time and to make sure that it’s pertinent.

“Another thing is the psychology and the sports psychology. I think there’s a little bit of a stigma around mental health issues in professional sports and everywhere, actually. I think because of medicine, I was more willing to question myself and more willing to use different tools in order to be a better football player.”
 

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

Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, MD, the only medical doctor on a current NFL roster, has become the first player to opt out of the 2020 NFL season, citing concerns over risk for COVID-19.

Canadian-born Duvernay-Tardif, right guard for the Kansas City Chiefs, announced on Twitter on July 24 what he called “one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make in my life.”

“There is no doubt in my mind the Chiefs’ medical staff have put together a strong plan to minimize the health risks associated with COVID-19, but some risks will remain,” he posted.

“Being at the frontline during this offseason has given me a different perspective on this pandemic and the stress it puts on individuals and our healthcare system. I cannot allow myself to potentially transmit the virus in our communities simply to play the sport that I love. If I am to take risks, I will do it caring for patients.”

According to CNN, Duvernay-Tardif, less than 3 months after helping the Chiefs win the Super Bowl in February, began working at a long-term care facility near Montreal in what he described as a “nursing role.”

Duvernay-Tardif wrote recently in an article for Sports Illustrated that he has not completed his residency and is not yet licensed to practice.

“My first day back in the hospital was April 24,” Duvernay-Tardif wrote. “I felt nervous the night before, but a good nervous, like before a game.”

Duvernay-Tardif has also served on the NFL Players’ Association COVID-19 task force, according to Yahoo News .

A spokesperson for Duvernay-Tardif told Medscape Medical News he was unavailable to comment about the announcement.

Starting His Dual Career

Duvernay-Tardif, 29, was drafted in the sixth round by the Chiefs in 2014.

According to Forbes , he spent 8 years (2010-2018) pursuing his medical degree while still playing college football for McGill University in Montreal. Duvernay-Tardif played offensive tackle for the Redmen and in his senior year (2013) won the Metras Trophy as most outstanding lineman in Canadian college football.

He explained in a previous Medscape interview how he managed his dual career; as a doctor he said he would like to focus on emergency medicine:

“I would say that at around 16-17 years of age, I was pretty convinced that medicine was for me,” he told Medscape.

“I was lucky that I didn’t have to do an undergrad program,” he continued. “In Canada, they have a fast-track program where instead of doing a full undergrad before getting into medical school, you can do a 1-year program where you can do all your physiology and biology classes all together.

“I had the chance to get into that program, and that’s how I was able to manage football and medicine at the same time. There’s no way I could have finished my med school doing part-time med school like I did for the past 4 years.”

ESPN explained the opt-out option: “According to an agreement approved by both the league and the union on [July 24], players considered high risk for COVID-19 can earn $350,000 and an accrued NFL season if they choose to opt out of the 2020 season. Players without risk can earn $150,000 for opting out. Duvernay-Tardif was scheduled to make $2.75 million this season.”

The danger of COVID-19 in professional sports has already been seen in Major League Baseball.

According to USA Today, the Miami Marlins have at least 14 players and staff who have tested positive for COVID-19, and major league baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred must decide whether to further delay the shortened season, cancel it, or allow it to continue.

MLB postponed the Marlins’ home opener July 27 against the Baltimore Orioles as well as the New York Yankees game in Philadelphia against the Phillies.

COVID-19 also shut down professional, college, high school, and recreational sports throughout much of the country beginning in March.

Medicine, Football Intersect

In the previous Medscape interview, Duvernay-Tardif talked about how medicine influenced his football career.

“For me, medicine was really helpful in the sense that I was better able to build a routine and question what works for me and what doesn’t. It gave me the ability to structure my work in order to optimize my time and to make sure that it’s pertinent.

“Another thing is the psychology and the sports psychology. I think there’s a little bit of a stigma around mental health issues in professional sports and everywhere, actually. I think because of medicine, I was more willing to question myself and more willing to use different tools in order to be a better football player.”
 

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

Complications were less common with robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) than with open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in a large study of patients with renal cancer.

RAPN was associated with a 61% decrease in intraoperative complications and a 71% decrease in overall complications in the IRON study.

Alessandro Larcher, MD, of San Raffaele Hospital and the Urological Research Institute in Milan, presented results from IRON during a live poster session at the virtual annual congress of the European Association of Urology.

The IRON study was performed in nine high-volume centers and involved 3,468 patients with renal cell cancer. Patients were recruited if they had a localized renal cell mass (cT1-2) with no nodal involvement or metastases. There were 2,405 patients who underwent RAPN and 1,063 who underwent OPN.

Intraoperative complications occurred in 5.7% of patients who underwent RAPN and in 9.3% of those who underwent OPN. Overall complications occurred in 33% and 18%, respectively (P < .001 for both).

“The complication profile was invariably in favor of robot-assisted surgery,” Dr. Larcher observed.

Patients who underwent RAPN had less estimated median blood loss (150 mL vs. 180 mL, P < .001) as well as lower rates of hemorrhagic complications (6.4% vs. 9%, P < .01) and urinary leakage (0.8% vs. 4.6%, P < .01).

The operative time was longer with RAPN than with OPN, at a median of 150 minutes and 120 minutes, respectively (P < .001). However, patients remained in the hospital for less time with RAPN than with OPN, at a median of 4 days and 6 days, respectively (P < .01).

RAPN was associated with fewer surgical complications than OPN according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Grade 2 or higher complications occurred in 12% and 20% of patients, respectively (P < .001). Grade 3 or higher complications occurred in 4% and 6.1%, respectively (P < .001).

“The benefit with respect to the complication risk reduction in the case of robot-assisted surgery was not affected by the tumor complexity, by the dimension of the mass, the comorbidities of the patients, or the baseline renal function,” Dr. Larcher said. “[T]he advantage after robot-assisted surgery is consistent regardless of all these features.”

Early renal function was better after OPN, but there was no significant difference between the two groups at 1 year of follow-up. The median ischemia time was 15 minutes with OPN and 16 minutes with RAPN (P < .001).

Postoperatively, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 78 mL/min/1.73m² with OPN and 76 mL/min/1.73m² with RAPN (P < .001). At 1 year, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 68 and 71 mL/min/1.73m², respectively (P = .5).

Dr. Larcher noted that there was no difference between RAPN and OPN in terms of 5-year oncologic outcomes. Local recurrence occurred in 1.6% and 2.1% of patients, respectively (P = .06); systemic progression was seen in 1.8% and 4.5%, respectively (P = .5); and clinical progression was observed in 3.2% and 6.6%, respectively (P = .9).

“[IRON is] a really powerful study. It’s one of those studies that kind of has to be done,” said Ben Challacombe, MBBS, a consultant urological surgeon at Guy’s Hospital and St. Thomas’ Hospital in London who chaired the poster session during which these findings were presented.

Dr. Challacombe, who specializes in the treatment of kidney and prostatic disease using robotic surgery, noted that about 75% of procedures in the United Kingdom are now being performed with robotic assistance and queried what percentage of procedures should still be done by open surgery.

“I would turn it,” Dr. Larcher said. “What is the percentage of surgeons that should use one technique or the other?” In the IRON study, as well as other studies, surgical expertise, training, and center volumes were important.

“What the data are telling us is that those who are really confident in robotic surgeries can achieve even better outcomes, also in very complex cases,” Dr. Larcher said. “I think it’s not any longer dependent on the tumor factors. The answer to the question is only determined by human factors.”

The IRON study was supported by a grant from Intuitive. Dr. Larcher declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Challacombe did not present any disclosures.

SOURCE: Larcher A et al. EAU20, Abstract 30. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020;19(Suppl 2):e142.

Complications were less common with robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) than with open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in a large study of patients with renal cancer.

RAPN was associated with a 61% decrease in intraoperative complications and a 71% decrease in overall complications in the IRON study.

Alessandro Larcher, MD, of San Raffaele Hospital and the Urological Research Institute in Milan, presented results from IRON during a live poster session at the virtual annual congress of the European Association of Urology.

The IRON study was performed in nine high-volume centers and involved 3,468 patients with renal cell cancer. Patients were recruited if they had a localized renal cell mass (cT1-2) with no nodal involvement or metastases. There were 2,405 patients who underwent RAPN and 1,063 who underwent OPN.

Intraoperative complications occurred in 5.7% of patients who underwent RAPN and in 9.3% of those who underwent OPN. Overall complications occurred in 33% and 18%, respectively (P < .001 for both).

“The complication profile was invariably in favor of robot-assisted surgery,” Dr. Larcher observed.

Patients who underwent RAPN had less estimated median blood loss (150 mL vs. 180 mL, P < .001) as well as lower rates of hemorrhagic complications (6.4% vs. 9%, P < .01) and urinary leakage (0.8% vs. 4.6%, P < .01).

The operative time was longer with RAPN than with OPN, at a median of 150 minutes and 120 minutes, respectively (P < .001). However, patients remained in the hospital for less time with RAPN than with OPN, at a median of 4 days and 6 days, respectively (P < .01).

RAPN was associated with fewer surgical complications than OPN according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Grade 2 or higher complications occurred in 12% and 20% of patients, respectively (P < .001). Grade 3 or higher complications occurred in 4% and 6.1%, respectively (P < .001).

“The benefit with respect to the complication risk reduction in the case of robot-assisted surgery was not affected by the tumor complexity, by the dimension of the mass, the comorbidities of the patients, or the baseline renal function,” Dr. Larcher said. “[T]he advantage after robot-assisted surgery is consistent regardless of all these features.”

Early renal function was better after OPN, but there was no significant difference between the two groups at 1 year of follow-up. The median ischemia time was 15 minutes with OPN and 16 minutes with RAPN (P < .001).

Postoperatively, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 78 mL/min/1.73m² with OPN and 76 mL/min/1.73m² with RAPN (P < .001). At 1 year, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 68 and 71 mL/min/1.73m², respectively (P = .5).

Dr. Larcher noted that there was no difference between RAPN and OPN in terms of 5-year oncologic outcomes. Local recurrence occurred in 1.6% and 2.1% of patients, respectively (P = .06); systemic progression was seen in 1.8% and 4.5%, respectively (P = .5); and clinical progression was observed in 3.2% and 6.6%, respectively (P = .9).

“[IRON is] a really powerful study. It’s one of those studies that kind of has to be done,” said Ben Challacombe, MBBS, a consultant urological surgeon at Guy’s Hospital and St. Thomas’ Hospital in London who chaired the poster session during which these findings were presented.

Dr. Challacombe, who specializes in the treatment of kidney and prostatic disease using robotic surgery, noted that about 75% of procedures in the United Kingdom are now being performed with robotic assistance and queried what percentage of procedures should still be done by open surgery.

“I would turn it,” Dr. Larcher said. “What is the percentage of surgeons that should use one technique or the other?” In the IRON study, as well as other studies, surgical expertise, training, and center volumes were important.

“What the data are telling us is that those who are really confident in robotic surgeries can achieve even better outcomes, also in very complex cases,” Dr. Larcher said. “I think it’s not any longer dependent on the tumor factors. The answer to the question is only determined by human factors.”

The IRON study was supported by a grant from Intuitive. Dr. Larcher declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Challacombe did not present any disclosures.

SOURCE: Larcher A et al. EAU20, Abstract 30. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020;19(Suppl 2):e142.

Complications were less common with robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) than with open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in a large study of patients with renal cancer.

RAPN was associated with a 61% decrease in intraoperative complications and a 71% decrease in overall complications in the IRON study.

Alessandro Larcher, MD, of San Raffaele Hospital and the Urological Research Institute in Milan, presented results from IRON during a live poster session at the virtual annual congress of the European Association of Urology.

The IRON study was performed in nine high-volume centers and involved 3,468 patients with renal cell cancer. Patients were recruited if they had a localized renal cell mass (cT1-2) with no nodal involvement or metastases. There were 2,405 patients who underwent RAPN and 1,063 who underwent OPN.

Intraoperative complications occurred in 5.7% of patients who underwent RAPN and in 9.3% of those who underwent OPN. Overall complications occurred in 33% and 18%, respectively (P < .001 for both).

“The complication profile was invariably in favor of robot-assisted surgery,” Dr. Larcher observed.

Patients who underwent RAPN had less estimated median blood loss (150 mL vs. 180 mL, P < .001) as well as lower rates of hemorrhagic complications (6.4% vs. 9%, P < .01) and urinary leakage (0.8% vs. 4.6%, P < .01).

The operative time was longer with RAPN than with OPN, at a median of 150 minutes and 120 minutes, respectively (P < .001). However, patients remained in the hospital for less time with RAPN than with OPN, at a median of 4 days and 6 days, respectively (P < .01).

RAPN was associated with fewer surgical complications than OPN according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Grade 2 or higher complications occurred in 12% and 20% of patients, respectively (P < .001). Grade 3 or higher complications occurred in 4% and 6.1%, respectively (P < .001).

“The benefit with respect to the complication risk reduction in the case of robot-assisted surgery was not affected by the tumor complexity, by the dimension of the mass, the comorbidities of the patients, or the baseline renal function,” Dr. Larcher said. “[T]he advantage after robot-assisted surgery is consistent regardless of all these features.”

Early renal function was better after OPN, but there was no significant difference between the two groups at 1 year of follow-up. The median ischemia time was 15 minutes with OPN and 16 minutes with RAPN (P < .001).

Postoperatively, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 78 mL/min/1.73m² with OPN and 76 mL/min/1.73m² with RAPN (P < .001). At 1 year, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 68 and 71 mL/min/1.73m², respectively (P = .5).

Dr. Larcher noted that there was no difference between RAPN and OPN in terms of 5-year oncologic outcomes. Local recurrence occurred in 1.6% and 2.1% of patients, respectively (P = .06); systemic progression was seen in 1.8% and 4.5%, respectively (P = .5); and clinical progression was observed in 3.2% and 6.6%, respectively (P = .9).

“[IRON is] a really powerful study. It’s one of those studies that kind of has to be done,” said Ben Challacombe, MBBS, a consultant urological surgeon at Guy’s Hospital and St. Thomas’ Hospital in London who chaired the poster session during which these findings were presented.

Dr. Challacombe, who specializes in the treatment of kidney and prostatic disease using robotic surgery, noted that about 75% of procedures in the United Kingdom are now being performed with robotic assistance and queried what percentage of procedures should still be done by open surgery.

“I would turn it,” Dr. Larcher said. “What is the percentage of surgeons that should use one technique or the other?” In the IRON study, as well as other studies, surgical expertise, training, and center volumes were important.

“What the data are telling us is that those who are really confident in robotic surgeries can achieve even better outcomes, also in very complex cases,” Dr. Larcher said. “I think it’s not any longer dependent on the tumor factors. The answer to the question is only determined by human factors.”

The IRON study was supported by a grant from Intuitive. Dr. Larcher declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Challacombe did not present any disclosures.

SOURCE: Larcher A et al. EAU20, Abstract 30. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020;19(Suppl 2):e142.

When the coronavirus pandemic hit New York City in early March, the Hospital for Special Surgery leadership decided that the best way to serve the city was to stop elective orthopedic procedures temporarily and use the facility to take on patients from its sister institution, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital.

As in other institutions, it was all hands on deck. We have hospitalists that are accustomed to managing postsurgical care and internists familiar with preop surgical clearances. But they needed more help, and soon, other internal medicine subspecialists were asked to volunteer, including rheumatologists and primary care sports medicine doctors.

As a rheumatologist, it had been well over 10 years since I had last done any inpatient work. I was filled with trepidation, but I was also excited to dive in.
 

April 4:

Feeling very unmoored. I am in unfamiliar territory, and it’s terrifying. There are so many things that I no longer know how to do. Thankfully, the hospitalists are gracious, extremely supportive, and helpful.

My N95 doesn’t fit well. It’s never fit — not during residency or fellowship, not in any job I’ve had, and not today. The lady fit-testing me said she was sorry, but the look on her face said, “I’m sorry, but you’re going to die.”
 

April 7:

We don’t know how to treat coronavirus. I’ve sent some patients home, others I’ve sent to the ICU. Thank goodness for treatment algorithms from leadership, but we are sorely lacking good-quality data.

Our infectious disease doctor doesn’t think hydroxychloroquine works at all; I suspect he is right. The guidance right now is to give hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to everyone who is sick enough to be admitted, but there are methodologic flaws in the early enthusiastic preprints, and so far, I’ve not noticed any demonstrable benefit.

The only thing that seems to be happening is that I am seeing more QT prolongation — not something I previously counseled my rheumatology patients on.
 

April 9:

The patients have been, with a few exceptions, alone in the room. They’re not allowed to have visitors and are required to wear masks all the time. Anyone who enters their rooms is fully covered up so you can barely see them. It’s anonymous and dehumanizing.

We’re instructed to take histories by phone in order to limit the time spent in each room. I buck this instruction; I still take histories in person because human contact seems more important now than ever.

Except maybe I should be smarter about this. One of my patients refuses any treatment, including oxygen support. She firmly believes this is a result of 5G networks — something I later discovered was a common conspiracy theory. She refused to wear a mask despite having a very bad cough. She coughed in my face a lot when we were chatting. My face with my ill-fitting N95 mask. Maybe the fit-testing lady’s eyes weren’t lying and I will die after all.
 

April 15:

On the days when I’m not working as a hospitalist, I am still doing remote visits with my rheumatology patients. It feels good to be doing something familiar and something I’m actually good at. But it is surreal to be faced with the quotidian on one hand and life and death on the other.

I recently saw a fairly new patient, and I still haven’t figured out if she has a rheumatic condition or if her symptoms all stem from an alcohol use disorder. In our previous visits, she could barely acknowledge that her drinking was an issue. On today’s visit, she told me she was 1½ months sober.

I don’t know her very well, but it was the happiest news I’d heard in a long time. I was so beside myself with joy that I cried, which says more about my current emotional state than anything else, really.
 

April 21:

On my panel of patients, I have three women with COVID-19 — all of whom lost their husbands to COVID-19, and none of whom were able to say their goodbyes. I cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to survive this period of illness, isolation, and fear, only to be met on the other side by grief.

Rheumatology doesn’t lend itself too well to such existential concerns; I am not equipped for this. Perhaps my only advantage as a rheumatologist is that I know how to use IVIG, anakinra, and tocilizumab.

Someone on my panel was started on anakinra, and it turned his case around. Would he have gotten better without it anyway? We’ll never know for sure.
 

April 28:

Patients seem to be requiring prolonged intubation. We have now reached the stage where patients are alive but trached and PEGed. One of my patients had been intubated for close to 3 weeks. She was one of four people in her family who contracted the illness (they had had a dinner party before New York’s state of emergency was declared). We thought she might die once she was extubated, but she is still fighting. Unconscious, unarousable, but breathing on her own.

Will she ever wake up? We don’t know. We put the onus on her family to make decisions about placing a PEG tube in. They can only do so from a distance with imperfect information gleaned from periodic, brief FaceTime interactions — where no interaction happens at all.
 

May 4:

It’s my last day as a “COVID hospitalist.” When I first started, I felt like I was being helpful. Walking home in the middle of the 7 PM cheers for healthcare workers frequently left me teary eyed. As horrible as the situation was, I was proud of myself for volunteering to help and appreciative of a broken city’s gratitude toward all healthcare workers in general. Maybe I bought into the idea that, like many others around me, I am a hero.

I don’t feel like a hero, though. The stuff I saw was easy compared with the stuff that my colleagues in critical care saw. Our hospital accepted the more stable patient transfers from our sister hospitals. Patients who remained in the NewYork–Presbyterian system were sicker, with encephalitis, thrombotic complications, multiorgan failure, and cytokine release syndrome. It’s the doctors who took care of those patients who deserve to be called heroes.

No, I am no hero. But did my volunteering make a difference? It made a difference to me. The overwhelming feeling I am left with isn’t pride; it’s humility. I feel humbled that I could feel so unexpectedly touched by the lives of people that I had no idea I could feel touched by.
 

Postscript:

My patient Esther [name changed to hide her identity] died from COVID-19. She was MY patient — not a patient I met as a COVID hospitalist, but a patient with rheumatoid arthritis whom I cared for for years.

She had scleromalacia and multiple failed scleral grafts, which made her profoundly sad. She fought her anxiety fiercely and always with poise and panache. One way she dealt with her anxiety was that she constantly messaged me via our EHR portal. She ran everything by me and trusted me to be her rock.

The past month has been so busy that I just now noticed it had been a month since I last heard from her. I tried to call her but got her voicemail. It wasn’t until I exchanged messages with her ophthalmologist that I found out she had passed away from complications of COVID-19.

She was taking rituximab and mycophenolate. I wonder if these drugs made her sicker than she would have been otherwise; it fills me with sadness. I wonder if she was alone like my other COVID-19 patients. I wonder if she was afraid. I am sorry that I wasn’t able to say goodbye.

Karmela Kim Chan, MD, is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an attending physician at Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a columnist for this rheumatology publication, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com. This article is part of a partnership between Medscape and Hospital for Special Surgery.

When the coronavirus pandemic hit New York City in early March, the Hospital for Special Surgery leadership decided that the best way to serve the city was to stop elective orthopedic procedures temporarily and use the facility to take on patients from its sister institution, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital.

As in other institutions, it was all hands on deck. We have hospitalists that are accustomed to managing postsurgical care and internists familiar with preop surgical clearances. But they needed more help, and soon, other internal medicine subspecialists were asked to volunteer, including rheumatologists and primary care sports medicine doctors.

As a rheumatologist, it had been well over 10 years since I had last done any inpatient work. I was filled with trepidation, but I was also excited to dive in.
 

April 4:

Feeling very unmoored. I am in unfamiliar territory, and it’s terrifying. There are so many things that I no longer know how to do. Thankfully, the hospitalists are gracious, extremely supportive, and helpful.

My N95 doesn’t fit well. It’s never fit — not during residency or fellowship, not in any job I’ve had, and not today. The lady fit-testing me said she was sorry, but the look on her face said, “I’m sorry, but you’re going to die.”
 

April 7:

We don’t know how to treat coronavirus. I’ve sent some patients home, others I’ve sent to the ICU. Thank goodness for treatment algorithms from leadership, but we are sorely lacking good-quality data.

Our infectious disease doctor doesn’t think hydroxychloroquine works at all; I suspect he is right. The guidance right now is to give hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to everyone who is sick enough to be admitted, but there are methodologic flaws in the early enthusiastic preprints, and so far, I’ve not noticed any demonstrable benefit.

The only thing that seems to be happening is that I am seeing more QT prolongation — not something I previously counseled my rheumatology patients on.
 

April 9:

The patients have been, with a few exceptions, alone in the room. They’re not allowed to have visitors and are required to wear masks all the time. Anyone who enters their rooms is fully covered up so you can barely see them. It’s anonymous and dehumanizing.

We’re instructed to take histories by phone in order to limit the time spent in each room. I buck this instruction; I still take histories in person because human contact seems more important now than ever.

Except maybe I should be smarter about this. One of my patients refuses any treatment, including oxygen support. She firmly believes this is a result of 5G networks — something I later discovered was a common conspiracy theory. She refused to wear a mask despite having a very bad cough. She coughed in my face a lot when we were chatting. My face with my ill-fitting N95 mask. Maybe the fit-testing lady’s eyes weren’t lying and I will die after all.
 

April 15:

On the days when I’m not working as a hospitalist, I am still doing remote visits with my rheumatology patients. It feels good to be doing something familiar and something I’m actually good at. But it is surreal to be faced with the quotidian on one hand and life and death on the other.

I recently saw a fairly new patient, and I still haven’t figured out if she has a rheumatic condition or if her symptoms all stem from an alcohol use disorder. In our previous visits, she could barely acknowledge that her drinking was an issue. On today’s visit, she told me she was 1½ months sober.

I don’t know her very well, but it was the happiest news I’d heard in a long time. I was so beside myself with joy that I cried, which says more about my current emotional state than anything else, really.
 

April 21:

On my panel of patients, I have three women with COVID-19 — all of whom lost their husbands to COVID-19, and none of whom were able to say their goodbyes. I cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to survive this period of illness, isolation, and fear, only to be met on the other side by grief.

Rheumatology doesn’t lend itself too well to such existential concerns; I am not equipped for this. Perhaps my only advantage as a rheumatologist is that I know how to use IVIG, anakinra, and tocilizumab.

Someone on my panel was started on anakinra, and it turned his case around. Would he have gotten better without it anyway? We’ll never know for sure.
 

April 28:

Patients seem to be requiring prolonged intubation. We have now reached the stage where patients are alive but trached and PEGed. One of my patients had been intubated for close to 3 weeks. She was one of four people in her family who contracted the illness (they had had a dinner party before New York’s state of emergency was declared). We thought she might die once she was extubated, but she is still fighting. Unconscious, unarousable, but breathing on her own.

Will she ever wake up? We don’t know. We put the onus on her family to make decisions about placing a PEG tube in. They can only do so from a distance with imperfect information gleaned from periodic, brief FaceTime interactions — where no interaction happens at all.
 

May 4:

It’s my last day as a “COVID hospitalist.” When I first started, I felt like I was being helpful. Walking home in the middle of the 7 PM cheers for healthcare workers frequently left me teary eyed. As horrible as the situation was, I was proud of myself for volunteering to help and appreciative of a broken city’s gratitude toward all healthcare workers in general. Maybe I bought into the idea that, like many others around me, I am a hero.

I don’t feel like a hero, though. The stuff I saw was easy compared with the stuff that my colleagues in critical care saw. Our hospital accepted the more stable patient transfers from our sister hospitals. Patients who remained in the NewYork–Presbyterian system were sicker, with encephalitis, thrombotic complications, multiorgan failure, and cytokine release syndrome. It’s the doctors who took care of those patients who deserve to be called heroes.

No, I am no hero. But did my volunteering make a difference? It made a difference to me. The overwhelming feeling I am left with isn’t pride; it’s humility. I feel humbled that I could feel so unexpectedly touched by the lives of people that I had no idea I could feel touched by.
 

Postscript:

My patient Esther [name changed to hide her identity] died from COVID-19. She was MY patient — not a patient I met as a COVID hospitalist, but a patient with rheumatoid arthritis whom I cared for for years.

She had scleromalacia and multiple failed scleral grafts, which made her profoundly sad. She fought her anxiety fiercely and always with poise and panache. One way she dealt with her anxiety was that she constantly messaged me via our EHR portal. She ran everything by me and trusted me to be her rock.

The past month has been so busy that I just now noticed it had been a month since I last heard from her. I tried to call her but got her voicemail. It wasn’t until I exchanged messages with her ophthalmologist that I found out she had passed away from complications of COVID-19.

She was taking rituximab and mycophenolate. I wonder if these drugs made her sicker than she would have been otherwise; it fills me with sadness. I wonder if she was alone like my other COVID-19 patients. I wonder if she was afraid. I am sorry that I wasn’t able to say goodbye.

Karmela Kim Chan, MD, is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an attending physician at Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a columnist for this rheumatology publication, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com. This article is part of a partnership between Medscape and Hospital for Special Surgery.

When the coronavirus pandemic hit New York City in early March, the Hospital for Special Surgery leadership decided that the best way to serve the city was to stop elective orthopedic procedures temporarily and use the facility to take on patients from its sister institution, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital.

As in other institutions, it was all hands on deck. We have hospitalists that are accustomed to managing postsurgical care and internists familiar with preop surgical clearances. But they needed more help, and soon, other internal medicine subspecialists were asked to volunteer, including rheumatologists and primary care sports medicine doctors.

As a rheumatologist, it had been well over 10 years since I had last done any inpatient work. I was filled with trepidation, but I was also excited to dive in.
 

April 4:

Feeling very unmoored. I am in unfamiliar territory, and it’s terrifying. There are so many things that I no longer know how to do. Thankfully, the hospitalists are gracious, extremely supportive, and helpful.

My N95 doesn’t fit well. It’s never fit — not during residency or fellowship, not in any job I’ve had, and not today. The lady fit-testing me said she was sorry, but the look on her face said, “I’m sorry, but you’re going to die.”
 

April 7:

We don’t know how to treat coronavirus. I’ve sent some patients home, others I’ve sent to the ICU. Thank goodness for treatment algorithms from leadership, but we are sorely lacking good-quality data.

Our infectious disease doctor doesn’t think hydroxychloroquine works at all; I suspect he is right. The guidance right now is to give hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to everyone who is sick enough to be admitted, but there are methodologic flaws in the early enthusiastic preprints, and so far, I’ve not noticed any demonstrable benefit.

The only thing that seems to be happening is that I am seeing more QT prolongation — not something I previously counseled my rheumatology patients on.
 

April 9:

The patients have been, with a few exceptions, alone in the room. They’re not allowed to have visitors and are required to wear masks all the time. Anyone who enters their rooms is fully covered up so you can barely see them. It’s anonymous and dehumanizing.

We’re instructed to take histories by phone in order to limit the time spent in each room. I buck this instruction; I still take histories in person because human contact seems more important now than ever.

Except maybe I should be smarter about this. One of my patients refuses any treatment, including oxygen support. She firmly believes this is a result of 5G networks — something I later discovered was a common conspiracy theory. She refused to wear a mask despite having a very bad cough. She coughed in my face a lot when we were chatting. My face with my ill-fitting N95 mask. Maybe the fit-testing lady’s eyes weren’t lying and I will die after all.
 

April 15:

On the days when I’m not working as a hospitalist, I am still doing remote visits with my rheumatology patients. It feels good to be doing something familiar and something I’m actually good at. But it is surreal to be faced with the quotidian on one hand and life and death on the other.

I recently saw a fairly new patient, and I still haven’t figured out if she has a rheumatic condition or if her symptoms all stem from an alcohol use disorder. In our previous visits, she could barely acknowledge that her drinking was an issue. On today’s visit, she told me she was 1½ months sober.

I don’t know her very well, but it was the happiest news I’d heard in a long time. I was so beside myself with joy that I cried, which says more about my current emotional state than anything else, really.
 

April 21:

On my panel of patients, I have three women with COVID-19 — all of whom lost their husbands to COVID-19, and none of whom were able to say their goodbyes. I cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to survive this period of illness, isolation, and fear, only to be met on the other side by grief.

Rheumatology doesn’t lend itself too well to such existential concerns; I am not equipped for this. Perhaps my only advantage as a rheumatologist is that I know how to use IVIG, anakinra, and tocilizumab.

Someone on my panel was started on anakinra, and it turned his case around. Would he have gotten better without it anyway? We’ll never know for sure.
 

April 28:

Patients seem to be requiring prolonged intubation. We have now reached the stage where patients are alive but trached and PEGed. One of my patients had been intubated for close to 3 weeks. She was one of four people in her family who contracted the illness (they had had a dinner party before New York’s state of emergency was declared). We thought she might die once she was extubated, but she is still fighting. Unconscious, unarousable, but breathing on her own.

Will she ever wake up? We don’t know. We put the onus on her family to make decisions about placing a PEG tube in. They can only do so from a distance with imperfect information gleaned from periodic, brief FaceTime interactions — where no interaction happens at all.
 

May 4:

It’s my last day as a “COVID hospitalist.” When I first started, I felt like I was being helpful. Walking home in the middle of the 7 PM cheers for healthcare workers frequently left me teary eyed. As horrible as the situation was, I was proud of myself for volunteering to help and appreciative of a broken city’s gratitude toward all healthcare workers in general. Maybe I bought into the idea that, like many others around me, I am a hero.

I don’t feel like a hero, though. The stuff I saw was easy compared with the stuff that my colleagues in critical care saw. Our hospital accepted the more stable patient transfers from our sister hospitals. Patients who remained in the NewYork–Presbyterian system were sicker, with encephalitis, thrombotic complications, multiorgan failure, and cytokine release syndrome. It’s the doctors who took care of those patients who deserve to be called heroes.

No, I am no hero. But did my volunteering make a difference? It made a difference to me. The overwhelming feeling I am left with isn’t pride; it’s humility. I feel humbled that I could feel so unexpectedly touched by the lives of people that I had no idea I could feel touched by.
 

Postscript:

My patient Esther [name changed to hide her identity] died from COVID-19. She was MY patient — not a patient I met as a COVID hospitalist, but a patient with rheumatoid arthritis whom I cared for for years.

She had scleromalacia and multiple failed scleral grafts, which made her profoundly sad. She fought her anxiety fiercely and always with poise and panache. One way she dealt with her anxiety was that she constantly messaged me via our EHR portal. She ran everything by me and trusted me to be her rock.

The past month has been so busy that I just now noticed it had been a month since I last heard from her. I tried to call her but got her voicemail. It wasn’t until I exchanged messages with her ophthalmologist that I found out she had passed away from complications of COVID-19.

She was taking rituximab and mycophenolate. I wonder if these drugs made her sicker than she would have been otherwise; it fills me with sadness. I wonder if she was alone like my other COVID-19 patients. I wonder if she was afraid. I am sorry that I wasn’t able to say goodbye.

Karmela Kim Chan, MD, is an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and an attending physician at Hospital for Special Surgery and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Before moving to New York City, she spent 7 years in private practice in Rhode Island and was a columnist for this rheumatology publication, writing about the challenges of starting life as a full-fledged rheumatologist in a private practice.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com. This article is part of a partnership between Medscape and Hospital for Special Surgery.

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement.

Design. Double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. Enrollment for the study took place between February 21, 2020, and April 19, 2020, at 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, Korea, Mexico, Spain, Japan, and Singapore. Study participants included patients aged ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized and had laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, as determined by a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay on a respiratory specimen. Participants had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection at the time of enrollment; this was defined as radiographic infiltrates by imaging study, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) ≤ 94% on room air, or requiring supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Exclusion criteria for study participation included abnormal liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase) more than 5 times the upper limit of normal range; impaired renal function or need for hemodialysis or hemofiltration; pregnancy or breastfeeding; or anticipated hospital discharge or transfer to another hospital within 72 hours of enrollment.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200-mg loading dose on day 1, followed by a 100-mg maintenance dose daily on days 2 through 10, or until hospital discharge or death) or placebo for up to 10 days. Blinding was maintained by masking infusions with an opaque bag and tubing. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment. Supportive care was delivered to all participants according to the standard of care at each trial site hospital. Clinical status, determined using an 8-category ordinal scale and the National Early Warning Score, was assessed daily for each participant while hospitalized (day 1 through day 29).

Blood samples for safety laboratory tests were collected, and oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swab testing was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11. All serious adverse events (AEs) and grade 3/4 AEs that represented an increase in severity from day 1 and any grade 2 or higher suspected drug-related hypersensitivity reactions associated with the study drug or placebo administration were recorded.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint measure of this study was time to recovery, defined as the first day during the 28 days after enrollment on which a participant satisfied category 1 (ie, not hospitalized, no limitations of activities), 2 (ie, not hospitalized, limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both), or 3 (ie, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care; hospitalization was extended for infection-control reason) on the 8-category ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 14 and 28 days after enrollment and grade 3/4 AEs and serious AEs that occurred during trial participation. Analysis of the primary outcome was performed using a log-rank test of the time to recovery comparing remdesivir with placebo group, stratified by disease severity.

The study’s primary outcome was initially defined as a difference in clinical status as ascertained by the 8-category ordinal scale between groups of participants who were administered remdesivir versus placebo on day 15. Because of new knowledge gained external to the study about a more protracted COVID-19 clinical course than previously recognized, a change in primary outcome to time to recovery was proposed by trial statisticians, who were unaware of treatment assignments (72 participants had been enrolled) or outcome data (no interim data) on March 22, 2020, with subsequent amendment approval on April 2, 2020. On April 27, 2020, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the interim study analysis (with data cutoff date of April 22, 2020) and recommended the report and mortality data to be provided to trial team members from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; these findings were subsequently made public.

Main results. A total of 1107 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1063 underwent randomization, with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 522 to placebo. Results were unblinded early at the recommendation of DSMB due to findings from the interim analysis that showed reduced time to recovery in the group that received remdesivir. As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 participants in the remdesivir group and 340 participants in the placebo group had completed the trial (day 29), recovered, or died. The mean age of participants was 58.9 ± 15.0 years, the majority were men (64.3%) and were White (53.2%), and the most common prespecified coexisting conditions were hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The vast majority of participants (88.7%) had severe COVID-19 disease at enrollment, defined as requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, requiring supplemental oxygen, SpO₂ ≤ 94% on room air, or tachypnea (respiratory rate ≥ 24 breaths per minute).

Based on available data from 1059 participants (538 from the remdesivir group and 521 from the placebo group), those in the remdesivir group had a shorter median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-12) as compared to 15 days (95% CI, 13-19) in the placebo group, with a rate ratio for recovery of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P < 0.001). Moreover, the odds of improvement on day 15 in the 8-category ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, compared to the placebo group (proportional odds model; odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18-1.91; P = 0.001; 844 participants).

Mortality rate by 14 days was numerically lower in the remdesivir group (7.1%) compared to the placebo group (11.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Kaplan-Meier, hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04). Serious AEs were reported in 114 of the 541 (21.1%) participants in the remdesivir group and 141 of the 522 (27.0%) participants in the placebo group. Moreover, grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 156 (28.8%) participants in the remdesivir group and in 172 (33.0%) in the placebo group.

Conclusion. The study found that remdesivir, compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.

Commentary

Since the initial reporting of a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, China, on December 31, 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as the cause of this new disease (COVID-19), and to-date SARS-CoV-2 infection has affected more than 15.2 million people globally, with more than 3.9 million cases in the United States alone.¹ Despite an unprecedented global research effort, as well as public-private research partnerships, both in terms of scale and scope, an effective pharmacologic therapy for COVID-19 has so far eluded the scientific and medical community. Early trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir did not demonstrate a clinical benefit in patients with COVID-19.^2,3 Moreover, the first randomized controlled trial of remdesivir in COVID-19, a nucleoside analogue prodrug and a broad-spectrum antiviral agent previously shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses, was an underpowered study, and thus inconclusive.⁴ Thus, given the persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic and a current lack of effective vaccines or curative treatments, the study reported by Beigel and colleagues is timely and provides much needed knowledge in developing potential therapies for COVID-19.

The present report described the preliminary results of the first stage of the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1), which aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The study itself was well-designed and conducted. The successful enrollment of more than 1000 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio within a 2-month recruitment window, involving 60 international trial sites, shortly after the emergence of a new global pandemic was remarkable. This study provided the first evidence that remdesivir, an antiviral, can shorten time to recovery by approximately 31% compared to placebo in COVID-19 patients with lower respiratory tract involvement.

Interestingly, this beneficial effect of remdesivir on time to recovery was primarily observed in participants within the severe disease stratum (those requiring supplemental oxygen) at baseline (12 days in remdesivir group versus 18 days in placebo group), but not in those with mild-moderate disease at the time of study enrollment (5 days in either remdesivir or placebo group). Moreover, the beneficial effects of remdesivir on reducing time to recovery was not observed in participants who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment. Thus, these preliminary results suggest that COVID-19 disease severity and timing, particularly in patients who require supplemental oxygen but prior to disease progression towards requiring mechanical ventilation, may present a window of opportunity to initiate remdesivir treatment in order to improve outcomes. Further analysis utilizing data from the entire cohort, including outcomes data from the full 28-day follow-up period, may better delineate the subgroup of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who may benefit most from remdesivir. Last, safety data from the present study, along with that reported by Wang and colleagues,⁴ provides evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period.

The preliminary results from the ACCT-1 provide early evidence that remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with pulmonary involvement. In light of these results, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ In addition, remdesivir has also recently been approved as a therapy for COVID-19 in Japan, Taiwan, India, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates, and has received conditional approval for use by the European Commission.⁶

Although these are encouraging developments in the race to identify effective therapeutics for COVID-19, a number of unanswered questions regarding the administration of remdesivir in the treatment of this disease remain. For instance, in an open-label, randomized, multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, treatment with a 5-day course versus a 10-day course of intravenous remdesivir did not result in a significant difference in efficacy.⁷ Thus, more studies are needed to better determine the shortest effective duration of remdesivir therapy in COVID-19 patients with different disease severity. Also, the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients who were treated with remdesivir remained high in the current study. Therefore, there is ample opportunity to evaluate treatment strategies, including multidrug interventions with remdesivir, to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who require supplemental oxygen therapy. While much needs to be learned in order to optimize treatment of COVID-19, preliminary findings from the current study provide an important first step towards these discoveries.

–Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement.

Design. Double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. Enrollment for the study took place between February 21, 2020, and April 19, 2020, at 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, Korea, Mexico, Spain, Japan, and Singapore. Study participants included patients aged ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized and had laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, as determined by a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay on a respiratory specimen. Participants had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection at the time of enrollment; this was defined as radiographic infiltrates by imaging study, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) ≤ 94% on room air, or requiring supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Exclusion criteria for study participation included abnormal liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase) more than 5 times the upper limit of normal range; impaired renal function or need for hemodialysis or hemofiltration; pregnancy or breastfeeding; or anticipated hospital discharge or transfer to another hospital within 72 hours of enrollment.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200-mg loading dose on day 1, followed by a 100-mg maintenance dose daily on days 2 through 10, or until hospital discharge or death) or placebo for up to 10 days. Blinding was maintained by masking infusions with an opaque bag and tubing. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment. Supportive care was delivered to all participants according to the standard of care at each trial site hospital. Clinical status, determined using an 8-category ordinal scale and the National Early Warning Score, was assessed daily for each participant while hospitalized (day 1 through day 29).

Blood samples for safety laboratory tests were collected, and oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swab testing was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11. All serious adverse events (AEs) and grade 3/4 AEs that represented an increase in severity from day 1 and any grade 2 or higher suspected drug-related hypersensitivity reactions associated with the study drug or placebo administration were recorded.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint measure of this study was time to recovery, defined as the first day during the 28 days after enrollment on which a participant satisfied category 1 (ie, not hospitalized, no limitations of activities), 2 (ie, not hospitalized, limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both), or 3 (ie, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care; hospitalization was extended for infection-control reason) on the 8-category ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 14 and 28 days after enrollment and grade 3/4 AEs and serious AEs that occurred during trial participation. Analysis of the primary outcome was performed using a log-rank test of the time to recovery comparing remdesivir with placebo group, stratified by disease severity.

The study’s primary outcome was initially defined as a difference in clinical status as ascertained by the 8-category ordinal scale between groups of participants who were administered remdesivir versus placebo on day 15. Because of new knowledge gained external to the study about a more protracted COVID-19 clinical course than previously recognized, a change in primary outcome to time to recovery was proposed by trial statisticians, who were unaware of treatment assignments (72 participants had been enrolled) or outcome data (no interim data) on March 22, 2020, with subsequent amendment approval on April 2, 2020. On April 27, 2020, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the interim study analysis (with data cutoff date of April 22, 2020) and recommended the report and mortality data to be provided to trial team members from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; these findings were subsequently made public.

Main results. A total of 1107 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1063 underwent randomization, with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 522 to placebo. Results were unblinded early at the recommendation of DSMB due to findings from the interim analysis that showed reduced time to recovery in the group that received remdesivir. As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 participants in the remdesivir group and 340 participants in the placebo group had completed the trial (day 29), recovered, or died. The mean age of participants was 58.9 ± 15.0 years, the majority were men (64.3%) and were White (53.2%), and the most common prespecified coexisting conditions were hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The vast majority of participants (88.7%) had severe COVID-19 disease at enrollment, defined as requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, requiring supplemental oxygen, SpO₂ ≤ 94% on room air, or tachypnea (respiratory rate ≥ 24 breaths per minute).

Based on available data from 1059 participants (538 from the remdesivir group and 521 from the placebo group), those in the remdesivir group had a shorter median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-12) as compared to 15 days (95% CI, 13-19) in the placebo group, with a rate ratio for recovery of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P < 0.001). Moreover, the odds of improvement on day 15 in the 8-category ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, compared to the placebo group (proportional odds model; odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18-1.91; P = 0.001; 844 participants).

Mortality rate by 14 days was numerically lower in the remdesivir group (7.1%) compared to the placebo group (11.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Kaplan-Meier, hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04). Serious AEs were reported in 114 of the 541 (21.1%) participants in the remdesivir group and 141 of the 522 (27.0%) participants in the placebo group. Moreover, grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 156 (28.8%) participants in the remdesivir group and in 172 (33.0%) in the placebo group.

Conclusion. The study found that remdesivir, compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.

Commentary

Since the initial reporting of a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, China, on December 31, 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as the cause of this new disease (COVID-19), and to-date SARS-CoV-2 infection has affected more than 15.2 million people globally, with more than 3.9 million cases in the United States alone.¹ Despite an unprecedented global research effort, as well as public-private research partnerships, both in terms of scale and scope, an effective pharmacologic therapy for COVID-19 has so far eluded the scientific and medical community. Early trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir did not demonstrate a clinical benefit in patients with COVID-19.^2,3 Moreover, the first randomized controlled trial of remdesivir in COVID-19, a nucleoside analogue prodrug and a broad-spectrum antiviral agent previously shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses, was an underpowered study, and thus inconclusive.⁴ Thus, given the persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic and a current lack of effective vaccines or curative treatments, the study reported by Beigel and colleagues is timely and provides much needed knowledge in developing potential therapies for COVID-19.

The present report described the preliminary results of the first stage of the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1), which aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The study itself was well-designed and conducted. The successful enrollment of more than 1000 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio within a 2-month recruitment window, involving 60 international trial sites, shortly after the emergence of a new global pandemic was remarkable. This study provided the first evidence that remdesivir, an antiviral, can shorten time to recovery by approximately 31% compared to placebo in COVID-19 patients with lower respiratory tract involvement.

Interestingly, this beneficial effect of remdesivir on time to recovery was primarily observed in participants within the severe disease stratum (those requiring supplemental oxygen) at baseline (12 days in remdesivir group versus 18 days in placebo group), but not in those with mild-moderate disease at the time of study enrollment (5 days in either remdesivir or placebo group). Moreover, the beneficial effects of remdesivir on reducing time to recovery was not observed in participants who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment. Thus, these preliminary results suggest that COVID-19 disease severity and timing, particularly in patients who require supplemental oxygen but prior to disease progression towards requiring mechanical ventilation, may present a window of opportunity to initiate remdesivir treatment in order to improve outcomes. Further analysis utilizing data from the entire cohort, including outcomes data from the full 28-day follow-up period, may better delineate the subgroup of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who may benefit most from remdesivir. Last, safety data from the present study, along with that reported by Wang and colleagues,⁴ provides evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period.

The preliminary results from the ACCT-1 provide early evidence that remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with pulmonary involvement. In light of these results, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ In addition, remdesivir has also recently been approved as a therapy for COVID-19 in Japan, Taiwan, India, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates, and has received conditional approval for use by the European Commission.⁶

Although these are encouraging developments in the race to identify effective therapeutics for COVID-19, a number of unanswered questions regarding the administration of remdesivir in the treatment of this disease remain. For instance, in an open-label, randomized, multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, treatment with a 5-day course versus a 10-day course of intravenous remdesivir did not result in a significant difference in efficacy.⁷ Thus, more studies are needed to better determine the shortest effective duration of remdesivir therapy in COVID-19 patients with different disease severity. Also, the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients who were treated with remdesivir remained high in the current study. Therefore, there is ample opportunity to evaluate treatment strategies, including multidrug interventions with remdesivir, to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who require supplemental oxygen therapy. While much needs to be learned in order to optimize treatment of COVID-19, preliminary findings from the current study provide an important first step towards these discoveries.

–Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of remdesivir in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement.

Design. Double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

Setting and participants. Enrollment for the study took place between February 21, 2020, and April 19, 2020, at 60 trial sites and 13 subsites in the United States, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, Korea, Mexico, Spain, Japan, and Singapore. Study participants included patients aged ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized and had laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, as determined by a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay on a respiratory specimen. Participants had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection at the time of enrollment; this was defined as radiographic infiltrates by imaging study, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) ≤ 94% on room air, or requiring supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Exclusion criteria for study participation included abnormal liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase) more than 5 times the upper limit of normal range; impaired renal function or need for hemodialysis or hemofiltration; pregnancy or breastfeeding; or anticipated hospital discharge or transfer to another hospital within 72 hours of enrollment.

Intervention. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the remdesivir group or the placebo group and were administered either intravenous infusions of remdesivir (200-mg loading dose on day 1, followed by a 100-mg maintenance dose daily on days 2 through 10, or until hospital discharge or death) or placebo for up to 10 days. Blinding was maintained by masking infusions with an opaque bag and tubing. Randomization was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrollment. Supportive care was delivered to all participants according to the standard of care at each trial site hospital. Clinical status, determined using an 8-category ordinal scale and the National Early Warning Score, was assessed daily for each participant while hospitalized (day 1 through day 29).

Blood samples for safety laboratory tests were collected, and oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swab testing was performed for viral RNA detection and quantification on days 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11. All serious adverse events (AEs) and grade 3/4 AEs that represented an increase in severity from day 1 and any grade 2 or higher suspected drug-related hypersensitivity reactions associated with the study drug or placebo administration were recorded.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint measure of this study was time to recovery, defined as the first day during the 28 days after enrollment on which a participant satisfied category 1 (ie, not hospitalized, no limitations of activities), 2 (ie, not hospitalized, limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both), or 3 (ie, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care; hospitalization was extended for infection-control reason) on the 8-category ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 14 and 28 days after enrollment and grade 3/4 AEs and serious AEs that occurred during trial participation. Analysis of the primary outcome was performed using a log-rank test of the time to recovery comparing remdesivir with placebo group, stratified by disease severity.

The study’s primary outcome was initially defined as a difference in clinical status as ascertained by the 8-category ordinal scale between groups of participants who were administered remdesivir versus placebo on day 15. Because of new knowledge gained external to the study about a more protracted COVID-19 clinical course than previously recognized, a change in primary outcome to time to recovery was proposed by trial statisticians, who were unaware of treatment assignments (72 participants had been enrolled) or outcome data (no interim data) on March 22, 2020, with subsequent amendment approval on April 2, 2020. On April 27, 2020, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the interim study analysis (with data cutoff date of April 22, 2020) and recommended the report and mortality data to be provided to trial team members from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; these findings were subsequently made public.

Main results. A total of 1107 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1063 underwent randomization, with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 522 to placebo. Results were unblinded early at the recommendation of DSMB due to findings from the interim analysis that showed reduced time to recovery in the group that received remdesivir. As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 participants in the remdesivir group and 340 participants in the placebo group had completed the trial (day 29), recovered, or died. The mean age of participants was 58.9 ± 15.0 years, the majority were men (64.3%) and were White (53.2%), and the most common prespecified coexisting conditions were hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The vast majority of participants (88.7%) had severe COVID-19 disease at enrollment, defined as requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, requiring supplemental oxygen, SpO₂ ≤ 94% on room air, or tachypnea (respiratory rate ≥ 24 breaths per minute).

Based on available data from 1059 participants (538 from the remdesivir group and 521 from the placebo group), those in the remdesivir group had a shorter median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-12) as compared to 15 days (95% CI, 13-19) in the placebo group, with a rate ratio for recovery of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P < 0.001). Moreover, the odds of improvement on day 15 in the 8-category ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, compared to the placebo group (proportional odds model; odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.18-1.91; P = 0.001; 844 participants).

Mortality rate by 14 days was numerically lower in the remdesivir group (7.1%) compared to the placebo group (11.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Kaplan-Meier, hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04). Serious AEs were reported in 114 of the 541 (21.1%) participants in the remdesivir group and 141 of the 522 (27.0%) participants in the placebo group. Moreover, grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 156 (28.8%) participants in the remdesivir group and in 172 (33.0%) in the placebo group.

Conclusion. The study found that remdesivir, compared to placebo, significantly shortened time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.

Commentary

Since the initial reporting of a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, China, on December 31, 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has been identified as the cause of this new disease (COVID-19), and to-date SARS-CoV-2 infection has affected more than 15.2 million people globally, with more than 3.9 million cases in the United States alone.¹ Despite an unprecedented global research effort, as well as public-private research partnerships, both in terms of scale and scope, an effective pharmacologic therapy for COVID-19 has so far eluded the scientific and medical community. Early trials of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir did not demonstrate a clinical benefit in patients with COVID-19.^2,3 Moreover, the first randomized controlled trial of remdesivir in COVID-19, a nucleoside analogue prodrug and a broad-spectrum antiviral agent previously shown to have inhibitory effects on pathogenic coronaviruses, was an underpowered study, and thus inconclusive.⁴ Thus, given the persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic and a current lack of effective vaccines or curative treatments, the study reported by Beigel and colleagues is timely and provides much needed knowledge in developing potential therapies for COVID-19.

The present report described the preliminary results of the first stage of the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT-1), which aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous remdesivir, as compared to placebo, in hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The study itself was well-designed and conducted. The successful enrollment of more than 1000 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio within a 2-month recruitment window, involving 60 international trial sites, shortly after the emergence of a new global pandemic was remarkable. This study provided the first evidence that remdesivir, an antiviral, can shorten time to recovery by approximately 31% compared to placebo in COVID-19 patients with lower respiratory tract involvement.

Interestingly, this beneficial effect of remdesivir on time to recovery was primarily observed in participants within the severe disease stratum (those requiring supplemental oxygen) at baseline (12 days in remdesivir group versus 18 days in placebo group), but not in those with mild-moderate disease at the time of study enrollment (5 days in either remdesivir or placebo group). Moreover, the beneficial effects of remdesivir on reducing time to recovery was not observed in participants who required mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment. Thus, these preliminary results suggest that COVID-19 disease severity and timing, particularly in patients who require supplemental oxygen but prior to disease progression towards requiring mechanical ventilation, may present a window of opportunity to initiate remdesivir treatment in order to improve outcomes. Further analysis utilizing data from the entire cohort, including outcomes data from the full 28-day follow-up period, may better delineate the subgroup of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who may benefit most from remdesivir. Last, safety data from the present study, along with that reported by Wang and colleagues,⁴ provides evidence that intravenous remdesivir administration is likely safe in adults during the treatment period.

The preliminary results from the ACCT-1 provide early evidence that remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with pulmonary involvement. In light of these results, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir on May 1, 2020, for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease.⁵ In addition, remdesivir has also recently been approved as a therapy for COVID-19 in Japan, Taiwan, India, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates, and has received conditional approval for use by the European Commission.⁶

Although these are encouraging developments in the race to identify effective therapeutics for COVID-19, a number of unanswered questions regarding the administration of remdesivir in the treatment of this disease remain. For instance, in an open-label, randomized, multicenter trial of patients with severe COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation, treatment with a 5-day course versus a 10-day course of intravenous remdesivir did not result in a significant difference in efficacy.⁷ Thus, more studies are needed to better determine the shortest effective duration of remdesivir therapy in COVID-19 patients with different disease severity. Also, the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients who were treated with remdesivir remained high in the current study. Therefore, there is ample opportunity to evaluate treatment strategies, including multidrug interventions with remdesivir, to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who require supplemental oxygen therapy. While much needs to be learned in order to optimize treatment of COVID-19, preliminary findings from the current study provide an important first step towards these discoveries.

–Fred Ko, MD, MS