Some Americans with a weakened immune system who face high risks for severe COVID-19 become eligible this week to receive a fourth dose of a coronavirus vaccine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed a third dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines  for moderately and severely immunocompromised people on Aug. 13, which is considered part of their first immunization series rather than a booster shot.

In October, the CDC said moderately and severely immunocompromised people could receive a booster shot, or a fourth dose of the vaccine , 6 months after their third dose.

But the CDC last week shortened the timeline to 5 months for a booster shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. That means immunocompromised people could begin signing up for a fourth shot later this week, the New York Times reported.

About 2.7% of U.S. adults, or about 7 million adults, are considered immunocompromised, according to the CDC. They’re more likely to contract severe COVID-19, have a higher risk for long COVID, have lower antibody levels after vaccination, and develop serious breakthrough infections. About 40% of hospitalized breakthrough cases are among immunocompromised people.

According to  CDC guidance, people are considered to be “moderately or severely immunocompromised” if they have:

• Active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood
• Had an organ transplant and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Had a stem cell transplant in the last 2 years and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Advanced or untreated HIV infection
• Moderate or severe primary immunodeficiency, such as DiGeorge syndrome or Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome
• Active treatment with high-dose corticosteroids or other drugs that suppress the immune response

So far, only moderately and severely immunocompromised Americans are eligible for a fourth shot. Israel has begun offering fourth doses to high-risk groups, including older adults, but the Biden administration hasn’t yet said whether the United States will follow, the Times reported.

Overall, the focus remains on getting third shots to Americans who are eligible for boosters, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told reporters Jan. 7. U.S. officials will remain in touch with Israel to follow their data on fourth shots.

“We will be following our own data carefully as well, to see how these boosters are working in terms of waning effectiveness, not just for infection but, importantly, for severe disease,” she said.

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

Some Americans with a weakened immune system who face high risks for severe COVID-19 become eligible this week to receive a fourth dose of a coronavirus vaccine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed a third dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines  for moderately and severely immunocompromised people on Aug. 13, which is considered part of their first immunization series rather than a booster shot.

In October, the CDC said moderately and severely immunocompromised people could receive a booster shot, or a fourth dose of the vaccine , 6 months after their third dose.

But the CDC last week shortened the timeline to 5 months for a booster shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. That means immunocompromised people could begin signing up for a fourth shot later this week, the New York Times reported.

About 2.7% of U.S. adults, or about 7 million adults, are considered immunocompromised, according to the CDC. They’re more likely to contract severe COVID-19, have a higher risk for long COVID, have lower antibody levels after vaccination, and develop serious breakthrough infections. About 40% of hospitalized breakthrough cases are among immunocompromised people.

According to  CDC guidance, people are considered to be “moderately or severely immunocompromised” if they have:

• Active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood
• Had an organ transplant and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Had a stem cell transplant in the last 2 years and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Advanced or untreated HIV infection
• Moderate or severe primary immunodeficiency, such as DiGeorge syndrome or Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome
• Active treatment with high-dose corticosteroids or other drugs that suppress the immune response

So far, only moderately and severely immunocompromised Americans are eligible for a fourth shot. Israel has begun offering fourth doses to high-risk groups, including older adults, but the Biden administration hasn’t yet said whether the United States will follow, the Times reported.

Overall, the focus remains on getting third shots to Americans who are eligible for boosters, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told reporters Jan. 7. U.S. officials will remain in touch with Israel to follow their data on fourth shots.

“We will be following our own data carefully as well, to see how these boosters are working in terms of waning effectiveness, not just for infection but, importantly, for severe disease,” she said.

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

Some Americans with a weakened immune system who face high risks for severe COVID-19 become eligible this week to receive a fourth dose of a coronavirus vaccine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorsed a third dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines  for moderately and severely immunocompromised people on Aug. 13, which is considered part of their first immunization series rather than a booster shot.

In October, the CDC said moderately and severely immunocompromised people could receive a booster shot, or a fourth dose of the vaccine , 6 months after their third dose.

But the CDC last week shortened the timeline to 5 months for a booster shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. That means immunocompromised people could begin signing up for a fourth shot later this week, the New York Times reported.

About 2.7% of U.S. adults, or about 7 million adults, are considered immunocompromised, according to the CDC. They’re more likely to contract severe COVID-19, have a higher risk for long COVID, have lower antibody levels after vaccination, and develop serious breakthrough infections. About 40% of hospitalized breakthrough cases are among immunocompromised people.

According to  CDC guidance, people are considered to be “moderately or severely immunocompromised” if they have:

• Active cancer treatment for tumors or cancers of the blood
• Had an organ transplant and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Had a stem cell transplant in the last 2 years and are taking medicine to suppress the immune system
• Advanced or untreated HIV infection
• Moderate or severe primary immunodeficiency, such as DiGeorge syndrome or Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome
• Active treatment with high-dose corticosteroids or other drugs that suppress the immune response

So far, only moderately and severely immunocompromised Americans are eligible for a fourth shot. Israel has begun offering fourth doses to high-risk groups, including older adults, but the Biden administration hasn’t yet said whether the United States will follow, the Times reported.

Overall, the focus remains on getting third shots to Americans who are eligible for boosters, Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told reporters Jan. 7. U.S. officials will remain in touch with Israel to follow their data on fourth shots.

“We will be following our own data carefully as well, to see how these boosters are working in terms of waning effectiveness, not just for infection but, importantly, for severe disease,” she said.

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

The patient is empirically diagnosed with AD complicated by bacterial infection. A skin swab culture is positive for Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes. 

AD is a common chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by pruritus, eczematous lesions, xerosis, and lichenification. Individuals of all ages may be affected by AD, although it normally begins in infancy. Studies suggest that as many as 17.1% of adults and 22.6% of children are affected by AD. The disease is associated with diminished quality of life, sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety. To further complicate matters, patients with AD have a significantly increased risk for recurrent skin infections, including bacterial, viral, and fungal infections. 

The underlying mechanisms of bacterial infection in AD are multifactorial and involve both host and bacterial factors. Factors implicated in the increased risk for infection in patients with AD include skin barrier defects, suppression of cutaneous innate immunity by type 2 inflammation, S aureus colonization, and cutaneous dysbiosis. Up to 90% of patients with AD are colonized with S aureus. It has been theorized that the host skin microbiota may play a role in protecting against S aureus colonization and infection in patients with AD. Additionally, bacterial virulence factors, such as the superantigens, proteases, and cytolytic phenol‐soluble modulins secreted by S aureus, trigger skin inflammation and may also contribute to bacterial persistence and/or epithelial penetration and infection.

Overt bacterial infection in patients with AD can be recognized by the presence of weeping lesions, honey‐colored crusts, and pustules. However, cutaneous erythema and warmth, oozing associated with edema, and regional lymphadenopathy are seen in both AD exacerbations and in patients with infection, making clinical diagnosis challenging. In addition, anatomical site‐ and skin type-specific features may disguise signs of infection, and the high frequency of S aureus colonization in AD makes positive skin swab culture of suspected infection an unreliable diagnostic tool. 

S pyogenes is the second most common cause of skin and soft tissue infections in AD (S aureus is the leading cause, although data suggest that pediatric patients are not likely to be affected by superinfections caused by methicillin-resistant S aureus [MRSA]). S pyogenes may cause infections in patients with AD alone or in combination with S aureus. Patients with these skin infections usually present with pustules or impetigo. The lesions may appear as punched-out erosions with scalloped borders that mimic eczema herpeticum or eczema coxsackium. According to guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology, the presence of purulent exudate and pustules on skin examination may suggest a diagnosis of secondary bacterial infection over inflammation from dermatitis.
 
The use of systemic antibiotics in the treatment of noninfected AD is not recommended; however, systemic antibiotics can be recommended for patients with clinical evidence of bacterial infection, in addition to standard treatment for AD, including the concurrent application of topical steroids. For patients with AD who have signs and symptoms of systemic illness, hospitalization and empirical intravenous antibiotics are recommended. The antibiotic regimen should provide coverage against S aureus because this is the most frequently identified bacterial pathogen in AD. 

When treating critically ill patients, treatment that provides coverage for both MRSA and methicillin-susceptible S aureus (MSSA) with vancomycin and an antistaphylococcal beta-lactam is appropriate. In patients with severe but non–life-threatening infections, vancomycin may be used alone as empirical therapy, pending culture results. Clindamycin can also be considered, particularly if there is no concern for an endovascular infection and the local incidence of clindamycin resistance is less than 15%. 

Bacteremia triggered by S aureus initially requires the use of a bactericidal intravenous agent. For MRSA, vancomycin is the first-line agent. Cefazolin and nafcillin are both acceptable first-line agents for MSSA, although nafcillin can cause venous irritation and phlebitis when administered peripherally. Among children with S aureus bacteremia, an oral agent to which the isolate is susceptible is appropriate, as long as there are no concerns for ongoing bacteremia or endovascular complications. Duration of therapy should be determined by the clinical response; 7-14 days is usually recommended. 

For patients with AD with uncomplicated, nonpurulent skin infection, a beta-lactam antibiotic that covers both S aureus and beta-hemolytic streptococci (eg, cefazolin or cephalexin) may be appropriate pending clinical response or culture and considering local epidemiology and resistance patterns. In patients who present with a skin abscess, history of MRSA colonization, close contacts with a history of skin infections, or recent hospitalization, consideration of coverage for MRSA is recommended. Acceptable oral options for MRSA skin infections in both children and adults include clindamycin, doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and linezolid, assuming that the isolate is susceptible in vitro. Finally, topical mupirocin ointment for 5-10 days is an appropriate treatment for patients with AD with minor, localized skin infections such as impetigo. 

William D. James, MD, Professor, Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

Disclosure: William D. James, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Elsevier
 

The patient is empirically diagnosed with AD complicated by bacterial infection. A skin swab culture is positive for Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes. 

AD is a common chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by pruritus, eczematous lesions, xerosis, and lichenification. Individuals of all ages may be affected by AD, although it normally begins in infancy. Studies suggest that as many as 17.1% of adults and 22.6% of children are affected by AD. The disease is associated with diminished quality of life, sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety. To further complicate matters, patients with AD have a significantly increased risk for recurrent skin infections, including bacterial, viral, and fungal infections. 

The underlying mechanisms of bacterial infection in AD are multifactorial and involve both host and bacterial factors. Factors implicated in the increased risk for infection in patients with AD include skin barrier defects, suppression of cutaneous innate immunity by type 2 inflammation, S aureus colonization, and cutaneous dysbiosis. Up to 90% of patients with AD are colonized with S aureus. It has been theorized that the host skin microbiota may play a role in protecting against S aureus colonization and infection in patients with AD. Additionally, bacterial virulence factors, such as the superantigens, proteases, and cytolytic phenol‐soluble modulins secreted by S aureus, trigger skin inflammation and may also contribute to bacterial persistence and/or epithelial penetration and infection.

Overt bacterial infection in patients with AD can be recognized by the presence of weeping lesions, honey‐colored crusts, and pustules. However, cutaneous erythema and warmth, oozing associated with edema, and regional lymphadenopathy are seen in both AD exacerbations and in patients with infection, making clinical diagnosis challenging. In addition, anatomical site‐ and skin type-specific features may disguise signs of infection, and the high frequency of S aureus colonization in AD makes positive skin swab culture of suspected infection an unreliable diagnostic tool. 

S pyogenes is the second most common cause of skin and soft tissue infections in AD (S aureus is the leading cause, although data suggest that pediatric patients are not likely to be affected by superinfections caused by methicillin-resistant S aureus [MRSA]). S pyogenes may cause infections in patients with AD alone or in combination with S aureus. Patients with these skin infections usually present with pustules or impetigo. The lesions may appear as punched-out erosions with scalloped borders that mimic eczema herpeticum or eczema coxsackium. According to guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology, the presence of purulent exudate and pustules on skin examination may suggest a diagnosis of secondary bacterial infection over inflammation from dermatitis.
 
The use of systemic antibiotics in the treatment of noninfected AD is not recommended; however, systemic antibiotics can be recommended for patients with clinical evidence of bacterial infection, in addition to standard treatment for AD, including the concurrent application of topical steroids. For patients with AD who have signs and symptoms of systemic illness, hospitalization and empirical intravenous antibiotics are recommended. The antibiotic regimen should provide coverage against S aureus because this is the most frequently identified bacterial pathogen in AD. 

When treating critically ill patients, treatment that provides coverage for both MRSA and methicillin-susceptible S aureus (MSSA) with vancomycin and an antistaphylococcal beta-lactam is appropriate. In patients with severe but non–life-threatening infections, vancomycin may be used alone as empirical therapy, pending culture results. Clindamycin can also be considered, particularly if there is no concern for an endovascular infection and the local incidence of clindamycin resistance is less than 15%. 

Bacteremia triggered by S aureus initially requires the use of a bactericidal intravenous agent. For MRSA, vancomycin is the first-line agent. Cefazolin and nafcillin are both acceptable first-line agents for MSSA, although nafcillin can cause venous irritation and phlebitis when administered peripherally. Among children with S aureus bacteremia, an oral agent to which the isolate is susceptible is appropriate, as long as there are no concerns for ongoing bacteremia or endovascular complications. Duration of therapy should be determined by the clinical response; 7-14 days is usually recommended. 

For patients with AD with uncomplicated, nonpurulent skin infection, a beta-lactam antibiotic that covers both S aureus and beta-hemolytic streptococci (eg, cefazolin or cephalexin) may be appropriate pending clinical response or culture and considering local epidemiology and resistance patterns. In patients who present with a skin abscess, history of MRSA colonization, close contacts with a history of skin infections, or recent hospitalization, consideration of coverage for MRSA is recommended. Acceptable oral options for MRSA skin infections in both children and adults include clindamycin, doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and linezolid, assuming that the isolate is susceptible in vitro. Finally, topical mupirocin ointment for 5-10 days is an appropriate treatment for patients with AD with minor, localized skin infections such as impetigo. 

William D. James, MD, Professor, Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

Disclosure: William D. James, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Elsevier
 

The patient is empirically diagnosed with AD complicated by bacterial infection. A skin swab culture is positive for Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes. 

AD is a common chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by pruritus, eczematous lesions, xerosis, and lichenification. Individuals of all ages may be affected by AD, although it normally begins in infancy. Studies suggest that as many as 17.1% of adults and 22.6% of children are affected by AD. The disease is associated with diminished quality of life, sleep disturbance, depression, and anxiety. To further complicate matters, patients with AD have a significantly increased risk for recurrent skin infections, including bacterial, viral, and fungal infections. 

The underlying mechanisms of bacterial infection in AD are multifactorial and involve both host and bacterial factors. Factors implicated in the increased risk for infection in patients with AD include skin barrier defects, suppression of cutaneous innate immunity by type 2 inflammation, S aureus colonization, and cutaneous dysbiosis. Up to 90% of patients with AD are colonized with S aureus. It has been theorized that the host skin microbiota may play a role in protecting against S aureus colonization and infection in patients with AD. Additionally, bacterial virulence factors, such as the superantigens, proteases, and cytolytic phenol‐soluble modulins secreted by S aureus, trigger skin inflammation and may also contribute to bacterial persistence and/or epithelial penetration and infection.

Overt bacterial infection in patients with AD can be recognized by the presence of weeping lesions, honey‐colored crusts, and pustules. However, cutaneous erythema and warmth, oozing associated with edema, and regional lymphadenopathy are seen in both AD exacerbations and in patients with infection, making clinical diagnosis challenging. In addition, anatomical site‐ and skin type-specific features may disguise signs of infection, and the high frequency of S aureus colonization in AD makes positive skin swab culture of suspected infection an unreliable diagnostic tool. 

S pyogenes is the second most common cause of skin and soft tissue infections in AD (S aureus is the leading cause, although data suggest that pediatric patients are not likely to be affected by superinfections caused by methicillin-resistant S aureus [MRSA]). S pyogenes may cause infections in patients with AD alone or in combination with S aureus. Patients with these skin infections usually present with pustules or impetigo. The lesions may appear as punched-out erosions with scalloped borders that mimic eczema herpeticum or eczema coxsackium. According to guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology, the presence of purulent exudate and pustules on skin examination may suggest a diagnosis of secondary bacterial infection over inflammation from dermatitis.
 
The use of systemic antibiotics in the treatment of noninfected AD is not recommended; however, systemic antibiotics can be recommended for patients with clinical evidence of bacterial infection, in addition to standard treatment for AD, including the concurrent application of topical steroids. For patients with AD who have signs and symptoms of systemic illness, hospitalization and empirical intravenous antibiotics are recommended. The antibiotic regimen should provide coverage against S aureus because this is the most frequently identified bacterial pathogen in AD. 

When treating critically ill patients, treatment that provides coverage for both MRSA and methicillin-susceptible S aureus (MSSA) with vancomycin and an antistaphylococcal beta-lactam is appropriate. In patients with severe but non–life-threatening infections, vancomycin may be used alone as empirical therapy, pending culture results. Clindamycin can also be considered, particularly if there is no concern for an endovascular infection and the local incidence of clindamycin resistance is less than 15%. 

Bacteremia triggered by S aureus initially requires the use of a bactericidal intravenous agent. For MRSA, vancomycin is the first-line agent. Cefazolin and nafcillin are both acceptable first-line agents for MSSA, although nafcillin can cause venous irritation and phlebitis when administered peripherally. Among children with S aureus bacteremia, an oral agent to which the isolate is susceptible is appropriate, as long as there are no concerns for ongoing bacteremia or endovascular complications. Duration of therapy should be determined by the clinical response; 7-14 days is usually recommended. 

For patients with AD with uncomplicated, nonpurulent skin infection, a beta-lactam antibiotic that covers both S aureus and beta-hemolytic streptococci (eg, cefazolin or cephalexin) may be appropriate pending clinical response or culture and considering local epidemiology and resistance patterns. In patients who present with a skin abscess, history of MRSA colonization, close contacts with a history of skin infections, or recent hospitalization, consideration of coverage for MRSA is recommended. Acceptable oral options for MRSA skin infections in both children and adults include clindamycin, doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and linezolid, assuming that the isolate is susceptible in vitro. Finally, topical mupirocin ointment for 5-10 days is an appropriate treatment for patients with AD with minor, localized skin infections such as impetigo. 

William D. James, MD, Professor, Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

Disclosure: William D. James, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Elsevier
 

Preeclampsia complicates 3% to 8% of pregnancies.^1-3 The incidence of preeclampsia is influenced by the clinical characteristics of the pregnant population, including the prevalence of overweight, obesity, chronic hypertension, diabetes, nulliparity, advanced maternal age, multiple gestations, kidney disease, and a history of preeclampsia in a prior pregnancy.⁴

Magnesium treatment reduces the rate of eclampsia among patients with preeclampsia

For patients with preeclampsia, magnesium treatment reduces the risk of seizure. In the Magpie trial, 9,992 pregnant patients were treated for 24 hours with magnesium or placebo.⁵ The magnesium treatment regimen was either a 4-g IV bolus over 10 to 15 minutes followed by a continuous infusion of 1 g/hr or an intramuscular regimen (10-g intramuscular loading dose followed by 5 g IM every 4 hours). Eclamptic seizures occurred in 0.8% and 1.9% of patients treated with magnesium or placebo, respectively (relative risk [RR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29 to 0.60). Among patients with a multiple gestation, the rate of eclampsia was 2% and 6% in the patients treated with magnesium or placebo, respectively. The number of patients who needed to be treated to prevent one eclamptic event was 63 and 109 for patients with preeclampsia with and without severe features, respectively. Intrapartum treatment with magnesium also reduced the risk of placental abruption from 3.2% for the patients receiving placebo to 2.0% among the patients treated with magnesium (RR, 0.67; 99% CI, 0.45- 0.89). Maternal death was reduced with magnesium treatment compared with placebo (0.2% vs 0.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant.

In the Magpie trial, side effects were reported by 24% and 5% of patients treated with magnesium and placebo, respectively. The most common side effects were flushing, nausea, vomiting, and muscle weakness. Of note, magnesium treatment is contraindicated in patients with myasthenia gravis because it can cause muscle weakness and hypoventilation.⁶ For patients with preeclampsia and myasthenia gravis, levetiracetam may be utilized to reduce the risk of seizure.⁶

Duration of postpartum magnesium treatment

There are no studies with a sufficient number of participants to definitively determine the optimal duration of postpartum magnesium therapy. A properly powered study would likely require more than 16,000 to 20,000 participants to identify clinically meaningful differences in the rate of postpartum eclampsia among patients treated with magnesium for 12 or 24 hours.^7,8 It is unlikely that such a study will be completed. Hence, the duration of postpartum magnesium must be based on clinical judgment, balancing the risks and benefits of treatment.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends continuing magnesium treatment for 24 hours postpartum. They advise, “For patients requiring cesarean delivery (before the onset of labor), the infusion should ideally begin before surgery and continue during surgery, as well as 24 hours afterwards. For patients who deliver vaginally, the infusion should continue for 24 hours after delivery.”⁹

Multiple randomized trials have reported on the outcomes associated with 12 hours versus 24 hours of postpartum magnesium therapy (TABLE). Because the rate of postpartum eclamptic seizure is very low, none of the studies were sufficiently powered to provide a definitive answer to the benefits and harms of the shorter versus longer time frame of magnesium therapy.^10-15

Continue to: The harms of prolonged postpartum magnesium infusion...

The harms of prolonging treatment with postpartum magnesium infusion are generally not emphasized in the medical literature. However, side effects that can occur are flushing, nausea, vomiting, and muscle weakness, delayed early ambulation, delayed return to full diet, delayed discontinuation of a bladder catheter, and delayed initiation of breastfeeding.^5,15 In one large clinical trial, 1,113 patients with preeclampsia with severe features who received intrapartum magnesium for ≥8 hours were randomized after birth to immediate discontinuation of magnesium or continuation of magnesium for 24 hours.¹⁵ There was 1 seizure in the group of 555 patients who received 24 hours of postpartum magnesium and 2 seizures in the group of 558 patients who received no magnesium after birth. In this trial, continuation of magnesium postpartum resulted in delayed initiation of breastfeeding and delayed ambulation.¹⁵

Balancing the benefits and harms of postpartum magnesium infusion

An important clinical point is that magnesium treatment will not prevent all seizures associated with preeclampsia; in the Magpie trial, among the 5,055 patients with preeclampsia treated with magnesium there were 40 (0.8%) seizures.⁵ Magnesium treatment will reduce but not eliminate the risk of seizure. Clinicians should have a plan to treat seizures that occur while a woman is being treated with magnesium.

In the absence of high-quality data to guide the duration of postpartum magnesium therapy it is best to use clinical parameters to balance the benefits and harms of postpartum magnesium treatment.^16-18 Patients may want to participate in the decision about the duration of postpartum magnesium treatment after receiving counseling about the benefits and harms.

For patients with preeclampsia without severe features, many clinicians are no longer ordering intrapartum magnesium for prevention of seizures because they believe the risk of seizure in patients without severe disease is very low. Hence, these patients will not receive postpartum magnesium treatment unless they evolve to preeclampsia with severe features or develop a “red flag” warning postpartum (see below).

For patients with preeclampsia without severe features who received intrapartum magnesium, after birth, the magnesium infusion could be stopped immediately or within 12 hours of birth. For patients with preeclampsia without severe features, early termination of the magnesium infusion best balances the benefit of seizure reduction with the harms of delayed early ambulation, return to full diet, discontinuation of the bladder catheter, and initiation of breastfeeding.

For patients with preeclampsia with severe features, 24 hours of magnesium may best balance the benefits and harms of treatment. However, if the patient continues to have “red flag” findings, continued magnesium treatment beyond 24 hours may be warranted.

Red flag findings include: an eclamptic seizure before or after birth, ongoing or recurring severe headaches, visual scotomata, nausea, vomiting, epigastric pain, severe hypertension, oliguria, rising creatinine, or liver transaminases and declining platelet count.

The hypertensive diseases of pregnancy, including preeclampsia often appear suddenly and may evolve rapidly, threatening the health of both mother and fetus. A high level of suspicion that a hypertensive disease might be the cause of vague symptoms such as epigastric discomfort or headache may accelerate early diagnosis. Rapid treatment of severe hypertension with intravenous labetalol and hydralazine, and intrapartum plus postpartum administration of magnesium to prevent placental abruption and eclampsia will optimize patient outcomes. No patient, patient’s family members, or clinician, wants to experience the grief of a preventable maternal, fetal, or newborn death due to hypertension.¹⁹ Obstetricians, midwives, labor nurses, obstetrical anesthesiologists and doulas play key roles in preventing maternal, fetal, and newborn morbidity and death from hypertensive diseases of pregnancy. As a team we are the last line of defense protecting the health of our patients. ●

Preeclampsia complicates 3% to 8% of pregnancies.^1-3 The incidence of preeclampsia is influenced by the clinical characteristics of the pregnant population, including the prevalence of overweight, obesity, chronic hypertension, diabetes, nulliparity, advanced maternal age, multiple gestations, kidney disease, and a history of preeclampsia in a prior pregnancy.⁴

Magnesium treatment reduces the rate of eclampsia among patients with preeclampsia

For patients with preeclampsia, magnesium treatment reduces the risk of seizure. In the Magpie trial, 9,992 pregnant patients were treated for 24 hours with magnesium or placebo.⁵ The magnesium treatment regimen was either a 4-g IV bolus over 10 to 15 minutes followed by a continuous infusion of 1 g/hr or an intramuscular regimen (10-g intramuscular loading dose followed by 5 g IM every 4 hours). Eclamptic seizures occurred in 0.8% and 1.9% of patients treated with magnesium or placebo, respectively (relative risk [RR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29 to 0.60). Among patients with a multiple gestation, the rate of eclampsia was 2% and 6% in the patients treated with magnesium or placebo, respectively. The number of patients who needed to be treated to prevent one eclamptic event was 63 and 109 for patients with preeclampsia with and without severe features, respectively. Intrapartum treatment with magnesium also reduced the risk of placental abruption from 3.2% for the patients receiving placebo to 2.0% among the patients treated with magnesium (RR, 0.67; 99% CI, 0.45- 0.89). Maternal death was reduced with magnesium treatment compared with placebo (0.2% vs 0.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant.

In the Magpie trial, side effects were reported by 24% and 5% of patients treated with magnesium and placebo, respectively. The most common side effects were flushing, nausea, vomiting, and muscle weakness. Of note, magnesium treatment is contraindicated in patients with myasthenia gravis because it can cause muscle weakness and hypoventilation.⁶ For patients with preeclampsia and myasthenia gravis, levetiracetam may be utilized to reduce the risk of seizure.⁶

Duration of postpartum magnesium treatment

There are no studies with a sufficient number of participants to definitively determine the optimal duration of postpartum magnesium therapy. A properly powered study would likely require more than 16,000 to 20,000 participants to identify clinically meaningful differences in the rate of postpartum eclampsia among patients treated with magnesium for 12 or 24 hours.^7,8 It is unlikely that such a study will be completed. Hence, the duration of postpartum magnesium must be based on clinical judgment, balancing the risks and benefits of treatment.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends continuing magnesium treatment for 24 hours postpartum. They advise, “For patients requiring cesarean delivery (before the onset of labor), the infusion should ideally begin before surgery and continue during surgery, as well as 24 hours afterwards. For patients who deliver vaginally, the infusion should continue for 24 hours after delivery.”⁹

Multiple randomized trials have reported on the outcomes associated with 12 hours versus 24 hours of postpartum magnesium therapy (TABLE). Because the rate of postpartum eclamptic seizure is very low, none of the studies were sufficiently powered to provide a definitive answer to the benefits and harms of the shorter versus longer time frame of magnesium therapy.^10-15

Continue to: The harms of prolonged postpartum magnesium infusion...

The harms of prolonging treatment with postpartum magnesium infusion are generally not emphasized in the medical literature. However, side effects that can occur are flushing, nausea, vomiting, and muscle weakness, delayed early ambulation, delayed return to full diet, delayed discontinuation of a bladder catheter, and delayed initiation of breastfeeding.^5,15 In one large clinical trial, 1,113 patients with preeclampsia with severe features who received intrapartum magnesium for ≥8 hours were randomized after birth to immediate discontinuation of magnesium or continuation of magnesium for 24 hours.¹⁵ There was 1 seizure in the group of 555 patients who received 24 hours of postpartum magnesium and 2 seizures in the group of 558 patients who received no magnesium after birth. In this trial, continuation of magnesium postpartum resulted in delayed initiation of breastfeeding and delayed ambulation.¹⁵

Balancing the benefits and harms of postpartum magnesium infusion

An important clinical point is that magnesium treatment will not prevent all seizures associated with preeclampsia; in the Magpie trial, among the 5,055 patients with preeclampsia treated with magnesium there were 40 (0.8%) seizures.⁵ Magnesium treatment will reduce but not eliminate the risk of seizure. Clinicians should have a plan to treat seizures that occur while a woman is being treated with magnesium.

In the absence of high-quality data to guide the duration of postpartum magnesium therapy it is best to use clinical parameters to balance the benefits and harms of postpartum magnesium treatment.^16-18 Patients may want to participate in the decision about the duration of postpartum magnesium treatment after receiving counseling about the benefits and harms.

For patients with preeclampsia without severe features, many clinicians are no longer ordering intrapartum magnesium for prevention of seizures because they believe the risk of seizure in patients without severe disease is very low. Hence, these patients will not receive postpartum magnesium treatment unless they evolve to preeclampsia with severe features or develop a “red flag” warning postpartum (see below).

For patients with preeclampsia without severe features who received intrapartum magnesium, after birth, the magnesium infusion could be stopped immediately or within 12 hours of birth. For patients with preeclampsia without severe features, early termination of the magnesium infusion best balances the benefit of seizure reduction with the harms of delayed early ambulation, return to full diet, discontinuation of the bladder catheter, and initiation of breastfeeding.

For patients with preeclampsia with severe features, 24 hours of magnesium may best balance the benefits and harms of treatment. However, if the patient continues to have “red flag” findings, continued magnesium treatment beyond 24 hours may be warranted.

Red flag findings include: an eclamptic seizure before or after birth, ongoing or recurring severe headaches, visual scotomata, nausea, vomiting, epigastric pain, severe hypertension, oliguria, rising creatinine, or liver transaminases and declining platelet count.

The hypertensive diseases of pregnancy, including preeclampsia often appear suddenly and may evolve rapidly, threatening the health of both mother and fetus. A high level of suspicion that a hypertensive disease might be the cause of vague symptoms such as epigastric discomfort or headache may accelerate early diagnosis. Rapid treatment of severe hypertension with intravenous labetalol and hydralazine, and intrapartum plus postpartum administration of magnesium to prevent placental abruption and eclampsia will optimize patient outcomes. No patient, patient’s family members, or clinician, wants to experience the grief of a preventable maternal, fetal, or newborn death due to hypertension.¹⁹ Obstetricians, midwives, labor nurses, obstetrical anesthesiologists and doulas play key roles in preventing maternal, fetal, and newborn morbidity and death from hypertensive diseases of pregnancy. As a team we are the last line of defense protecting the health of our patients. ●

Preeclampsia complicates 3% to 8% of pregnancies.^1-3 The incidence of preeclampsia is influenced by the clinical characteristics of the pregnant population, including the prevalence of overweight, obesity, chronic hypertension, diabetes, nulliparity, advanced maternal age, multiple gestations, kidney disease, and a history of preeclampsia in a prior pregnancy.⁴

Magnesium treatment reduces the rate of eclampsia among patients with preeclampsia

For patients with preeclampsia, magnesium treatment reduces the risk of seizure. In the Magpie trial, 9,992 pregnant patients were treated for 24 hours with magnesium or placebo.⁵ The magnesium treatment regimen was either a 4-g IV bolus over 10 to 15 minutes followed by a continuous infusion of 1 g/hr or an intramuscular regimen (10-g intramuscular loading dose followed by 5 g IM every 4 hours). Eclamptic seizures occurred in 0.8% and 1.9% of patients treated with magnesium or placebo, respectively (relative risk [RR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29 to 0.60). Among patients with a multiple gestation, the rate of eclampsia was 2% and 6% in the patients treated with magnesium or placebo, respectively. The number of patients who needed to be treated to prevent one eclamptic event was 63 and 109 for patients with preeclampsia with and without severe features, respectively. Intrapartum treatment with magnesium also reduced the risk of placental abruption from 3.2% for the patients receiving placebo to 2.0% among the patients treated with magnesium (RR, 0.67; 99% CI, 0.45- 0.89). Maternal death was reduced with magnesium treatment compared with placebo (0.2% vs 0.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant.

In the Magpie trial, side effects were reported by 24% and 5% of patients treated with magnesium and placebo, respectively. The most common side effects were flushing, nausea, vomiting, and muscle weakness. Of note, magnesium treatment is contraindicated in patients with myasthenia gravis because it can cause muscle weakness and hypoventilation.⁶ For patients with preeclampsia and myasthenia gravis, levetiracetam may be utilized to reduce the risk of seizure.⁶

Duration of postpartum magnesium treatment

There are no studies with a sufficient number of participants to definitively determine the optimal duration of postpartum magnesium therapy. A properly powered study would likely require more than 16,000 to 20,000 participants to identify clinically meaningful differences in the rate of postpartum eclampsia among patients treated with magnesium for 12 or 24 hours.^7,8 It is unlikely that such a study will be completed. Hence, the duration of postpartum magnesium must be based on clinical judgment, balancing the risks and benefits of treatment.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends continuing magnesium treatment for 24 hours postpartum. They advise, “For patients requiring cesarean delivery (before the onset of labor), the infusion should ideally begin before surgery and continue during surgery, as well as 24 hours afterwards. For patients who deliver vaginally, the infusion should continue for 24 hours after delivery.”⁹

Multiple randomized trials have reported on the outcomes associated with 12 hours versus 24 hours of postpartum magnesium therapy (TABLE). Because the rate of postpartum eclamptic seizure is very low, none of the studies were sufficiently powered to provide a definitive answer to the benefits and harms of the shorter versus longer time frame of magnesium therapy.^10-15

Continue to: The harms of prolonged postpartum magnesium infusion...

The harms of prolonging treatment with postpartum magnesium infusion are generally not emphasized in the medical literature. However, side effects that can occur are flushing, nausea, vomiting, and muscle weakness, delayed early ambulation, delayed return to full diet, delayed discontinuation of a bladder catheter, and delayed initiation of breastfeeding.^5,15 In one large clinical trial, 1,113 patients with preeclampsia with severe features who received intrapartum magnesium for ≥8 hours were randomized after birth to immediate discontinuation of magnesium or continuation of magnesium for 24 hours.¹⁵ There was 1 seizure in the group of 555 patients who received 24 hours of postpartum magnesium and 2 seizures in the group of 558 patients who received no magnesium after birth. In this trial, continuation of magnesium postpartum resulted in delayed initiation of breastfeeding and delayed ambulation.¹⁵

Balancing the benefits and harms of postpartum magnesium infusion

An important clinical point is that magnesium treatment will not prevent all seizures associated with preeclampsia; in the Magpie trial, among the 5,055 patients with preeclampsia treated with magnesium there were 40 (0.8%) seizures.⁵ Magnesium treatment will reduce but not eliminate the risk of seizure. Clinicians should have a plan to treat seizures that occur while a woman is being treated with magnesium.

In the absence of high-quality data to guide the duration of postpartum magnesium therapy it is best to use clinical parameters to balance the benefits and harms of postpartum magnesium treatment.^16-18 Patients may want to participate in the decision about the duration of postpartum magnesium treatment after receiving counseling about the benefits and harms.

For patients with preeclampsia without severe features, many clinicians are no longer ordering intrapartum magnesium for prevention of seizures because they believe the risk of seizure in patients without severe disease is very low. Hence, these patients will not receive postpartum magnesium treatment unless they evolve to preeclampsia with severe features or develop a “red flag” warning postpartum (see below).

For patients with preeclampsia without severe features who received intrapartum magnesium, after birth, the magnesium infusion could be stopped immediately or within 12 hours of birth. For patients with preeclampsia without severe features, early termination of the magnesium infusion best balances the benefit of seizure reduction with the harms of delayed early ambulation, return to full diet, discontinuation of the bladder catheter, and initiation of breastfeeding.

For patients with preeclampsia with severe features, 24 hours of magnesium may best balance the benefits and harms of treatment. However, if the patient continues to have “red flag” findings, continued magnesium treatment beyond 24 hours may be warranted.

Red flag findings include: an eclamptic seizure before or after birth, ongoing or recurring severe headaches, visual scotomata, nausea, vomiting, epigastric pain, severe hypertension, oliguria, rising creatinine, or liver transaminases and declining platelet count.

The hypertensive diseases of pregnancy, including preeclampsia often appear suddenly and may evolve rapidly, threatening the health of both mother and fetus. A high level of suspicion that a hypertensive disease might be the cause of vague symptoms such as epigastric discomfort or headache may accelerate early diagnosis. Rapid treatment of severe hypertension with intravenous labetalol and hydralazine, and intrapartum plus postpartum administration of magnesium to prevent placental abruption and eclampsia will optimize patient outcomes. No patient, patient’s family members, or clinician, wants to experience the grief of a preventable maternal, fetal, or newborn death due to hypertension.¹⁹ Obstetricians, midwives, labor nurses, obstetrical anesthesiologists and doulas play key roles in preventing maternal, fetal, and newborn morbidity and death from hypertensive diseases of pregnancy. As a team we are the last line of defense protecting the health of our patients. ●

Lack of a high school education is a predictor of whether a person will be resistant to getting the COVID-19 vaccine, a new study shows.

Researchers from the University of North Carolina looked at vaccination rates in 3,142 counties in the U.S. They compared them to population characteristics based on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index.

They found that more than half of the unvaccinated adults in the U.S. with strong vaccine hesitancy had a high school education or less. Vaccine hesitancy was defined as refusal to be vaccinated even if the COVID-19 vaccine was available.

The other main predictor for vaccine hesitancy was concern about vaccine availability and distribution, the researchers said.

“Our study suggests that low education levels are a major contributor to vaccine hesitancy and ultimately vaccination levels,” the authors wrote. The study was published in the American Journal of Infection Control. “Specifically, low vaccination levels were found in communities with a less educated population and with more concern about vaccine uptake capacity, suggesting that education is an ongoing challenge.”

“Our findings suggest that policy makers and community leaders should tailor vaccine information and efforts to those with limited education and specifically address knowledge concerns that are prevalent and likely more modifiable.”

The study was based on data gathered months ago. It says that as of May 9, 2021, 34.7% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated and that 8% reported a strong unwillingness to get vaccinated.

At press time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID Data Tracker showed that 62.5% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated.

According to the study, other consistent characteristics of people who are vaccine hesitant are that they belong to a racial minority, are 65 or older, live in a household with children 18 or younger, or are unemployed.

When asked why they were vaccine hesitant, people gave these reasons: Lack of trust in COVID-19 vaccines (55%), concerns about side effects (48%), and lack of trust in government (46%).

Lack of access to vaccines, often cited in previous studies about resistance to other vaccines, was not cited as a reason for not getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

“COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a public health threat,” the researchers concluded. “Since education levels are not easily modifiable, our results suggest that policymakers would be best served by closing knowledge gaps to overcome negative perceptions of the vaccine through tailored interventions.”

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

Lack of a high school education is a predictor of whether a person will be resistant to getting the COVID-19 vaccine, a new study shows.

Researchers from the University of North Carolina looked at vaccination rates in 3,142 counties in the U.S. They compared them to population characteristics based on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index.

They found that more than half of the unvaccinated adults in the U.S. with strong vaccine hesitancy had a high school education or less. Vaccine hesitancy was defined as refusal to be vaccinated even if the COVID-19 vaccine was available.

The other main predictor for vaccine hesitancy was concern about vaccine availability and distribution, the researchers said.

“Our study suggests that low education levels are a major contributor to vaccine hesitancy and ultimately vaccination levels,” the authors wrote. The study was published in the American Journal of Infection Control. “Specifically, low vaccination levels were found in communities with a less educated population and with more concern about vaccine uptake capacity, suggesting that education is an ongoing challenge.”

“Our findings suggest that policy makers and community leaders should tailor vaccine information and efforts to those with limited education and specifically address knowledge concerns that are prevalent and likely more modifiable.”

The study was based on data gathered months ago. It says that as of May 9, 2021, 34.7% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated and that 8% reported a strong unwillingness to get vaccinated.

At press time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID Data Tracker showed that 62.5% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated.

According to the study, other consistent characteristics of people who are vaccine hesitant are that they belong to a racial minority, are 65 or older, live in a household with children 18 or younger, or are unemployed.

When asked why they were vaccine hesitant, people gave these reasons: Lack of trust in COVID-19 vaccines (55%), concerns about side effects (48%), and lack of trust in government (46%).

Lack of access to vaccines, often cited in previous studies about resistance to other vaccines, was not cited as a reason for not getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

“COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a public health threat,” the researchers concluded. “Since education levels are not easily modifiable, our results suggest that policymakers would be best served by closing knowledge gaps to overcome negative perceptions of the vaccine through tailored interventions.”

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

Lack of a high school education is a predictor of whether a person will be resistant to getting the COVID-19 vaccine, a new study shows.

Researchers from the University of North Carolina looked at vaccination rates in 3,142 counties in the U.S. They compared them to population characteristics based on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index.

They found that more than half of the unvaccinated adults in the U.S. with strong vaccine hesitancy had a high school education or less. Vaccine hesitancy was defined as refusal to be vaccinated even if the COVID-19 vaccine was available.

The other main predictor for vaccine hesitancy was concern about vaccine availability and distribution, the researchers said.

“Our study suggests that low education levels are a major contributor to vaccine hesitancy and ultimately vaccination levels,” the authors wrote. The study was published in the American Journal of Infection Control. “Specifically, low vaccination levels were found in communities with a less educated population and with more concern about vaccine uptake capacity, suggesting that education is an ongoing challenge.”

“Our findings suggest that policy makers and community leaders should tailor vaccine information and efforts to those with limited education and specifically address knowledge concerns that are prevalent and likely more modifiable.”

The study was based on data gathered months ago. It says that as of May 9, 2021, 34.7% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated and that 8% reported a strong unwillingness to get vaccinated.

At press time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID Data Tracker showed that 62.5% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated.

According to the study, other consistent characteristics of people who are vaccine hesitant are that they belong to a racial minority, are 65 or older, live in a household with children 18 or younger, or are unemployed.

When asked why they were vaccine hesitant, people gave these reasons: Lack of trust in COVID-19 vaccines (55%), concerns about side effects (48%), and lack of trust in government (46%).

Lack of access to vaccines, often cited in previous studies about resistance to other vaccines, was not cited as a reason for not getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

“COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a public health threat,” the researchers concluded. “Since education levels are not easily modifiable, our results suggest that policymakers would be best served by closing knowledge gaps to overcome negative perceptions of the vaccine through tailored interventions.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual orexin receptor antagonist daridorexant (Quviviq) for the treatment of insomnia in adults, the drug’s manufacturer, Idorsia, has announced.

The FDA’s decision was based partly on a phase 3 trial of adults with moderate to severe insomnia who were randomly assigned to receive 25 or 50 mg of daridorexant or matching placebo. Daridorexant was associated with dose-dependent improvements in wake after sleep onset, total sleep time, and latency to persistent sleep.

Whereas the overall results are very positive, the improvements in daytime functioning are especially “exciting,” Thomas Roth, PhD, director of the Sleep Disorders and Research Center at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, said in an interview.

“That’s sort of a big deal. For me, that’s the biggest deal there is,” said Dr. Roth, who was a consultant on the design of the phase 3 trial and on the interpretation of the data.

The drug will be available in doses of 25 mg and 50 mg, and the FDA has recommended that it be classified as a controlled substance. After it is scheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, daridorexant is expected to be made available in May.
 

Favorable safety profile

Insomnia is a common disorder characterized by difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep and by early-morning awakenings. Patients with insomnia often report fatigue, irritability, and difficulty with concentration. The condition can also result in significant problems with work and social activities, thus contributing to anxiety or depression.

As with other dual orexin receptor antagonists, daridorexant competitively binds with both orexin receptors in the lateral hypothalamus to block the activity of orexin in a reversible way. This approach decreases the downstream action of the wake-promoting neurotransmitters that are overactive in patients with insomnia.

The phase 3 trial measured daytime functioning using the new Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ), a patient-reported outcome instrument. Daridorexant was associated with significant improvements in daytime function, particularly in sleepiness and mood.

Previous trials of other dual orexin receptor antagonists did not use the IDSIQ as an outcome, so it is not possible to compare daridorexant with those drugs in this respect, Dr. Roth noted. Researchers also have not conducted head-to-head trials of the drug with other dual orexin receptor antagonists.

Daridorexant also had a favorable safety profile and was not associated with rebound insomnia or withdrawal effects. The most common adverse events were headache and somnolence or fatigue.

“They had no effect on sleep stage distribution [and] they had no significant effects on sleep and breathing in people with mild to moderate sleep apnea,” said Dr. Roth, who presented the phase 3 findings at SLEEP 2020. 

In addition to serving as a consultant for Idorsia on the trial design and interpretation of results, Dr. Roth has also served as a consultant for other companies that develop sleep agents.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual orexin receptor antagonist daridorexant (Quviviq) for the treatment of insomnia in adults, the drug’s manufacturer, Idorsia, has announced.

The FDA’s decision was based partly on a phase 3 trial of adults with moderate to severe insomnia who were randomly assigned to receive 25 or 50 mg of daridorexant or matching placebo. Daridorexant was associated with dose-dependent improvements in wake after sleep onset, total sleep time, and latency to persistent sleep.

Whereas the overall results are very positive, the improvements in daytime functioning are especially “exciting,” Thomas Roth, PhD, director of the Sleep Disorders and Research Center at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, said in an interview.

“That’s sort of a big deal. For me, that’s the biggest deal there is,” said Dr. Roth, who was a consultant on the design of the phase 3 trial and on the interpretation of the data.

The drug will be available in doses of 25 mg and 50 mg, and the FDA has recommended that it be classified as a controlled substance. After it is scheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, daridorexant is expected to be made available in May.
 

Favorable safety profile

Insomnia is a common disorder characterized by difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep and by early-morning awakenings. Patients with insomnia often report fatigue, irritability, and difficulty with concentration. The condition can also result in significant problems with work and social activities, thus contributing to anxiety or depression.

As with other dual orexin receptor antagonists, daridorexant competitively binds with both orexin receptors in the lateral hypothalamus to block the activity of orexin in a reversible way. This approach decreases the downstream action of the wake-promoting neurotransmitters that are overactive in patients with insomnia.

The phase 3 trial measured daytime functioning using the new Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ), a patient-reported outcome instrument. Daridorexant was associated with significant improvements in daytime function, particularly in sleepiness and mood.

Previous trials of other dual orexin receptor antagonists did not use the IDSIQ as an outcome, so it is not possible to compare daridorexant with those drugs in this respect, Dr. Roth noted. Researchers also have not conducted head-to-head trials of the drug with other dual orexin receptor antagonists.

Daridorexant also had a favorable safety profile and was not associated with rebound insomnia or withdrawal effects. The most common adverse events were headache and somnolence or fatigue.

“They had no effect on sleep stage distribution [and] they had no significant effects on sleep and breathing in people with mild to moderate sleep apnea,” said Dr. Roth, who presented the phase 3 findings at SLEEP 2020. 

In addition to serving as a consultant for Idorsia on the trial design and interpretation of results, Dr. Roth has also served as a consultant for other companies that develop sleep agents.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual orexin receptor antagonist daridorexant (Quviviq) for the treatment of insomnia in adults, the drug’s manufacturer, Idorsia, has announced.

The FDA’s decision was based partly on a phase 3 trial of adults with moderate to severe insomnia who were randomly assigned to receive 25 or 50 mg of daridorexant or matching placebo. Daridorexant was associated with dose-dependent improvements in wake after sleep onset, total sleep time, and latency to persistent sleep.

Whereas the overall results are very positive, the improvements in daytime functioning are especially “exciting,” Thomas Roth, PhD, director of the Sleep Disorders and Research Center at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, said in an interview.

“That’s sort of a big deal. For me, that’s the biggest deal there is,” said Dr. Roth, who was a consultant on the design of the phase 3 trial and on the interpretation of the data.

The drug will be available in doses of 25 mg and 50 mg, and the FDA has recommended that it be classified as a controlled substance. After it is scheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, daridorexant is expected to be made available in May.
 

Favorable safety profile

Insomnia is a common disorder characterized by difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep and by early-morning awakenings. Patients with insomnia often report fatigue, irritability, and difficulty with concentration. The condition can also result in significant problems with work and social activities, thus contributing to anxiety or depression.

As with other dual orexin receptor antagonists, daridorexant competitively binds with both orexin receptors in the lateral hypothalamus to block the activity of orexin in a reversible way. This approach decreases the downstream action of the wake-promoting neurotransmitters that are overactive in patients with insomnia.

The phase 3 trial measured daytime functioning using the new Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ), a patient-reported outcome instrument. Daridorexant was associated with significant improvements in daytime function, particularly in sleepiness and mood.

Previous trials of other dual orexin receptor antagonists did not use the IDSIQ as an outcome, so it is not possible to compare daridorexant with those drugs in this respect, Dr. Roth noted. Researchers also have not conducted head-to-head trials of the drug with other dual orexin receptor antagonists.

Daridorexant also had a favorable safety profile and was not associated with rebound insomnia or withdrawal effects. The most common adverse events were headache and somnolence or fatigue.

“They had no effect on sleep stage distribution [and] they had no significant effects on sleep and breathing in people with mild to moderate sleep apnea,” said Dr. Roth, who presented the phase 3 findings at SLEEP 2020. 

In addition to serving as a consultant for Idorsia on the trial design and interpretation of results, Dr. Roth has also served as a consultant for other companies that develop sleep agents.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

From the Department of Medicine (Drs. Meisenberg, Muganlinskaya, Sharma, Amjadi, Arnold, Barnes, Clance, Khalil, Miller, Mooradian, O’Connell, Patel, Press, Samaras, Shanmugam, Tavadze, and Thompson), Department of Pharmacy (Drs. Jiang, Jarawan, Sheth, and Trinh), Department of Nursing (Dr. Ohnmacht), and Department of Women and Children’s Services (Dr. Raji), Luminis Health, Annapolis, MD, and Lanham, MD.

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge for hospital medical staffs worldwide due to high volumes of patients acutely ill with novel syndromes and prevailing uncertainty regarding optimum supportive and therapeutic interventions. Additionally, the response to this crisis was driven by a plethora of nontraditional information sources, such as email chains, websites, non–peer-reviewed preprints, and press releases. Care patterns became idiosyncratic and often incorporated unproven interventions driven by these nontraditional information sources. This report evaluates the efforts of a health system to create and empower a multidisciplinary committee to develop, implement, and monitor evidence-based, standardized protocols for patients with COVID-19.

Methods: This report describes the composition of the committee, its scope, and its important interactions with the health system pharmacy and therapeutics committee, research teams, and other work groups planning other aspects of COVID-19 management. It illustrates how the committee was used to demonstrate for trainees the process and value of critically examining evidence, even in a chaotic environment.

Results: Data show successful interventions in reducing excessive ordering of certain laboratory tests, reduction of nonrecommended therapies, and rapid uptake of evidence-based or guidelines-supported interventions.

Conclusions: A multidisciplinary committee dedicated solely to planning, implementing, and monitoring standard approaches that eventually became evidence-based decision-making led to an improved focus on treatment options and outcomes for COVID-19 patients. Data presented illustrate the attainable success that is both adaptable and suitable for similar emergencies in the future.

Keywords: COVID-19; clinical management; pharmacy and therapeutics; treatment; therapy.

The COVID-19 pandemic has spread to nearly all countries, carrying with it high morbidity, mortality, and severe impacts on both well-developed and less-well-developed health systems. Media reports of chaos within overwhelmed hospitals have been prominent.^1,2 As of January 5, 2022, SARS-CoV-2 has infected more than 295 million people globally and directly caused the death of more than 5.4 million,³ though this number is likely an undercount even in countries with well-developed mortality tracking.⁴

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital-based medical teams have been confronted with a flood of severely ill patients with novel syndromes. Initially, there were no standards for therapy or supportive care except for treatments borrowed from similar syndromes. In the setting of high volumes, high acuity, and public dismay, it is unsurprising that the usual deliberative methods for weighing evidence and initiating interventions were often pushed aside in favor of the solace of active intervention.⁵ In this milieu of limited evidence, there was a lamentable, if understandable, tendency to seek guidance from “nontraditional” sources,⁶ including email chains from colleagues, hospital websites, non–peer-reviewed manuscripts, advanced publication by medical journals,⁷ and nonscientific media presentations. In many localities, practitioners responded in idiosyncratic ways. For example, findings of high cytokine levels in COVID-19,⁸ along with reports of in-vitro antiviral activity with drugs like hydroxychloroquine against both SARS⁹ and SARS-CoV-2,¹⁰ drove laboratory test ordering and therapeutic interventions, respectively, carving shortcuts into the traditional clinical trial–dependent standards. Clinical trial results eventually emerged.¹¹COVID-19 created a clinical dilemma for hospital medical staffs in terms of how to organize, standardize, and rapidly adapt to a flood of new information. In this report, we describe how 1 health system responded to these challenges by forming a COVID-19 Clinical Management Committee (CCMC) and empowering this interdisciplinary team to review evidence, create and adjust order sets, educate practitioners, oversee care, and collaborate across teams addressing other aspects of the COVID-19 response.

Program Overview

Health System Description

Luminis Health is a health system with 2 acute care hospitals that was formed in 2019 just before the start of the pandemic. Anne Arundel Medical Center (hospital A) is a 385-bed teaching hospital in Annapolis, MD. It has more than 23 000 discharges annually. Patients with COVID-19 were cared for by either an internal medicine teaching service or nonteaching hospitalist services on cohorted nursing units. Doctor’s Community Medical Center, in Lanham, MD (hospital B), is a 206-bed acute care hospital with more than 10 350 annual discharges. COVID-19 patients were cared for by hospitalist groups, initially in noncohorted units with transition to cohorted nursing units after a few months. The medical staffs are generally distinct, with different leadership structures, though the Luminis Health Department of Medicine has oversight responsibilities at both hospitals. More than 47 physicians attended COVID-19 patients at hospital A (with medical residents) and 30 individual physicians at hospital B, respectively, including intensivists. The nursing and pharmacy staffs are distinct, but there is a shared oversight Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee.

The 2 hospitals had distinct electronic medical records (EMR) until January 2021, when hospital B adopted the same EMR as hospital A (Epic).

Mission and Formation of CCMC

In order to coordinate the therapeutic approach across the health system, it was important for the CCMC to be designated by the health system P&T committee as an official subcommittee so that decisions on restrictions of medications and/or new or revised order sets could be rapidly initiated across the system without waiting for the subsequent P&T meetings. The full committee retained oversight of the CCMC. Some P&T members were also on the CCMC.

The committee reviewed new reports in medical journals and prepublication servers and consulted recommendations of professional societies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 guidelines, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA), among other sources.

Composition of the CCMC

Physician leaders from both hospitals in the following specialties were solicited for participation: critical care, epidemiology, hospital medicine (internal medicine), emergency medicine, infectious diseases, nephrology, women and children’s services, and medical informatics. Specialists in other areas, such as hematology, were invited for topic-specific discussions. Hospital pharmacists with different specialties and nursing leadership were essential contributors. The committee members were expected to use various communication channels to inform frontline clinicians of new care standards and the existence of new order sets, which were embedded in the EMR.

Clinical Research

An important connection for the CCMC was with theCOVID-19 clinical research team. Three members of the research team were also members of the CCMC. All new study proposals for therapeutics were discussed with the CCMC as they were being considered by the research team. In this way, feedback on the feasibility and acceptance of new study opportunities could be discussed with the CCMC. Occasionally, CCMC decisions impacted clinical research accrual strategies. For example, new data from randomized trials about tocilizumab^1,2 demonstrated benefits in some subsets of patients and resulted in a recommendation for use by the NIH guideline committee in these populations.¹ The CCMC quickly adopted this recommendation, which required a reprioritization of clinical research enrollment for studies testing other immune-modulating agents. This important dialogue was mediated within the CCMC.

Guideline Distribution, Reinforcement, and Platform for Feedback

New guidelines were disseminated to clinicians via daily brief patient huddles held on COVID units, with participation by nursing and pharmacy, and by weekly meetings with hospitalist leaders and frontline hospital physicians. Order sets and guidelines were maintained on the intranet. Adherence was reinforced by unit-based and central pharmacists. Order sets, including admission order sets, could be created only by designated informatics personnel, thus enforcing standardization. Feedback on the utility of the order sets was obtained during the weekly meetings or huddles, as described above. To ensure a sense of transparency, physicians who had interest in commenting on a particular therapy, or who wished to discuss a particular manuscript, news article, or website, were invited to attend CCMC meetings.

Scope of CCMC

In order to be effective and timely, we limited the scope of our work to the report to the inpatient therapeutic environment, allowing other committees to work on other aspects of the pandemic response. In addition to issuing guidance and creating order sets to direct clinical practice, the CCMC also monitored COVID-19 therapeutic shortages^15,16 and advised on prioritization of such treatments as convalescent plasma, remdesivir (prioritization and duration of therapy, 5 vs 10 days), baricitinib, and tocilizumab, depending upon the location of the patient (critical care or not). The CCMC was not involved in the management of non–COVID-19 shortages brought about by supply chain deficiencies.

Table 1 shows some aspects of the health system pandemic-response planning and the committee workforce that undertook that work. Though many items were out of scope for the CCMC, members of the CCMC did participate in the planning work of these other committees and therefore stayed connected to this complementary work.

A Teaching Opportunity About Making Thoughtful Choices

Another important feature of the CCMC was the contributions of residents from both pharmacy and internal medicine. The purpose and operations of the committee were recognized as an opportunity to involve learners in a curriculum based on Kern’s 6-step approach.¹⁷ Though the problem identification and general needs assessment were easily defined, the targeted needs assessment, extracted from individual and group interviews with learners and the committee members, pointed at the need to learn how to assess and analyze a rapidly growing body of literature on several relevant clinical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. To achieve goals and objectives, residents were assigned to present current literature on a particular intervention during a committee meeting, specifically commenting on the merit or deficiencies of the study design, the strength of the data, and applicability to the local context with a recommendation. Prior to the presentations, the residents worked with faculty to identify the best studies or systematic analyses with potential to alter current practices. We thus used the CCMC process as a teaching tool about evidence-based medicine and the dilemma of clinical equipoise. This was imperative, since trainees thrust into the COVID-19 response have often keenly observed a movement away from deliberative decision-making.¹⁸ Indeed, including residents in the process of deliberative responses to COVID-19 addresses a recent call to adjust medical education during COVID-19 to “adapt curriculum to current issues in real time.”¹⁹

Interventions and Therapies Considered

Table 2 shows the topics reviewed by the CCMC. By the time of the first meeting, nonstandardization of care was already a source of concern for clinicians. Dialogue often continued outside of the formal meetings. Many topics were considered more than once as new guidance developed, changes to EUAs occurred, and new data or new publicity arose.

Methods

The Human Protections Administrator determined that this work constituted “quality improvement, and not research” and was therefore exempt from institutional review board review.

Quantitative Analysis

All admitted patients from March 10, 2020, through April 20, 2021, were considered in the quantitative aspects of this report except as noted. Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were identified by searching our internal data base using diagnostic codes. Patient admissions with the following diagnostic codes were included (prior to April 1, 2020): J12.89, J20.8, J40, J22, J98.8, J80, each with the additional code of B97.29. After April 1, 2020, the guideline for coding COVID-19 was U07.1.

Descriptive statistics were used to measure utilization rates of certain medications and laboratory tests of interest over time. These data were adjusted for number of unique admissions. In a few cases, not all data elements were available from both hospitals due to differences in the EMR.

Case fatality rate was calculated based upon whether the patient died or was admitted to inpatient hospice as a result of COVID-19. Four patients transferred out of hospital A and 18 transferred out of hospital B were censored from case-fatality-rate determination.

Figure 1 shows the number of admissions for each acute care hospital in the health system and the combined COVID-19 case-fatality rate over time.

Results

A total of 5955 consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted from March 10, 2020, through April 30, 2021, were analyzed. Patients with International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes J12.89. J20.8, J40, J22, J98.8, J80, each with the additional code of B97.29 (or the code UO7.1 after April 1, 2020), were included in the analysis. The median age of admitted patients was 65 years (range 19-91 years). Using the NIH classification system for severity,²⁰ the distribution of severity during the first 24 hours after the time of hospital admission was as follows: asymptomatic/presymptomatic, 0.5%; mild illness, 5.3%; moderate illness, 37.1%; severe illness, 55.5%; and critical illness, 1.1%.

The impact of the CCMC can be estimated by looking at care patterns over time. Since the work of the CCMC was aimed at influencing and standardizing physician ordering and therapy choices through order set creation and other forms of oversight, we measured the use of the CCMC-approved order sets at both hospitals and the use of certain laboratory tests and therapies that the CCMC sought either to limit or increase. These counts were adjusted for number of unique COVID-19 admissions. But the limits of the case collection tool meant it also collected cases that were not eligible for some of the interventions. For example, COVID-19 admissions without hypoxemia would not have been eligible for remdesivir or glucocorticoids. When admitted, some patients were already on steroids for other medical indications and did not receive the prescribed dexamethasone dose that we measured in pharmacy databases. Similarly, a few patients were hospitalized for indications unrelated to COVID-19, such as surgery or childbirth, and were found to be SARS-CoV-2-positive on routine screening.

Figure 2 shows the utilization of CCMC-approved standard COVID-19 admission order sets as a proportion of all COVID-19 admissions over time. The trend reveals a modest increase in usage (R² = 0.34), but these data do not reflect the progressive build of content into order sets over time. One of the goals of the order sets was to standardize and reduce the ordering of certain biomarkers: C-reactive protein, serum ferritin, and D-dimer, which were ordered frequently in many early patients. Orders for these 3 laboratory tests are combined and expressed as an average number of labs per COVID-19 admission in Figure 2. A downward trend, with an R² value of 0.65, is suggestive of impact from the order sets, though other explanations are possible.

Medication guidance was also a goal of the CCMC, simultaneously discouraging poorly supported interventions and driving uptake of the recommended evidence-based interventions in appropriate patients. Figure 3 shows the utilization pattern for some drugs of interest over the course of the pandemic, specifically the proportion of patients receiving at least 1 dose of medication among all COVID-19 admissions by month. (Data for hospital B was excluded from this analysis because it did not include all admitted patients.)

Hydroxychloroquine, which enjoyed a wave of popularity early on during the pandemic, was a target of successful order stewardship through the CCMC. Use of hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 therapeutic option after the first 2 months of the pandemic stopped, and subsequent use at low levels likely represented continuation therapy for outpatients who took hydroxychloroquine for rheumatologic indications.

Dexamethasone, as used in the RECOVERY trial,²¹ had a swift uptake among physicians after it was incorporated into order sets and its use encouraged. Similarly, uptake was immediate for remdesivir when, in May 2020, preliminary reports showed at least some benefits, confirmed by later analysis,²² and it received an FDA EUA.

Our data also show successful stewardship of the interleukin-6 antagonist toclilizumab, which was discouraged early on by the CCMC due to lack of data or negative results. But in March 2021, with new studies releasing data^12,13 and new recommendations¹⁴ for its use in some subsets of patients with COVID-19, this drug was encouraged in appropriate subsets. A new order set with qualifying indications was prepared by the CCMC and new educational efforts made to encourage its use in appropriate patients.

Ivermectin was nonformulary at the start of the pandemic. This drug enjoyed much publicity from media sources and was promoted by certain physicians and on websites,²³ based on in-vitro activity against coronaviruses. Eventually, the World Health Organization²⁴ and the FDA²⁵ found it necessary to issue advisory statements to the public against its use outside of clinical trials. The CCMC had requests from physicians to incorporate ivermectin but declined to add it to the formulary and recommended not approving nonformulary requests due to lack of data. As a result, ivermectin was not used at either hospital.

Discussion

COVID-19 represents many challenges to health systems all over the world. For Luminis Health, the high volume of acutely ill patients with novel syndromes was a particular challenge for the hospital-based care teams. A flood of information from preprints, press releases, preliminary reports, and many other nontraditional sources made deliberative management decisions difficult for individual physicians. Much commentary has appeared around the phenomenon but with less practical advice about how to make day-to-day care decisions at a time of scientific uncertainty and intense pressure to intervene.^26,27 The CCMC was designed to overcome the information management dilemma. The need to coordinate, standardize, and oversee care was necessary given the large number of physicians who cared for COVID-19 patients on inpatient services.

It should be noted that creating order sets and issuing guidance is necessary, but not sufficient, to achieve our goals of being updated and consistent. This is especially true with large cadres of health care workers attending COVID-19 patients. Guidelines and recommendations were reinforced by unit-based oversight and stewardship from pharmacy and other leaders who constituted the CCMC.

The reduction in COVID-19 mortality over time experienced in this health care system was not unique and cannot necessarily be attributed to standardization of care. Similar improvements in mortality have been reported at many US hospitals in aggregate.²⁸ Many other factors, including changes in patient characteristics, may be responsible for reduction in mortality over time.

Throughout this report we have relied upon an implicit assumption that standardization of medical therapeutics is desirable and leads to better outcomes as compared with allowing unlimited empiricism by individual physicians, either consultants or hospitalists. Our program represents a single health system with 2 acute care hospitals located 25 miles apart and which thus were similarly impacted by the different phases of the pandemic. Generalizability to health systems either smaller or larger, or in different geographical areas, has not been established. Data limitations have already been discussed.

We did not measure user satisfaction with the program either from physicians or nurses. However, the high rate of compliance suggests general agreement with the content and process.

We cannot definitively ascribe reduction in utilization of some nonrecommended treatments and increased utilization of the recommended therapies to the work of the CCMC. Individual physicians may have made these adjustments on their own or under the influence of other sources.

Finally, it should be noted that the mission to rapidly respond to data from well-conducted trials might be thwarted by too rigid a process or a committee’s lack of a sense of urgency. Organizing a committee and then empowering it to act is no guarantee of success; commitment to the mission is.

Conclusion

COVID-19 represented a challenge to medical staffs everywhere, inundating them with high volumes of acutely ill patients presenting with unfamiliar syndromes. Initial responses were characterized by idiosyncratic management approaches based on nontraditional sources of opinion and influences.

This report describes how a complex medical system brought order and standardization through a deliberative, but urgent, multidisciplinary committee with responsibility for planning, implementing, and monitoring standard approaches that eventually became evidence based. The composition of the committee and its scope of influence, limited to inpatient management, were important elements of success, allowing for better focus on the many treatment decisions. The important connection between the management committee and the system P&T committee, the clinical research effort, and teaching programs in both medicine and pharmacy are offered as exemplars of coordination. The data presented show success in achieving standardized, guideline-directed care. The approach is adoptable and suitable for similar emergencies in the future.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Gary Scabis, Kip Waite, John Moxley, Angela Clubb, and David Woodley for their assistance in gathering data. We express appreciation and admiration for all our colleagues at the bedside.

Corresponding author: Barry R. Meisenberg, MD, Department of Medicine, Luminis Health, 2001 Medical Pkwy, Annapolis, MD 21401; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Department of Medicine (Drs. Meisenberg, Muganlinskaya, Sharma, Amjadi, Arnold, Barnes, Clance, Khalil, Miller, Mooradian, O’Connell, Patel, Press, Samaras, Shanmugam, Tavadze, and Thompson), Department of Pharmacy (Drs. Jiang, Jarawan, Sheth, and Trinh), Department of Nursing (Dr. Ohnmacht), and Department of Women and Children’s Services (Dr. Raji), Luminis Health, Annapolis, MD, and Lanham, MD.

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge for hospital medical staffs worldwide due to high volumes of patients acutely ill with novel syndromes and prevailing uncertainty regarding optimum supportive and therapeutic interventions. Additionally, the response to this crisis was driven by a plethora of nontraditional information sources, such as email chains, websites, non–peer-reviewed preprints, and press releases. Care patterns became idiosyncratic and often incorporated unproven interventions driven by these nontraditional information sources. This report evaluates the efforts of a health system to create and empower a multidisciplinary committee to develop, implement, and monitor evidence-based, standardized protocols for patients with COVID-19.

Methods: This report describes the composition of the committee, its scope, and its important interactions with the health system pharmacy and therapeutics committee, research teams, and other work groups planning other aspects of COVID-19 management. It illustrates how the committee was used to demonstrate for trainees the process and value of critically examining evidence, even in a chaotic environment.

Results: Data show successful interventions in reducing excessive ordering of certain laboratory tests, reduction of nonrecommended therapies, and rapid uptake of evidence-based or guidelines-supported interventions.

Conclusions: A multidisciplinary committee dedicated solely to planning, implementing, and monitoring standard approaches that eventually became evidence-based decision-making led to an improved focus on treatment options and outcomes for COVID-19 patients. Data presented illustrate the attainable success that is both adaptable and suitable for similar emergencies in the future.

Keywords: COVID-19; clinical management; pharmacy and therapeutics; treatment; therapy.

The COVID-19 pandemic has spread to nearly all countries, carrying with it high morbidity, mortality, and severe impacts on both well-developed and less-well-developed health systems. Media reports of chaos within overwhelmed hospitals have been prominent.^1,2 As of January 5, 2022, SARS-CoV-2 has infected more than 295 million people globally and directly caused the death of more than 5.4 million,³ though this number is likely an undercount even in countries with well-developed mortality tracking.⁴

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital-based medical teams have been confronted with a flood of severely ill patients with novel syndromes. Initially, there were no standards for therapy or supportive care except for treatments borrowed from similar syndromes. In the setting of high volumes, high acuity, and public dismay, it is unsurprising that the usual deliberative methods for weighing evidence and initiating interventions were often pushed aside in favor of the solace of active intervention.⁵ In this milieu of limited evidence, there was a lamentable, if understandable, tendency to seek guidance from “nontraditional” sources,⁶ including email chains from colleagues, hospital websites, non–peer-reviewed manuscripts, advanced publication by medical journals,⁷ and nonscientific media presentations. In many localities, practitioners responded in idiosyncratic ways. For example, findings of high cytokine levels in COVID-19,⁸ along with reports of in-vitro antiviral activity with drugs like hydroxychloroquine against both SARS⁹ and SARS-CoV-2,¹⁰ drove laboratory test ordering and therapeutic interventions, respectively, carving shortcuts into the traditional clinical trial–dependent standards. Clinical trial results eventually emerged.¹¹COVID-19 created a clinical dilemma for hospital medical staffs in terms of how to organize, standardize, and rapidly adapt to a flood of new information. In this report, we describe how 1 health system responded to these challenges by forming a COVID-19 Clinical Management Committee (CCMC) and empowering this interdisciplinary team to review evidence, create and adjust order sets, educate practitioners, oversee care, and collaborate across teams addressing other aspects of the COVID-19 response.

Program Overview

Health System Description

Luminis Health is a health system with 2 acute care hospitals that was formed in 2019 just before the start of the pandemic. Anne Arundel Medical Center (hospital A) is a 385-bed teaching hospital in Annapolis, MD. It has more than 23 000 discharges annually. Patients with COVID-19 were cared for by either an internal medicine teaching service or nonteaching hospitalist services on cohorted nursing units. Doctor’s Community Medical Center, in Lanham, MD (hospital B), is a 206-bed acute care hospital with more than 10 350 annual discharges. COVID-19 patients were cared for by hospitalist groups, initially in noncohorted units with transition to cohorted nursing units after a few months. The medical staffs are generally distinct, with different leadership structures, though the Luminis Health Department of Medicine has oversight responsibilities at both hospitals. More than 47 physicians attended COVID-19 patients at hospital A (with medical residents) and 30 individual physicians at hospital B, respectively, including intensivists. The nursing and pharmacy staffs are distinct, but there is a shared oversight Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee.

The 2 hospitals had distinct electronic medical records (EMR) until January 2021, when hospital B adopted the same EMR as hospital A (Epic).

Mission and Formation of CCMC

In order to coordinate the therapeutic approach across the health system, it was important for the CCMC to be designated by the health system P&T committee as an official subcommittee so that decisions on restrictions of medications and/or new or revised order sets could be rapidly initiated across the system without waiting for the subsequent P&T meetings. The full committee retained oversight of the CCMC. Some P&T members were also on the CCMC.

The committee reviewed new reports in medical journals and prepublication servers and consulted recommendations of professional societies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 guidelines, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA), among other sources.

Composition of the CCMC

Physician leaders from both hospitals in the following specialties were solicited for participation: critical care, epidemiology, hospital medicine (internal medicine), emergency medicine, infectious diseases, nephrology, women and children’s services, and medical informatics. Specialists in other areas, such as hematology, were invited for topic-specific discussions. Hospital pharmacists with different specialties and nursing leadership were essential contributors. The committee members were expected to use various communication channels to inform frontline clinicians of new care standards and the existence of new order sets, which were embedded in the EMR.

Clinical Research

An important connection for the CCMC was with theCOVID-19 clinical research team. Three members of the research team were also members of the CCMC. All new study proposals for therapeutics were discussed with the CCMC as they were being considered by the research team. In this way, feedback on the feasibility and acceptance of new study opportunities could be discussed with the CCMC. Occasionally, CCMC decisions impacted clinical research accrual strategies. For example, new data from randomized trials about tocilizumab^1,2 demonstrated benefits in some subsets of patients and resulted in a recommendation for use by the NIH guideline committee in these populations.¹ The CCMC quickly adopted this recommendation, which required a reprioritization of clinical research enrollment for studies testing other immune-modulating agents. This important dialogue was mediated within the CCMC.

Guideline Distribution, Reinforcement, and Platform for Feedback

New guidelines were disseminated to clinicians via daily brief patient huddles held on COVID units, with participation by nursing and pharmacy, and by weekly meetings with hospitalist leaders and frontline hospital physicians. Order sets and guidelines were maintained on the intranet. Adherence was reinforced by unit-based and central pharmacists. Order sets, including admission order sets, could be created only by designated informatics personnel, thus enforcing standardization. Feedback on the utility of the order sets was obtained during the weekly meetings or huddles, as described above. To ensure a sense of transparency, physicians who had interest in commenting on a particular therapy, or who wished to discuss a particular manuscript, news article, or website, were invited to attend CCMC meetings.

Scope of CCMC

In order to be effective and timely, we limited the scope of our work to the report to the inpatient therapeutic environment, allowing other committees to work on other aspects of the pandemic response. In addition to issuing guidance and creating order sets to direct clinical practice, the CCMC also monitored COVID-19 therapeutic shortages^15,16 and advised on prioritization of such treatments as convalescent plasma, remdesivir (prioritization and duration of therapy, 5 vs 10 days), baricitinib, and tocilizumab, depending upon the location of the patient (critical care or not). The CCMC was not involved in the management of non–COVID-19 shortages brought about by supply chain deficiencies.

Table 1 shows some aspects of the health system pandemic-response planning and the committee workforce that undertook that work. Though many items were out of scope for the CCMC, members of the CCMC did participate in the planning work of these other committees and therefore stayed connected to this complementary work.

A Teaching Opportunity About Making Thoughtful Choices

Another important feature of the CCMC was the contributions of residents from both pharmacy and internal medicine. The purpose and operations of the committee were recognized as an opportunity to involve learners in a curriculum based on Kern’s 6-step approach.¹⁷ Though the problem identification and general needs assessment were easily defined, the targeted needs assessment, extracted from individual and group interviews with learners and the committee members, pointed at the need to learn how to assess and analyze a rapidly growing body of literature on several relevant clinical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. To achieve goals and objectives, residents were assigned to present current literature on a particular intervention during a committee meeting, specifically commenting on the merit or deficiencies of the study design, the strength of the data, and applicability to the local context with a recommendation. Prior to the presentations, the residents worked with faculty to identify the best studies or systematic analyses with potential to alter current practices. We thus used the CCMC process as a teaching tool about evidence-based medicine and the dilemma of clinical equipoise. This was imperative, since trainees thrust into the COVID-19 response have often keenly observed a movement away from deliberative decision-making.¹⁸ Indeed, including residents in the process of deliberative responses to COVID-19 addresses a recent call to adjust medical education during COVID-19 to “adapt curriculum to current issues in real time.”¹⁹

Interventions and Therapies Considered

Table 2 shows the topics reviewed by the CCMC. By the time of the first meeting, nonstandardization of care was already a source of concern for clinicians. Dialogue often continued outside of the formal meetings. Many topics were considered more than once as new guidance developed, changes to EUAs occurred, and new data or new publicity arose.

Methods

The Human Protections Administrator determined that this work constituted “quality improvement, and not research” and was therefore exempt from institutional review board review.

Quantitative Analysis

All admitted patients from March 10, 2020, through April 20, 2021, were considered in the quantitative aspects of this report except as noted. Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were identified by searching our internal data base using diagnostic codes. Patient admissions with the following diagnostic codes were included (prior to April 1, 2020): J12.89, J20.8, J40, J22, J98.8, J80, each with the additional code of B97.29. After April 1, 2020, the guideline for coding COVID-19 was U07.1.

Descriptive statistics were used to measure utilization rates of certain medications and laboratory tests of interest over time. These data were adjusted for number of unique admissions. In a few cases, not all data elements were available from both hospitals due to differences in the EMR.

Case fatality rate was calculated based upon whether the patient died or was admitted to inpatient hospice as a result of COVID-19. Four patients transferred out of hospital A and 18 transferred out of hospital B were censored from case-fatality-rate determination.

Figure 1 shows the number of admissions for each acute care hospital in the health system and the combined COVID-19 case-fatality rate over time.

Results

A total of 5955 consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted from March 10, 2020, through April 30, 2021, were analyzed. Patients with International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes J12.89. J20.8, J40, J22, J98.8, J80, each with the additional code of B97.29 (or the code UO7.1 after April 1, 2020), were included in the analysis. The median age of admitted patients was 65 years (range 19-91 years). Using the NIH classification system for severity,²⁰ the distribution of severity during the first 24 hours after the time of hospital admission was as follows: asymptomatic/presymptomatic, 0.5%; mild illness, 5.3%; moderate illness, 37.1%; severe illness, 55.5%; and critical illness, 1.1%.

The impact of the CCMC can be estimated by looking at care patterns over time. Since the work of the CCMC was aimed at influencing and standardizing physician ordering and therapy choices through order set creation and other forms of oversight, we measured the use of the CCMC-approved order sets at both hospitals and the use of certain laboratory tests and therapies that the CCMC sought either to limit or increase. These counts were adjusted for number of unique COVID-19 admissions. But the limits of the case collection tool meant it also collected cases that were not eligible for some of the interventions. For example, COVID-19 admissions without hypoxemia would not have been eligible for remdesivir or glucocorticoids. When admitted, some patients were already on steroids for other medical indications and did not receive the prescribed dexamethasone dose that we measured in pharmacy databases. Similarly, a few patients were hospitalized for indications unrelated to COVID-19, such as surgery or childbirth, and were found to be SARS-CoV-2-positive on routine screening.

Figure 2 shows the utilization of CCMC-approved standard COVID-19 admission order sets as a proportion of all COVID-19 admissions over time. The trend reveals a modest increase in usage (R² = 0.34), but these data do not reflect the progressive build of content into order sets over time. One of the goals of the order sets was to standardize and reduce the ordering of certain biomarkers: C-reactive protein, serum ferritin, and D-dimer, which were ordered frequently in many early patients. Orders for these 3 laboratory tests are combined and expressed as an average number of labs per COVID-19 admission in Figure 2. A downward trend, with an R² value of 0.65, is suggestive of impact from the order sets, though other explanations are possible.

Medication guidance was also a goal of the CCMC, simultaneously discouraging poorly supported interventions and driving uptake of the recommended evidence-based interventions in appropriate patients. Figure 3 shows the utilization pattern for some drugs of interest over the course of the pandemic, specifically the proportion of patients receiving at least 1 dose of medication among all COVID-19 admissions by month. (Data for hospital B was excluded from this analysis because it did not include all admitted patients.)

Hydroxychloroquine, which enjoyed a wave of popularity early on during the pandemic, was a target of successful order stewardship through the CCMC. Use of hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 therapeutic option after the first 2 months of the pandemic stopped, and subsequent use at low levels likely represented continuation therapy for outpatients who took hydroxychloroquine for rheumatologic indications.

Dexamethasone, as used in the RECOVERY trial,²¹ had a swift uptake among physicians after it was incorporated into order sets and its use encouraged. Similarly, uptake was immediate for remdesivir when, in May 2020, preliminary reports showed at least some benefits, confirmed by later analysis,²² and it received an FDA EUA.

Our data also show successful stewardship of the interleukin-6 antagonist toclilizumab, which was discouraged early on by the CCMC due to lack of data or negative results. But in March 2021, with new studies releasing data^12,13 and new recommendations¹⁴ for its use in some subsets of patients with COVID-19, this drug was encouraged in appropriate subsets. A new order set with qualifying indications was prepared by the CCMC and new educational efforts made to encourage its use in appropriate patients.

Ivermectin was nonformulary at the start of the pandemic. This drug enjoyed much publicity from media sources and was promoted by certain physicians and on websites,²³ based on in-vitro activity against coronaviruses. Eventually, the World Health Organization²⁴ and the FDA²⁵ found it necessary to issue advisory statements to the public against its use outside of clinical trials. The CCMC had requests from physicians to incorporate ivermectin but declined to add it to the formulary and recommended not approving nonformulary requests due to lack of data. As a result, ivermectin was not used at either hospital.

Discussion

COVID-19 represents many challenges to health systems all over the world. For Luminis Health, the high volume of acutely ill patients with novel syndromes was a particular challenge for the hospital-based care teams. A flood of information from preprints, press releases, preliminary reports, and many other nontraditional sources made deliberative management decisions difficult for individual physicians. Much commentary has appeared around the phenomenon but with less practical advice about how to make day-to-day care decisions at a time of scientific uncertainty and intense pressure to intervene.^26,27 The CCMC was designed to overcome the information management dilemma. The need to coordinate, standardize, and oversee care was necessary given the large number of physicians who cared for COVID-19 patients on inpatient services.

It should be noted that creating order sets and issuing guidance is necessary, but not sufficient, to achieve our goals of being updated and consistent. This is especially true with large cadres of health care workers attending COVID-19 patients. Guidelines and recommendations were reinforced by unit-based oversight and stewardship from pharmacy and other leaders who constituted the CCMC.

The reduction in COVID-19 mortality over time experienced in this health care system was not unique and cannot necessarily be attributed to standardization of care. Similar improvements in mortality have been reported at many US hospitals in aggregate.²⁸ Many other factors, including changes in patient characteristics, may be responsible for reduction in mortality over time.

Throughout this report we have relied upon an implicit assumption that standardization of medical therapeutics is desirable and leads to better outcomes as compared with allowing unlimited empiricism by individual physicians, either consultants or hospitalists. Our program represents a single health system with 2 acute care hospitals located 25 miles apart and which thus were similarly impacted by the different phases of the pandemic. Generalizability to health systems either smaller or larger, or in different geographical areas, has not been established. Data limitations have already been discussed.

We did not measure user satisfaction with the program either from physicians or nurses. However, the high rate of compliance suggests general agreement with the content and process.

We cannot definitively ascribe reduction in utilization of some nonrecommended treatments and increased utilization of the recommended therapies to the work of the CCMC. Individual physicians may have made these adjustments on their own or under the influence of other sources.

Finally, it should be noted that the mission to rapidly respond to data from well-conducted trials might be thwarted by too rigid a process or a committee’s lack of a sense of urgency. Organizing a committee and then empowering it to act is no guarantee of success; commitment to the mission is.

Conclusion

COVID-19 represented a challenge to medical staffs everywhere, inundating them with high volumes of acutely ill patients presenting with unfamiliar syndromes. Initial responses were characterized by idiosyncratic management approaches based on nontraditional sources of opinion and influences.

This report describes how a complex medical system brought order and standardization through a deliberative, but urgent, multidisciplinary committee with responsibility for planning, implementing, and monitoring standard approaches that eventually became evidence based. The composition of the committee and its scope of influence, limited to inpatient management, were important elements of success, allowing for better focus on the many treatment decisions. The important connection between the management committee and the system P&T committee, the clinical research effort, and teaching programs in both medicine and pharmacy are offered as exemplars of coordination. The data presented show success in achieving standardized, guideline-directed care. The approach is adoptable and suitable for similar emergencies in the future.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Gary Scabis, Kip Waite, John Moxley, Angela Clubb, and David Woodley for their assistance in gathering data. We express appreciation and admiration for all our colleagues at the bedside.

Corresponding author: Barry R. Meisenberg, MD, Department of Medicine, Luminis Health, 2001 Medical Pkwy, Annapolis, MD 21401; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Department of Medicine (Drs. Meisenberg, Muganlinskaya, Sharma, Amjadi, Arnold, Barnes, Clance, Khalil, Miller, Mooradian, O’Connell, Patel, Press, Samaras, Shanmugam, Tavadze, and Thompson), Department of Pharmacy (Drs. Jiang, Jarawan, Sheth, and Trinh), Department of Nursing (Dr. Ohnmacht), and Department of Women and Children’s Services (Dr. Raji), Luminis Health, Annapolis, MD, and Lanham, MD.

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge for hospital medical staffs worldwide due to high volumes of patients acutely ill with novel syndromes and prevailing uncertainty regarding optimum supportive and therapeutic interventions. Additionally, the response to this crisis was driven by a plethora of nontraditional information sources, such as email chains, websites, non–peer-reviewed preprints, and press releases. Care patterns became idiosyncratic and often incorporated unproven interventions driven by these nontraditional information sources. This report evaluates the efforts of a health system to create and empower a multidisciplinary committee to develop, implement, and monitor evidence-based, standardized protocols for patients with COVID-19.

Methods: This report describes the composition of the committee, its scope, and its important interactions with the health system pharmacy and therapeutics committee, research teams, and other work groups planning other aspects of COVID-19 management. It illustrates how the committee was used to demonstrate for trainees the process and value of critically examining evidence, even in a chaotic environment.

Results: Data show successful interventions in reducing excessive ordering of certain laboratory tests, reduction of nonrecommended therapies, and rapid uptake of evidence-based or guidelines-supported interventions.

Conclusions: A multidisciplinary committee dedicated solely to planning, implementing, and monitoring standard approaches that eventually became evidence-based decision-making led to an improved focus on treatment options and outcomes for COVID-19 patients. Data presented illustrate the attainable success that is both adaptable and suitable for similar emergencies in the future.

Keywords: COVID-19; clinical management; pharmacy and therapeutics; treatment; therapy.

The COVID-19 pandemic has spread to nearly all countries, carrying with it high morbidity, mortality, and severe impacts on both well-developed and less-well-developed health systems. Media reports of chaos within overwhelmed hospitals have been prominent.^1,2 As of January 5, 2022, SARS-CoV-2 has infected more than 295 million people globally and directly caused the death of more than 5.4 million,³ though this number is likely an undercount even in countries with well-developed mortality tracking.⁴

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital-based medical teams have been confronted with a flood of severely ill patients with novel syndromes. Initially, there were no standards for therapy or supportive care except for treatments borrowed from similar syndromes. In the setting of high volumes, high acuity, and public dismay, it is unsurprising that the usual deliberative methods for weighing evidence and initiating interventions were often pushed aside in favor of the solace of active intervention.⁵ In this milieu of limited evidence, there was a lamentable, if understandable, tendency to seek guidance from “nontraditional” sources,⁶ including email chains from colleagues, hospital websites, non–peer-reviewed manuscripts, advanced publication by medical journals,⁷ and nonscientific media presentations. In many localities, practitioners responded in idiosyncratic ways. For example, findings of high cytokine levels in COVID-19,⁸ along with reports of in-vitro antiviral activity with drugs like hydroxychloroquine against both SARS⁹ and SARS-CoV-2,¹⁰ drove laboratory test ordering and therapeutic interventions, respectively, carving shortcuts into the traditional clinical trial–dependent standards. Clinical trial results eventually emerged.¹¹COVID-19 created a clinical dilemma for hospital medical staffs in terms of how to organize, standardize, and rapidly adapt to a flood of new information. In this report, we describe how 1 health system responded to these challenges by forming a COVID-19 Clinical Management Committee (CCMC) and empowering this interdisciplinary team to review evidence, create and adjust order sets, educate practitioners, oversee care, and collaborate across teams addressing other aspects of the COVID-19 response.

Program Overview

Health System Description

Luminis Health is a health system with 2 acute care hospitals that was formed in 2019 just before the start of the pandemic. Anne Arundel Medical Center (hospital A) is a 385-bed teaching hospital in Annapolis, MD. It has more than 23 000 discharges annually. Patients with COVID-19 were cared for by either an internal medicine teaching service or nonteaching hospitalist services on cohorted nursing units. Doctor’s Community Medical Center, in Lanham, MD (hospital B), is a 206-bed acute care hospital with more than 10 350 annual discharges. COVID-19 patients were cared for by hospitalist groups, initially in noncohorted units with transition to cohorted nursing units after a few months. The medical staffs are generally distinct, with different leadership structures, though the Luminis Health Department of Medicine has oversight responsibilities at both hospitals. More than 47 physicians attended COVID-19 patients at hospital A (with medical residents) and 30 individual physicians at hospital B, respectively, including intensivists. The nursing and pharmacy staffs are distinct, but there is a shared oversight Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee.

The 2 hospitals had distinct electronic medical records (EMR) until January 2021, when hospital B adopted the same EMR as hospital A (Epic).

Mission and Formation of CCMC

In order to coordinate the therapeutic approach across the health system, it was important for the CCMC to be designated by the health system P&T committee as an official subcommittee so that decisions on restrictions of medications and/or new or revised order sets could be rapidly initiated across the system without waiting for the subsequent P&T meetings. The full committee retained oversight of the CCMC. Some P&T members were also on the CCMC.

The committee reviewed new reports in medical journals and prepublication servers and consulted recommendations of professional societies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 guidelines, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA), among other sources.

Composition of the CCMC

Physician leaders from both hospitals in the following specialties were solicited for participation: critical care, epidemiology, hospital medicine (internal medicine), emergency medicine, infectious diseases, nephrology, women and children’s services, and medical informatics. Specialists in other areas, such as hematology, were invited for topic-specific discussions. Hospital pharmacists with different specialties and nursing leadership were essential contributors. The committee members were expected to use various communication channels to inform frontline clinicians of new care standards and the existence of new order sets, which were embedded in the EMR.

Clinical Research

An important connection for the CCMC was with theCOVID-19 clinical research team. Three members of the research team were also members of the CCMC. All new study proposals for therapeutics were discussed with the CCMC as they were being considered by the research team. In this way, feedback on the feasibility and acceptance of new study opportunities could be discussed with the CCMC. Occasionally, CCMC decisions impacted clinical research accrual strategies. For example, new data from randomized trials about tocilizumab^1,2 demonstrated benefits in some subsets of patients and resulted in a recommendation for use by the NIH guideline committee in these populations.¹ The CCMC quickly adopted this recommendation, which required a reprioritization of clinical research enrollment for studies testing other immune-modulating agents. This important dialogue was mediated within the CCMC.

Guideline Distribution, Reinforcement, and Platform for Feedback

New guidelines were disseminated to clinicians via daily brief patient huddles held on COVID units, with participation by nursing and pharmacy, and by weekly meetings with hospitalist leaders and frontline hospital physicians. Order sets and guidelines were maintained on the intranet. Adherence was reinforced by unit-based and central pharmacists. Order sets, including admission order sets, could be created only by designated informatics personnel, thus enforcing standardization. Feedback on the utility of the order sets was obtained during the weekly meetings or huddles, as described above. To ensure a sense of transparency, physicians who had interest in commenting on a particular therapy, or who wished to discuss a particular manuscript, news article, or website, were invited to attend CCMC meetings.

Scope of CCMC

In order to be effective and timely, we limited the scope of our work to the report to the inpatient therapeutic environment, allowing other committees to work on other aspects of the pandemic response. In addition to issuing guidance and creating order sets to direct clinical practice, the CCMC also monitored COVID-19 therapeutic shortages^15,16 and advised on prioritization of such treatments as convalescent plasma, remdesivir (prioritization and duration of therapy, 5 vs 10 days), baricitinib, and tocilizumab, depending upon the location of the patient (critical care or not). The CCMC was not involved in the management of non–COVID-19 shortages brought about by supply chain deficiencies.

Table 1 shows some aspects of the health system pandemic-response planning and the committee workforce that undertook that work. Though many items were out of scope for the CCMC, members of the CCMC did participate in the planning work of these other committees and therefore stayed connected to this complementary work.

A Teaching Opportunity About Making Thoughtful Choices

Another important feature of the CCMC was the contributions of residents from both pharmacy and internal medicine. The purpose and operations of the committee were recognized as an opportunity to involve learners in a curriculum based on Kern’s 6-step approach.¹⁷ Though the problem identification and general needs assessment were easily defined, the targeted needs assessment, extracted from individual and group interviews with learners and the committee members, pointed at the need to learn how to assess and analyze a rapidly growing body of literature on several relevant clinical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. To achieve goals and objectives, residents were assigned to present current literature on a particular intervention during a committee meeting, specifically commenting on the merit or deficiencies of the study design, the strength of the data, and applicability to the local context with a recommendation. Prior to the presentations, the residents worked with faculty to identify the best studies or systematic analyses with potential to alter current practices. We thus used the CCMC process as a teaching tool about evidence-based medicine and the dilemma of clinical equipoise. This was imperative, since trainees thrust into the COVID-19 response have often keenly observed a movement away from deliberative decision-making.¹⁸ Indeed, including residents in the process of deliberative responses to COVID-19 addresses a recent call to adjust medical education during COVID-19 to “adapt curriculum to current issues in real time.”¹⁹

Interventions and Therapies Considered

Table 2 shows the topics reviewed by the CCMC. By the time of the first meeting, nonstandardization of care was already a source of concern for clinicians. Dialogue often continued outside of the formal meetings. Many topics were considered more than once as new guidance developed, changes to EUAs occurred, and new data or new publicity arose.

Methods

The Human Protections Administrator determined that this work constituted “quality improvement, and not research” and was therefore exempt from institutional review board review.

Quantitative Analysis

All admitted patients from March 10, 2020, through April 20, 2021, were considered in the quantitative aspects of this report except as noted. Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were identified by searching our internal data base using diagnostic codes. Patient admissions with the following diagnostic codes were included (prior to April 1, 2020): J12.89, J20.8, J40, J22, J98.8, J80, each with the additional code of B97.29. After April 1, 2020, the guideline for coding COVID-19 was U07.1.

Descriptive statistics were used to measure utilization rates of certain medications and laboratory tests of interest over time. These data were adjusted for number of unique admissions. In a few cases, not all data elements were available from both hospitals due to differences in the EMR.

Case fatality rate was calculated based upon whether the patient died or was admitted to inpatient hospice as a result of COVID-19. Four patients transferred out of hospital A and 18 transferred out of hospital B were censored from case-fatality-rate determination.

Figure 1 shows the number of admissions for each acute care hospital in the health system and the combined COVID-19 case-fatality rate over time.

Results

A total of 5955 consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted from March 10, 2020, through April 30, 2021, were analyzed. Patients with International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes J12.89. J20.8, J40, J22, J98.8, J80, each with the additional code of B97.29 (or the code UO7.1 after April 1, 2020), were included in the analysis. The median age of admitted patients was 65 years (range 19-91 years). Using the NIH classification system for severity,²⁰ the distribution of severity during the first 24 hours after the time of hospital admission was as follows: asymptomatic/presymptomatic, 0.5%; mild illness, 5.3%; moderate illness, 37.1%; severe illness, 55.5%; and critical illness, 1.1%.

The impact of the CCMC can be estimated by looking at care patterns over time. Since the work of the CCMC was aimed at influencing and standardizing physician ordering and therapy choices through order set creation and other forms of oversight, we measured the use of the CCMC-approved order sets at both hospitals and the use of certain laboratory tests and therapies that the CCMC sought either to limit or increase. These counts were adjusted for number of unique COVID-19 admissions. But the limits of the case collection tool meant it also collected cases that were not eligible for some of the interventions. For example, COVID-19 admissions without hypoxemia would not have been eligible for remdesivir or glucocorticoids. When admitted, some patients were already on steroids for other medical indications and did not receive the prescribed dexamethasone dose that we measured in pharmacy databases. Similarly, a few patients were hospitalized for indications unrelated to COVID-19, such as surgery or childbirth, and were found to be SARS-CoV-2-positive on routine screening.

Figure 2 shows the utilization of CCMC-approved standard COVID-19 admission order sets as a proportion of all COVID-19 admissions over time. The trend reveals a modest increase in usage (R² = 0.34), but these data do not reflect the progressive build of content into order sets over time. One of the goals of the order sets was to standardize and reduce the ordering of certain biomarkers: C-reactive protein, serum ferritin, and D-dimer, which were ordered frequently in many early patients. Orders for these 3 laboratory tests are combined and expressed as an average number of labs per COVID-19 admission in Figure 2. A downward trend, with an R² value of 0.65, is suggestive of impact from the order sets, though other explanations are possible.

Medication guidance was also a goal of the CCMC, simultaneously discouraging poorly supported interventions and driving uptake of the recommended evidence-based interventions in appropriate patients. Figure 3 shows the utilization pattern for some drugs of interest over the course of the pandemic, specifically the proportion of patients receiving at least 1 dose of medication among all COVID-19 admissions by month. (Data for hospital B was excluded from this analysis because it did not include all admitted patients.)

Hydroxychloroquine, which enjoyed a wave of popularity early on during the pandemic, was a target of successful order stewardship through the CCMC. Use of hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 therapeutic option after the first 2 months of the pandemic stopped, and subsequent use at low levels likely represented continuation therapy for outpatients who took hydroxychloroquine for rheumatologic indications.

Dexamethasone, as used in the RECOVERY trial,²¹ had a swift uptake among physicians after it was incorporated into order sets and its use encouraged. Similarly, uptake was immediate for remdesivir when, in May 2020, preliminary reports showed at least some benefits, confirmed by later analysis,²² and it received an FDA EUA.

Our data also show successful stewardship of the interleukin-6 antagonist toclilizumab, which was discouraged early on by the CCMC due to lack of data or negative results. But in March 2021, with new studies releasing data^12,13 and new recommendations¹⁴ for its use in some subsets of patients with COVID-19, this drug was encouraged in appropriate subsets. A new order set with qualifying indications was prepared by the CCMC and new educational efforts made to encourage its use in appropriate patients.

Ivermectin was nonformulary at the start of the pandemic. This drug enjoyed much publicity from media sources and was promoted by certain physicians and on websites,²³ based on in-vitro activity against coronaviruses. Eventually, the World Health Organization²⁴ and the FDA²⁵ found it necessary to issue advisory statements to the public against its use outside of clinical trials. The CCMC had requests from physicians to incorporate ivermectin but declined to add it to the formulary and recommended not approving nonformulary requests due to lack of data. As a result, ivermectin was not used at either hospital.

Discussion

COVID-19 represents many challenges to health systems all over the world. For Luminis Health, the high volume of acutely ill patients with novel syndromes was a particular challenge for the hospital-based care teams. A flood of information from preprints, press releases, preliminary reports, and many other nontraditional sources made deliberative management decisions difficult for individual physicians. Much commentary has appeared around the phenomenon but with less practical advice about how to make day-to-day care decisions at a time of scientific uncertainty and intense pressure to intervene.^26,27 The CCMC was designed to overcome the information management dilemma. The need to coordinate, standardize, and oversee care was necessary given the large number of physicians who cared for COVID-19 patients on inpatient services.

It should be noted that creating order sets and issuing guidance is necessary, but not sufficient, to achieve our goals of being updated and consistent. This is especially true with large cadres of health care workers attending COVID-19 patients. Guidelines and recommendations were reinforced by unit-based oversight and stewardship from pharmacy and other leaders who constituted the CCMC.

The reduction in COVID-19 mortality over time experienced in this health care system was not unique and cannot necessarily be attributed to standardization of care. Similar improvements in mortality have been reported at many US hospitals in aggregate.²⁸ Many other factors, including changes in patient characteristics, may be responsible for reduction in mortality over time.

Throughout this report we have relied upon an implicit assumption that standardization of medical therapeutics is desirable and leads to better outcomes as compared with allowing unlimited empiricism by individual physicians, either consultants or hospitalists. Our program represents a single health system with 2 acute care hospitals located 25 miles apart and which thus were similarly impacted by the different phases of the pandemic. Generalizability to health systems either smaller or larger, or in different geographical areas, has not been established. Data limitations have already been discussed.

We did not measure user satisfaction with the program either from physicians or nurses. However, the high rate of compliance suggests general agreement with the content and process.

We cannot definitively ascribe reduction in utilization of some nonrecommended treatments and increased utilization of the recommended therapies to the work of the CCMC. Individual physicians may have made these adjustments on their own or under the influence of other sources.

Finally, it should be noted that the mission to rapidly respond to data from well-conducted trials might be thwarted by too rigid a process or a committee’s lack of a sense of urgency. Organizing a committee and then empowering it to act is no guarantee of success; commitment to the mission is.

Conclusion

COVID-19 represented a challenge to medical staffs everywhere, inundating them with high volumes of acutely ill patients presenting with unfamiliar syndromes. Initial responses were characterized by idiosyncratic management approaches based on nontraditional sources of opinion and influences.

This report describes how a complex medical system brought order and standardization through a deliberative, but urgent, multidisciplinary committee with responsibility for planning, implementing, and monitoring standard approaches that eventually became evidence based. The composition of the committee and its scope of influence, limited to inpatient management, were important elements of success, allowing for better focus on the many treatment decisions. The important connection between the management committee and the system P&T committee, the clinical research effort, and teaching programs in both medicine and pharmacy are offered as exemplars of coordination. The data presented show success in achieving standardized, guideline-directed care. The approach is adoptable and suitable for similar emergencies in the future.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Gary Scabis, Kip Waite, John Moxley, Angela Clubb, and David Woodley for their assistance in gathering data. We express appreciation and admiration for all our colleagues at the bedside.

Corresponding author: Barry R. Meisenberg, MD, Department of Medicine, Luminis Health, 2001 Medical Pkwy, Annapolis, MD 21401; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Acute flares of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have a mortality rate as high as 90% or more, depending on their severity. But an experimental regimen that includes autoantibody reduction was found to improve survival significantly, as well as oxygen levels and walk distances, according to a small preliminary study published in PLOS ONE.

“It’s a preliminary study, but it’s very exciting,” Amit Gaggar, MD, PhD, an endowed professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said in an interview. “We don’t really have a treatment for acute exacerbations of pulmonary fibrosis, and the mortality is extremely high, so it’s really critical that we start thinking outside the box a little bit for therapeutics.” Dr. Gaggar isn’t affiliated with the study.

Study leader Steven R. Duncan, MD, also of UAB, acknowledged that the experimental therapy has its detractors. “There’s been a tremendous bias against the role of immunologic therapy in idiopathic fibrosis, although it seems to be lessening,” he said.

The preliminary study treated 24 patients who had acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) with a 19-day regimen called triple-modality autoantibody reduction. The three contributing modalities are therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin treatments. The standard treatment for AE-IPF consists of antibiotics and corticosteroids.

Dr. Duncan led the only other study of autoantibody reduction for AE-IPF, published in PLOS ONE in 2015. The latest preliminary study is a precursor to a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–funded phase 2 randomized clinical trial, called STRIVE-IPF, currently enrolling AE-IPF patients at six sites.

In the preliminary study, 10 patients survived at least a year, an overall survival rate of 42%. Overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 6 months were 67%, 63%, and 46%. The study couldn’t identify characteristics of survivors versus nonsurvivors, although the latter had a trend toward greater initial oxygen requirements. Among the 10 patients who needed less than 25 L/min supplemental O2, the survival rate was 57%. In patients who needed more than 25 L/min, the survival rate was 20% (P = .07). Only 1 of 5 patients who needed greater than 40 L/min survived a year (P = .36).

After the 19-day regimen, 15 patients, or 63%, had significant drops in supplemental O2 requirements, from an average of 15 L/min to 3 L/min (P = .0007). Thirteen (87%) of the patients who were taking an antifibrotic medication (either pirfenidone or nintedanib) at baseline needed less O2 and/or had increased walking distances, compared with five who weren’t prescribed either of the agents (P = .15), although 1-year survival didn’t vary significantly with antifibrotic use.

The mechanism of antibody reduction is to filter out B-cells, infiltrates of which are typically found in lungs of AE-IPF patients, Dr. Duncan said. The regimen involves nine TPEs over 15 days, two IV rituximab 1-gm treatments over that course, and IV Ig 0.5-gm/kg treatments daily on days 16 through 19.

“Plasma exchange rapidly gets rid of the antibodies,” Dr. Duncan said in an interview. “It’s the basis for a number of autoantibody-mediated diseases, such as myasthenia gravis.”

While the TPE removes the B-cells, they have a proclivity to re-emerge, hence the rituximab treatment, he said. IV Ig further inhibits B-cell activity. “The IV Ig probably works in large part by feedback inhibition of the B-cells that have survived the rituximab,” Dr. Duncan said.

He added that with the TPE and rituximab patients had “sometimes amazing response” but then would relapse. “Since we added IV Ig, we see far fewer relapses,” he said. “And interestingly, if they do relapse, we can salvage them by giving them this treatment again.”

The preliminary study doesn’t make clear what patients would benefit most from the triple-modality therapy, but it did provide some clues. “We found that patients who have higher levels of antibodies against epithelial cells tend to do the best, and patients who had less severe disease – that is, less disturbance of gas exchange requiring less O2 – tend to do better,” Dr. Duncan said. The STRIVE trial should serve to identify specific biomarkers, he said.

Dr. Gaggar, the UAB professor who’s not affiliated with the study, concurred that it’s “too early to tell” which patients would benefit. “Certainly, these patients that undergo exacerbations would be of high interest,” he said, “but the potential is there that the other chronic lung diseases that have exacerbations may also benefit from this kind of therapy.”

He noted that the preliminary study focused on one type of autoantibody generating from epithelial cells. “In many of these studies where we limit ourselves to a single autoantibody population, we might be at the tip of iceberg,” Dr. Gaggar said. “There might be autoantibodies generated from other cells in the lung or the body that might be also pathogenic. This is really powerful because this is a subgroup of autoantibodies, but they still had that kind of impact in this small study.”

The STRIVE study is scheduled for completion in September 2022.

Dr. Duncan disclosed relationships with Novartis and Tyr Pharma outside the study subject. Dr. Gaggar has no relevant disclosures.

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

Acute flares of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have a mortality rate as high as 90% or more, depending on their severity. But an experimental regimen that includes autoantibody reduction was found to improve survival significantly, as well as oxygen levels and walk distances, according to a small preliminary study published in PLOS ONE.

“It’s a preliminary study, but it’s very exciting,” Amit Gaggar, MD, PhD, an endowed professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said in an interview. “We don’t really have a treatment for acute exacerbations of pulmonary fibrosis, and the mortality is extremely high, so it’s really critical that we start thinking outside the box a little bit for therapeutics.” Dr. Gaggar isn’t affiliated with the study.

Study leader Steven R. Duncan, MD, also of UAB, acknowledged that the experimental therapy has its detractors. “There’s been a tremendous bias against the role of immunologic therapy in idiopathic fibrosis, although it seems to be lessening,” he said.

The preliminary study treated 24 patients who had acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) with a 19-day regimen called triple-modality autoantibody reduction. The three contributing modalities are therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin treatments. The standard treatment for AE-IPF consists of antibiotics and corticosteroids.

Dr. Duncan led the only other study of autoantibody reduction for AE-IPF, published in PLOS ONE in 2015. The latest preliminary study is a precursor to a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–funded phase 2 randomized clinical trial, called STRIVE-IPF, currently enrolling AE-IPF patients at six sites.

In the preliminary study, 10 patients survived at least a year, an overall survival rate of 42%. Overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 6 months were 67%, 63%, and 46%. The study couldn’t identify characteristics of survivors versus nonsurvivors, although the latter had a trend toward greater initial oxygen requirements. Among the 10 patients who needed less than 25 L/min supplemental O2, the survival rate was 57%. In patients who needed more than 25 L/min, the survival rate was 20% (P = .07). Only 1 of 5 patients who needed greater than 40 L/min survived a year (P = .36).

After the 19-day regimen, 15 patients, or 63%, had significant drops in supplemental O2 requirements, from an average of 15 L/min to 3 L/min (P = .0007). Thirteen (87%) of the patients who were taking an antifibrotic medication (either pirfenidone or nintedanib) at baseline needed less O2 and/or had increased walking distances, compared with five who weren’t prescribed either of the agents (P = .15), although 1-year survival didn’t vary significantly with antifibrotic use.

The mechanism of antibody reduction is to filter out B-cells, infiltrates of which are typically found in lungs of AE-IPF patients, Dr. Duncan said. The regimen involves nine TPEs over 15 days, two IV rituximab 1-gm treatments over that course, and IV Ig 0.5-gm/kg treatments daily on days 16 through 19.

“Plasma exchange rapidly gets rid of the antibodies,” Dr. Duncan said in an interview. “It’s the basis for a number of autoantibody-mediated diseases, such as myasthenia gravis.”

While the TPE removes the B-cells, they have a proclivity to re-emerge, hence the rituximab treatment, he said. IV Ig further inhibits B-cell activity. “The IV Ig probably works in large part by feedback inhibition of the B-cells that have survived the rituximab,” Dr. Duncan said.

He added that with the TPE and rituximab patients had “sometimes amazing response” but then would relapse. “Since we added IV Ig, we see far fewer relapses,” he said. “And interestingly, if they do relapse, we can salvage them by giving them this treatment again.”

The preliminary study doesn’t make clear what patients would benefit most from the triple-modality therapy, but it did provide some clues. “We found that patients who have higher levels of antibodies against epithelial cells tend to do the best, and patients who had less severe disease – that is, less disturbance of gas exchange requiring less O2 – tend to do better,” Dr. Duncan said. The STRIVE trial should serve to identify specific biomarkers, he said.

Dr. Gaggar, the UAB professor who’s not affiliated with the study, concurred that it’s “too early to tell” which patients would benefit. “Certainly, these patients that undergo exacerbations would be of high interest,” he said, “but the potential is there that the other chronic lung diseases that have exacerbations may also benefit from this kind of therapy.”

He noted that the preliminary study focused on one type of autoantibody generating from epithelial cells. “In many of these studies where we limit ourselves to a single autoantibody population, we might be at the tip of iceberg,” Dr. Gaggar said. “There might be autoantibodies generated from other cells in the lung or the body that might be also pathogenic. This is really powerful because this is a subgroup of autoantibodies, but they still had that kind of impact in this small study.”

The STRIVE study is scheduled for completion in September 2022.

Dr. Duncan disclosed relationships with Novartis and Tyr Pharma outside the study subject. Dr. Gaggar has no relevant disclosures.

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

Acute flares of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have a mortality rate as high as 90% or more, depending on their severity. But an experimental regimen that includes autoantibody reduction was found to improve survival significantly, as well as oxygen levels and walk distances, according to a small preliminary study published in PLOS ONE.

“It’s a preliminary study, but it’s very exciting,” Amit Gaggar, MD, PhD, an endowed professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said in an interview. “We don’t really have a treatment for acute exacerbations of pulmonary fibrosis, and the mortality is extremely high, so it’s really critical that we start thinking outside the box a little bit for therapeutics.” Dr. Gaggar isn’t affiliated with the study.

Study leader Steven R. Duncan, MD, also of UAB, acknowledged that the experimental therapy has its detractors. “There’s been a tremendous bias against the role of immunologic therapy in idiopathic fibrosis, although it seems to be lessening,” he said.

The preliminary study treated 24 patients who had acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) with a 19-day regimen called triple-modality autoantibody reduction. The three contributing modalities are therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin treatments. The standard treatment for AE-IPF consists of antibiotics and corticosteroids.

Dr. Duncan led the only other study of autoantibody reduction for AE-IPF, published in PLOS ONE in 2015. The latest preliminary study is a precursor to a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–funded phase 2 randomized clinical trial, called STRIVE-IPF, currently enrolling AE-IPF patients at six sites.

In the preliminary study, 10 patients survived at least a year, an overall survival rate of 42%. Overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 6 months were 67%, 63%, and 46%. The study couldn’t identify characteristics of survivors versus nonsurvivors, although the latter had a trend toward greater initial oxygen requirements. Among the 10 patients who needed less than 25 L/min supplemental O2, the survival rate was 57%. In patients who needed more than 25 L/min, the survival rate was 20% (P = .07). Only 1 of 5 patients who needed greater than 40 L/min survived a year (P = .36).

After the 19-day regimen, 15 patients, or 63%, had significant drops in supplemental O2 requirements, from an average of 15 L/min to 3 L/min (P = .0007). Thirteen (87%) of the patients who were taking an antifibrotic medication (either pirfenidone or nintedanib) at baseline needed less O2 and/or had increased walking distances, compared with five who weren’t prescribed either of the agents (P = .15), although 1-year survival didn’t vary significantly with antifibrotic use.

The mechanism of antibody reduction is to filter out B-cells, infiltrates of which are typically found in lungs of AE-IPF patients, Dr. Duncan said. The regimen involves nine TPEs over 15 days, two IV rituximab 1-gm treatments over that course, and IV Ig 0.5-gm/kg treatments daily on days 16 through 19.

“Plasma exchange rapidly gets rid of the antibodies,” Dr. Duncan said in an interview. “It’s the basis for a number of autoantibody-mediated diseases, such as myasthenia gravis.”

While the TPE removes the B-cells, they have a proclivity to re-emerge, hence the rituximab treatment, he said. IV Ig further inhibits B-cell activity. “The IV Ig probably works in large part by feedback inhibition of the B-cells that have survived the rituximab,” Dr. Duncan said.

He added that with the TPE and rituximab patients had “sometimes amazing response” but then would relapse. “Since we added IV Ig, we see far fewer relapses,” he said. “And interestingly, if they do relapse, we can salvage them by giving them this treatment again.”

The preliminary study doesn’t make clear what patients would benefit most from the triple-modality therapy, but it did provide some clues. “We found that patients who have higher levels of antibodies against epithelial cells tend to do the best, and patients who had less severe disease – that is, less disturbance of gas exchange requiring less O2 – tend to do better,” Dr. Duncan said. The STRIVE trial should serve to identify specific biomarkers, he said.

Dr. Gaggar, the UAB professor who’s not affiliated with the study, concurred that it’s “too early to tell” which patients would benefit. “Certainly, these patients that undergo exacerbations would be of high interest,” he said, “but the potential is there that the other chronic lung diseases that have exacerbations may also benefit from this kind of therapy.”

He noted that the preliminary study focused on one type of autoantibody generating from epithelial cells. “In many of these studies where we limit ourselves to a single autoantibody population, we might be at the tip of iceberg,” Dr. Gaggar said. “There might be autoantibodies generated from other cells in the lung or the body that might be also pathogenic. This is really powerful because this is a subgroup of autoantibodies, but they still had that kind of impact in this small study.”

The STRIVE study is scheduled for completion in September 2022.

Dr. Duncan disclosed relationships with Novartis and Tyr Pharma outside the study subject. Dr. Gaggar has no relevant disclosures.

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

First-line treatment of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with ampicillin-gentamicin – as recommended by the World Health Organization – needs to be reassessed, a retrospective, observational cohort study suggests. Rates of resistance to this particular antibiotic combination are extremely high in LMICs, and this treatment is unlikely to save many neonatal patients, according to the study’s results.

“The WHO guidelines are over 10 years old, and they are actually based on high-income country data, whereas data reported from low-income countries are reported by private labs, and they do not cater to the lower socioeconomic groups within these countries, which is important data to capture,” Timothy Walsh, MD, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, told this news organization.

“The main take-home message from our data is that ampicillin-gentamicin doesn’t work for most of the Gram-negative isolates we tested, and while there are alternatives, their use is confounded by [a lack of] financial support,” he added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
 

BARNARDS study

In this substudy of the Burden of Antibiotic Resistance in Neonates from Developing Societies (BARNARDS) study, investigators focused on the effectiveness of antibiotic therapies after taking into account the high prevalence of pathogen resistance to ampicillin-gentamicin. Participating countries included Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, and South Africa.

“Blood samples were obtained from neonates presenting with clinical signs of sepsis,” the authors note, “and WGS [whole-genome sequencing] and MICs [minimum inhibitory concentrations] for antibiotic treatment were determined for bacterial isolates from culture-confirmed sepsis.” Between Nov. 2015 and Feb. 2018, 36,285 neonates were enrolled into the main BARNARDS study, of whom 9,874 had clinically diagnosed sepsis and 5,749 had antibiotic data.

A total of 2,483 neonates had culture-confirmed sepsis, and WGS data were available for 457 isolates taken from 442 neonates. Slightly over three-quarters of the 5,749 neonates who had antibiotic data received first-line ampicillin-gentamicin. The other three most commonly prescribed antibiotic combinations were ceftazidime-amikacin, piperacillin-tazobactam-amikacin, and amoxicillin-clavulanate-amikacin.

Neonates treated with ceftazidime-amikacin had a 68% lower reported mortality than those treated with ampicillin-gentamicin at an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.72; P = .006), the investigators report. In contrast, no significant differences in mortality rates were reported for neonates treated with amoxicillin-clavulanate-amikacin or piperacillin-tazobactam-amikacin compared to those treated with ampicillin-gentamicin.

Investigators were careful to suggest that mortality effects associated with the different antibiotic combinations might have been confounded by either country-specific effects or underreporting of mortality, as a large proportion of neonates who were treated with ampicillin-gentamicin were followed for fewer than 10 days. However, in an unreported aspect of the same study, neonatal mortality from sepsis dropped by over 50% in two federally funded sites in Nigeria that changed their treatment from the WHO-recommended ampicillin-gentamicin regimen to ceftazidime-amikacin – which Dr. Walsh suggested was an endorsement of ceftazidime-amikacin over ampicillin-gentamicin if ever there was one.
 

Gram-negative resistance

In looking at resistance patterns to the antibiotic combinations used in these countries, investigators found that almost all Gram-negative isolates tested were “overwhelmingly resistant” to ampicillin, and over 70% of them were resistant to gentamicin as well. Extremely high resistance rates were also found against Staphylococcus spp, which are regarded as intrinsically resistant to ampicillin, rendering it basically useless in this particular treatment setting.

Amikacin had much lower level of resistance, with only about 26% of Gram-negative isolates showing resistance. In terms of coverage against Gram-negative isolates, the lowest level of coverage was provided by ampicillin-gentamicin at slightly over 28%, compared with about 73% for amoxicillin-clavulanate-amikacin, 77% for ceftazidime-amikacin, and 80% for piperacillin-tazobactam-amikacin.

In contrast, “Gram-positive isolates generally had reduced levels of resistance,” the authors state. As Dr. Walsh noted, the consortium also did an analysis assessing how much the antibiotic combinations cost and how much payment was deferred to the parents. For example, in Nigeria, the entire cost of treatment is passed down to the parents, “so if they are earning, say, $5.00 a day and the infant needs ceftazidime-amikacin, where the cost per dose is about $6.00 or $7.00 a day, parents can’t afford it,” Dr. Walsh observed.

This part of the conversation, he added, tends to get lost in many studies of antibiotic resistance in LMICs, which is a critical omission, because in many instances, the choice of treatment does come down to affordability. “It’s all very well for the WHO to sit there and say, ampicillin-gentamicin is perfect, but the combination actually doesn’t work in over 70% of the Gram-negative bacteria we looked at in these countries,” Dr. Walsh emphasized.

“The fact is that we have to be a lot more internationally engaged as to what’s actually happening in poorer populations, because unless we do, neonates are going to continue to die,” he said.
 

Editorial commentary

Commenting on the findings, lead editorialist Luregn Schlapbach, MD, PhD, of University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, pointed out that the study has a number of limitations, including a high rate of dropouts from follow-up. This could possibly result in underestimation of neonatal mortality as well as country-specific biases. Nevertheless, Dr. Schlapbach feels that the integration of sequential clinical, genomic, microbiologic, drug, and cost data across a large network in LMIC settings is “exceptional” and will serve to inform “urgently needed” clinical trials in the field of neonatal sepsis.

“At present, increasing global antibiotic resistance is threatening progress against neonatal sepsis, prompting urgency to develop improved measures to effectively prevent and treat life-threatening infections in this high-risk group,” Dr. Schlapbach and colleagues write.

“The findings from the BARNARDS study call for randomized trials comparing mortality benefit and cost efficiency of different antibiotic combinations and management algorithms to safely reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure for neonatal sepsis,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

First-line treatment of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with ampicillin-gentamicin – as recommended by the World Health Organization – needs to be reassessed, a retrospective, observational cohort study suggests. Rates of resistance to this particular antibiotic combination are extremely high in LMICs, and this treatment is unlikely to save many neonatal patients, according to the study’s results.

“The WHO guidelines are over 10 years old, and they are actually based on high-income country data, whereas data reported from low-income countries are reported by private labs, and they do not cater to the lower socioeconomic groups within these countries, which is important data to capture,” Timothy Walsh, MD, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, told this news organization.

“The main take-home message from our data is that ampicillin-gentamicin doesn’t work for most of the Gram-negative isolates we tested, and while there are alternatives, their use is confounded by [a lack of] financial support,” he added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
 

BARNARDS study

In this substudy of the Burden of Antibiotic Resistance in Neonates from Developing Societies (BARNARDS) study, investigators focused on the effectiveness of antibiotic therapies after taking into account the high prevalence of pathogen resistance to ampicillin-gentamicin. Participating countries included Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, and South Africa.

“Blood samples were obtained from neonates presenting with clinical signs of sepsis,” the authors note, “and WGS [whole-genome sequencing] and MICs [minimum inhibitory concentrations] for antibiotic treatment were determined for bacterial isolates from culture-confirmed sepsis.” Between Nov. 2015 and Feb. 2018, 36,285 neonates were enrolled into the main BARNARDS study, of whom 9,874 had clinically diagnosed sepsis and 5,749 had antibiotic data.

A total of 2,483 neonates had culture-confirmed sepsis, and WGS data were available for 457 isolates taken from 442 neonates. Slightly over three-quarters of the 5,749 neonates who had antibiotic data received first-line ampicillin-gentamicin. The other three most commonly prescribed antibiotic combinations were ceftazidime-amikacin, piperacillin-tazobactam-amikacin, and amoxicillin-clavulanate-amikacin.

Neonates treated with ceftazidime-amikacin had a 68% lower reported mortality than those treated with ampicillin-gentamicin at an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.72; P = .006), the investigators report. In contrast, no significant differences in mortality rates were reported for neonates treated with amoxicillin-clavulanate-amikacin or piperacillin-tazobactam-amikacin compared to those treated with ampicillin-gentamicin.

Investigators were careful to suggest that mortality effects associated with the different antibiotic combinations might have been confounded by either country-specific effects or underreporting of mortality, as a large proportion of neonates who were treated with ampicillin-gentamicin were followed for fewer than 10 days. However, in an unreported aspect of the same study, neonatal mortality from sepsis dropped by over 50% in two federally funded sites in Nigeria that changed their treatment from the WHO-recommended ampicillin-gentamicin regimen to ceftazidime-amikacin – which Dr. Walsh suggested was an endorsement of ceftazidime-amikacin over ampicillin-gentamicin if ever there was one.
 

Gram-negative resistance

In looking at resistance patterns to the antibiotic combinations used in these countries, investigators found that almost all Gram-negative isolates tested were “overwhelmingly resistant” to ampicillin, and over 70% of them were resistant to gentamicin as well. Extremely high resistance rates were also found against Staphylococcus spp, which are regarded as intrinsically resistant to ampicillin, rendering it basically useless in this particular treatment setting.

Amikacin had much lower level of resistance, with only about 26% of Gram-negative isolates showing resistance. In terms of coverage against Gram-negative isolates, the lowest level of coverage was provided by ampicillin-gentamicin at slightly over 28%, compared with about 73% for amoxicillin-clavulanate-amikacin, 77% for ceftazidime-amikacin, and 80% for piperacillin-tazobactam-amikacin.

In contrast, “Gram-positive isolates generally had reduced levels of resistance,” the authors state. As Dr. Walsh noted, the consortium also did an analysis assessing how much the antibiotic combinations cost and how much payment was deferred to the parents. For example, in Nigeria, the entire cost of treatment is passed down to the parents, “so if they are earning, say, $5.00 a day and the infant needs ceftazidime-amikacin, where the cost per dose is about $6.00 or $7.00 a day, parents can’t afford it,” Dr. Walsh observed.

This part of the conversation, he added, tends to get lost in many studies of antibiotic resistance in LMICs, which is a critical omission, because in many instances, the choice of treatment does come down to affordability. “It’s all very well for the WHO to sit there and say, ampicillin-gentamicin is perfect, but the combination actually doesn’t work in over 70% of the Gram-negative bacteria we looked at in these countries,” Dr. Walsh emphasized.

“The fact is that we have to be a lot more internationally engaged as to what’s actually happening in poorer populations, because unless we do, neonates are going to continue to die,” he said.
 

Editorial commentary

Commenting on the findings, lead editorialist Luregn Schlapbach, MD, PhD, of University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, pointed out that the study has a number of limitations, including a high rate of dropouts from follow-up. This could possibly result in underestimation of neonatal mortality as well as country-specific biases. Nevertheless, Dr. Schlapbach feels that the integration of sequential clinical, genomic, microbiologic, drug, and cost data across a large network in LMIC settings is “exceptional” and will serve to inform “urgently needed” clinical trials in the field of neonatal sepsis.

“At present, increasing global antibiotic resistance is threatening progress against neonatal sepsis, prompting urgency to develop improved measures to effectively prevent and treat life-threatening infections in this high-risk group,” Dr. Schlapbach and colleagues write.

“The findings from the BARNARDS study call for randomized trials comparing mortality benefit and cost efficiency of different antibiotic combinations and management algorithms to safely reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure for neonatal sepsis,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

First-line treatment of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with ampicillin-gentamicin – as recommended by the World Health Organization – needs to be reassessed, a retrospective, observational cohort study suggests. Rates of resistance to this particular antibiotic combination are extremely high in LMICs, and this treatment is unlikely to save many neonatal patients, according to the study’s results.

“The WHO guidelines are over 10 years old, and they are actually based on high-income country data, whereas data reported from low-income countries are reported by private labs, and they do not cater to the lower socioeconomic groups within these countries, which is important data to capture,” Timothy Walsh, MD, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, told this news organization.

“The main take-home message from our data is that ampicillin-gentamicin doesn’t work for most of the Gram-negative isolates we tested, and while there are alternatives, their use is confounded by [a lack of] financial support,” he added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
 

BARNARDS study

In this substudy of the Burden of Antibiotic Resistance in Neonates from Developing Societies (BARNARDS) study, investigators focused on the effectiveness of antibiotic therapies after taking into account the high prevalence of pathogen resistance to ampicillin-gentamicin. Participating countries included Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, and South Africa.

“Blood samples were obtained from neonates presenting with clinical signs of sepsis,” the authors note, “and WGS [whole-genome sequencing] and MICs [minimum inhibitory concentrations] for antibiotic treatment were determined for bacterial isolates from culture-confirmed sepsis.” Between Nov. 2015 and Feb. 2018, 36,285 neonates were enrolled into the main BARNARDS study, of whom 9,874 had clinically diagnosed sepsis and 5,749 had antibiotic data.

A total of 2,483 neonates had culture-confirmed sepsis, and WGS data were available for 457 isolates taken from 442 neonates. Slightly over three-quarters of the 5,749 neonates who had antibiotic data received first-line ampicillin-gentamicin. The other three most commonly prescribed antibiotic combinations were ceftazidime-amikacin, piperacillin-tazobactam-amikacin, and amoxicillin-clavulanate-amikacin.

Neonates treated with ceftazidime-amikacin had a 68% lower reported mortality than those treated with ampicillin-gentamicin at an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.72; P = .006), the investigators report. In contrast, no significant differences in mortality rates were reported for neonates treated with amoxicillin-clavulanate-amikacin or piperacillin-tazobactam-amikacin compared to those treated with ampicillin-gentamicin.

Investigators were careful to suggest that mortality effects associated with the different antibiotic combinations might have been confounded by either country-specific effects or underreporting of mortality, as a large proportion of neonates who were treated with ampicillin-gentamicin were followed for fewer than 10 days. However, in an unreported aspect of the same study, neonatal mortality from sepsis dropped by over 50% in two federally funded sites in Nigeria that changed their treatment from the WHO-recommended ampicillin-gentamicin regimen to ceftazidime-amikacin – which Dr. Walsh suggested was an endorsement of ceftazidime-amikacin over ampicillin-gentamicin if ever there was one.
 

Gram-negative resistance

In looking at resistance patterns to the antibiotic combinations used in these countries, investigators found that almost all Gram-negative isolates tested were “overwhelmingly resistant” to ampicillin, and over 70% of them were resistant to gentamicin as well. Extremely high resistance rates were also found against Staphylococcus spp, which are regarded as intrinsically resistant to ampicillin, rendering it basically useless in this particular treatment setting.

Amikacin had much lower level of resistance, with only about 26% of Gram-negative isolates showing resistance. In terms of coverage against Gram-negative isolates, the lowest level of coverage was provided by ampicillin-gentamicin at slightly over 28%, compared with about 73% for amoxicillin-clavulanate-amikacin, 77% for ceftazidime-amikacin, and 80% for piperacillin-tazobactam-amikacin.

In contrast, “Gram-positive isolates generally had reduced levels of resistance,” the authors state. As Dr. Walsh noted, the consortium also did an analysis assessing how much the antibiotic combinations cost and how much payment was deferred to the parents. For example, in Nigeria, the entire cost of treatment is passed down to the parents, “so if they are earning, say, $5.00 a day and the infant needs ceftazidime-amikacin, where the cost per dose is about $6.00 or $7.00 a day, parents can’t afford it,” Dr. Walsh observed.

This part of the conversation, he added, tends to get lost in many studies of antibiotic resistance in LMICs, which is a critical omission, because in many instances, the choice of treatment does come down to affordability. “It’s all very well for the WHO to sit there and say, ampicillin-gentamicin is perfect, but the combination actually doesn’t work in over 70% of the Gram-negative bacteria we looked at in these countries,” Dr. Walsh emphasized.

“The fact is that we have to be a lot more internationally engaged as to what’s actually happening in poorer populations, because unless we do, neonates are going to continue to die,” he said.
 

Editorial commentary

Commenting on the findings, lead editorialist Luregn Schlapbach, MD, PhD, of University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, pointed out that the study has a number of limitations, including a high rate of dropouts from follow-up. This could possibly result in underestimation of neonatal mortality as well as country-specific biases. Nevertheless, Dr. Schlapbach feels that the integration of sequential clinical, genomic, microbiologic, drug, and cost data across a large network in LMIC settings is “exceptional” and will serve to inform “urgently needed” clinical trials in the field of neonatal sepsis.

“At present, increasing global antibiotic resistance is threatening progress against neonatal sepsis, prompting urgency to develop improved measures to effectively prevent and treat life-threatening infections in this high-risk group,” Dr. Schlapbach and colleagues write.

“The findings from the BARNARDS study call for randomized trials comparing mortality benefit and cost efficiency of different antibiotic combinations and management algorithms to safely reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure for neonatal sepsis,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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