Patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) experienced rapid clinical response to the oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz) in a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Tofacitinib was significantly more effective than was placebo at primary and secondary endpoints. Adverse events were more frequent with tofacitinib than with placebo, but there were no new safety risks.

Results were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Atul Deodhar, MD, medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

At week 16, 56.4% of patients who received tofacitinib met ASAS20 criteria (Assessment of Ankylosing Spondylitis, a validated measure of 20% improvement), compared with 29.4% in the placebo group (P < .0001). The percentage of ASAS40 responders at week 16 was also significantly greater with tofacitinib (40.6%) than placebo (12.5%) (P < .0001).

The trial, sponsored by Pfizer, enrolled 269 adults with active AS who had a poor response to or were intolerant of at least two NSAIDs. Most in the active treatment and placebo groups were men (about 85%); the average age was 41 years. Most (77%) had no prior exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

“Symptom duration was about 13 years,” Dr. Deodhar said.

In the 4-month double-blind phase, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day or placebo. After 16 weeks, all patients received open-label tofacitinib until week 48.

Safety was a secondary endpoint, Dr. Deodhar said.

In the tofacitinib group, 72 patients (54.1%) experienced adverse events (AEs), compared with 70 patients in the placebo group (51.5%). Two patients in the treatment group experienced severe AEs; none in the placebo group did so. In the treatment group, three patients left the trial because of AEs; in the placebo group, one patient did so.

The most common AEs were upper respiratory tract infection and nasopharyngitis.

“There were no unexpected side effects in this study,” Dr. Deodhar said. He noted that the risks were similar to known risks for those taking the drug for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

With tofacitinib there were no deaths, thromboembolic events, malignancies, major cardiac events, or gastrointestinal perforation. By week 48, three patients in the tofacitinib group had nonserious herpes zoster versus one in the placebo group.

“There’s a lot of hand-wringing” about why a JAK inhibitor would be effective for AS, inasmuch as it does not target the tumor necrosis factor [TNF] pathway or interleukin-17,” Dr. Deodhar said.

“Somehow, JAK inhibitor drugs are downstream, affecting several cytokines that we know are important in the pathogenesis and the phenotypic expression of the disease,” he said.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, of Rush University, Chicago, who did not take part in the research, said in an interview that tofacitinib holds promise as a much-needed option.

“JAK inhibitors have been used with success in RA, and it is reassuring to see these phase 3 data for AS,” especially for those patients whose disease was not well controlled with other approved agents, she said.

She added that oral administration is a plus for patients.

“AS, like all other chronic rheumatologic conditions, has no cure,” Dr. Khandelwal noted. “The advent of biologics has changed the course of these conditions, but not one drug works for everyone.”

She said it would be helpful if future trials were to compare the safety and efficacy of tofacitinib with those of biologics that have already been approved for AS, such as anti-TNF agents and IL-17 antagonists.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Deodhar reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khandelwal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) experienced rapid clinical response to the oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz) in a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Tofacitinib was significantly more effective than was placebo at primary and secondary endpoints. Adverse events were more frequent with tofacitinib than with placebo, but there were no new safety risks.

Results were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Atul Deodhar, MD, medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

At week 16, 56.4% of patients who received tofacitinib met ASAS20 criteria (Assessment of Ankylosing Spondylitis, a validated measure of 20% improvement), compared with 29.4% in the placebo group (P < .0001). The percentage of ASAS40 responders at week 16 was also significantly greater with tofacitinib (40.6%) than placebo (12.5%) (P < .0001).

The trial, sponsored by Pfizer, enrolled 269 adults with active AS who had a poor response to or were intolerant of at least two NSAIDs. Most in the active treatment and placebo groups were men (about 85%); the average age was 41 years. Most (77%) had no prior exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

“Symptom duration was about 13 years,” Dr. Deodhar said.

In the 4-month double-blind phase, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day or placebo. After 16 weeks, all patients received open-label tofacitinib until week 48.

Safety was a secondary endpoint, Dr. Deodhar said.

In the tofacitinib group, 72 patients (54.1%) experienced adverse events (AEs), compared with 70 patients in the placebo group (51.5%). Two patients in the treatment group experienced severe AEs; none in the placebo group did so. In the treatment group, three patients left the trial because of AEs; in the placebo group, one patient did so.

The most common AEs were upper respiratory tract infection and nasopharyngitis.

“There were no unexpected side effects in this study,” Dr. Deodhar said. He noted that the risks were similar to known risks for those taking the drug for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

With tofacitinib there were no deaths, thromboembolic events, malignancies, major cardiac events, or gastrointestinal perforation. By week 48, three patients in the tofacitinib group had nonserious herpes zoster versus one in the placebo group.

“There’s a lot of hand-wringing” about why a JAK inhibitor would be effective for AS, inasmuch as it does not target the tumor necrosis factor [TNF] pathway or interleukin-17,” Dr. Deodhar said.

“Somehow, JAK inhibitor drugs are downstream, affecting several cytokines that we know are important in the pathogenesis and the phenotypic expression of the disease,” he said.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, of Rush University, Chicago, who did not take part in the research, said in an interview that tofacitinib holds promise as a much-needed option.

“JAK inhibitors have been used with success in RA, and it is reassuring to see these phase 3 data for AS,” especially for those patients whose disease was not well controlled with other approved agents, she said.

She added that oral administration is a plus for patients.

“AS, like all other chronic rheumatologic conditions, has no cure,” Dr. Khandelwal noted. “The advent of biologics has changed the course of these conditions, but not one drug works for everyone.”

She said it would be helpful if future trials were to compare the safety and efficacy of tofacitinib with those of biologics that have already been approved for AS, such as anti-TNF agents and IL-17 antagonists.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Deodhar reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khandelwal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) experienced rapid clinical response to the oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz) in a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Tofacitinib was significantly more effective than was placebo at primary and secondary endpoints. Adverse events were more frequent with tofacitinib than with placebo, but there were no new safety risks.

Results were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Atul Deodhar, MD, medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

At week 16, 56.4% of patients who received tofacitinib met ASAS20 criteria (Assessment of Ankylosing Spondylitis, a validated measure of 20% improvement), compared with 29.4% in the placebo group (P < .0001). The percentage of ASAS40 responders at week 16 was also significantly greater with tofacitinib (40.6%) than placebo (12.5%) (P < .0001).

The trial, sponsored by Pfizer, enrolled 269 adults with active AS who had a poor response to or were intolerant of at least two NSAIDs. Most in the active treatment and placebo groups were men (about 85%); the average age was 41 years. Most (77%) had no prior exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

“Symptom duration was about 13 years,” Dr. Deodhar said.

In the 4-month double-blind phase, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day or placebo. After 16 weeks, all patients received open-label tofacitinib until week 48.

Safety was a secondary endpoint, Dr. Deodhar said.

In the tofacitinib group, 72 patients (54.1%) experienced adverse events (AEs), compared with 70 patients in the placebo group (51.5%). Two patients in the treatment group experienced severe AEs; none in the placebo group did so. In the treatment group, three patients left the trial because of AEs; in the placebo group, one patient did so.

The most common AEs were upper respiratory tract infection and nasopharyngitis.

“There were no unexpected side effects in this study,” Dr. Deodhar said. He noted that the risks were similar to known risks for those taking the drug for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

With tofacitinib there were no deaths, thromboembolic events, malignancies, major cardiac events, or gastrointestinal perforation. By week 48, three patients in the tofacitinib group had nonserious herpes zoster versus one in the placebo group.

“There’s a lot of hand-wringing” about why a JAK inhibitor would be effective for AS, inasmuch as it does not target the tumor necrosis factor [TNF] pathway or interleukin-17,” Dr. Deodhar said.

“Somehow, JAK inhibitor drugs are downstream, affecting several cytokines that we know are important in the pathogenesis and the phenotypic expression of the disease,” he said.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, of Rush University, Chicago, who did not take part in the research, said in an interview that tofacitinib holds promise as a much-needed option.

“JAK inhibitors have been used with success in RA, and it is reassuring to see these phase 3 data for AS,” especially for those patients whose disease was not well controlled with other approved agents, she said.

She added that oral administration is a plus for patients.

“AS, like all other chronic rheumatologic conditions, has no cure,” Dr. Khandelwal noted. “The advent of biologics has changed the course of these conditions, but not one drug works for everyone.”

She said it would be helpful if future trials were to compare the safety and efficacy of tofacitinib with those of biologics that have already been approved for AS, such as anti-TNF agents and IL-17 antagonists.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Deodhar reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khandelwal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women who used injectable contraceptives had the longest delay in return to normal fertility after discontinuing use, according to a new prospective cohort study.

Women who used hormonal intrauterine devices, copper intrauterine devices, and implants had the shortest delays, based on the same research project, which involved analyzing data from approximately 18,000 women in North America and Denmark.

“Most research on the use of contraceptives and fertility has focused on the effect of oral contraceptives on fecundability,” and data on the association between fertility and other contraceptive methods are limited, wrote Jennifer J. Yland, MS, of Boston University School of Public Health and colleagues.

“Given the increasing popularity of long acting reversible contraceptive methods and other alternatives to oral contraceptives, more research into their short- and long-term effects on fertility is needed,” the researchers noted.

In the study, which was published in the BMJ, the researchers reviewed data from a total of 17,954 women from three cohort studies of individuals planning pregnancies between 2007 and 2019. Participants reported their contraceptive use and typical menstrual cycle at baseline, then responded to questionnaires every 2 months for up to a year or until pregnancy.

On average, users of injectable contraceptives had the longest delay in return of normal fertility (five to eight menstrual cycles), compared with four cycles for patch contraceptives, three cycles for oral and ring contraceptives, and two cycles for hormonal and copper intrauterine devices and implants.

A total of 10,729 pregnancies were reported within 66,759 menstrual cycles; approximately 77% of the women conceived within 12 months, and 56% conceived within 6 months.

Oral contraceptives were the most common method of contraception (38%), followed by barrier methods (31%), natural methods (15%), and long-acting reversible contraceptives (13%). Intrauterine devices were the most frequently used of long-acting reversible contraceptives (8% hormonal, 4% copper).

The time until fertility returned after discontinuing contraceptives was not associated with duration of contraceptive use.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential misclassification of menstrual cycles and the use of self-reports for the time of contraceptive discontinuation, especially for users of injectable contraceptives, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study size and show “little or no lasting effect” of long-term use of any of the reported contraceptive methods on fertility, the researchers noted. “Understanding the comparative effects of different contraceptives on fecundity is essential for family planning, counseling for contraception, and management of infertility,” they said.
 

Comparison of contraceptives can inform counseling

The study is important because the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods (IUDs, implants, patches, and injectable contraceptives) has become increasingly common worldwide, corresponding author Jennifer J. Yland, MS, said in an interview. “Many women are concerned about the potential effects of contraception on future fertility. However, previous research on this topic has focused mostly on oral contraceptives,” she said.

Ms. Yland said that the findings on oral and injectable contraceptives were consistent with previous publications. However, “we were surprised to find that women who had recently used the hormonal IUD had a shorter time to pregnancy, compared with women who used barrier methods,” she said.

The take-home message for clinicians is that delays in the return to normal fertility were temporary for all hormonal contraceptive methods, Ms. Yland emphasized. “However, delays in the return of fertility after discontinuing certain hormonal methods, such as injectables, were considerably longer than that shown for oral contraceptives. These findings should be taken into account when women are considering contraceptive choice in the context of family planning and infertility management,” she noted.

“Future research should evaluate the potential associations between recent use of hormonal contraceptives and perinatal outcomes,” she added.
 

Managing expectations helps patients plan

“The question of return to fertility is one that many patients who use contraception have unless they have completed their child bearing,” said Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview. “For patients who want to plan a pregnancy, knowing what to expect in terms of return to fertility is important so they can make sure they are in the space and place they want to be with their health, life, job, and partner,” she said.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the study findings because they agree with previously published data. “Overall, except for the injection, people using any form of contraception are back to their baseline fertility within a few months,” she noted. “It also makes perfect sense for return to fertility to be longer with the injection, as it is designed to prevent pregnancy for 16 weeks after the injection is given. Unlike all the other methods, it cannot be removed from the body once given,” she said.

“Clinicians should continue to advise patients that their return to baseline fertility is relatively rapid with any contraception other than the Depo-Provera injection,” said Dr. Prager. “There are no data to support a benefit in switching from an IUD or implant to a combination hormonal method (pills, patch, ring) before starting to try to conceive,” she said.

“This study tries to account for differences in baseline fertility for people using the different methods, but since the choice of method was not randomized, there could still be baseline differences that were not measured or accounted for,” Dr. Prager noted. “A randomized study would certainly eliminate some of these biases; however, I don’t think the differences found in this study are so profound as to require such study,” she said. “Generally speaking, almost 80% of people using any form of contraception were able to conceive within 1 year of trying, which has been the stated fertility data for decades,” she said.

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Lead author Ms. Yland had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Yland JJ et al. BMJ. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3966.

Women who used injectable contraceptives had the longest delay in return to normal fertility after discontinuing use, according to a new prospective cohort study.

Women who used hormonal intrauterine devices, copper intrauterine devices, and implants had the shortest delays, based on the same research project, which involved analyzing data from approximately 18,000 women in North America and Denmark.

“Most research on the use of contraceptives and fertility has focused on the effect of oral contraceptives on fecundability,” and data on the association between fertility and other contraceptive methods are limited, wrote Jennifer J. Yland, MS, of Boston University School of Public Health and colleagues.

“Given the increasing popularity of long acting reversible contraceptive methods and other alternatives to oral contraceptives, more research into their short- and long-term effects on fertility is needed,” the researchers noted.

In the study, which was published in the BMJ, the researchers reviewed data from a total of 17,954 women from three cohort studies of individuals planning pregnancies between 2007 and 2019. Participants reported their contraceptive use and typical menstrual cycle at baseline, then responded to questionnaires every 2 months for up to a year or until pregnancy.

On average, users of injectable contraceptives had the longest delay in return of normal fertility (five to eight menstrual cycles), compared with four cycles for patch contraceptives, three cycles for oral and ring contraceptives, and two cycles for hormonal and copper intrauterine devices and implants.

A total of 10,729 pregnancies were reported within 66,759 menstrual cycles; approximately 77% of the women conceived within 12 months, and 56% conceived within 6 months.

Oral contraceptives were the most common method of contraception (38%), followed by barrier methods (31%), natural methods (15%), and long-acting reversible contraceptives (13%). Intrauterine devices were the most frequently used of long-acting reversible contraceptives (8% hormonal, 4% copper).

The time until fertility returned after discontinuing contraceptives was not associated with duration of contraceptive use.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential misclassification of menstrual cycles and the use of self-reports for the time of contraceptive discontinuation, especially for users of injectable contraceptives, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study size and show “little or no lasting effect” of long-term use of any of the reported contraceptive methods on fertility, the researchers noted. “Understanding the comparative effects of different contraceptives on fecundity is essential for family planning, counseling for contraception, and management of infertility,” they said.
 

Comparison of contraceptives can inform counseling

The study is important because the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods (IUDs, implants, patches, and injectable contraceptives) has become increasingly common worldwide, corresponding author Jennifer J. Yland, MS, said in an interview. “Many women are concerned about the potential effects of contraception on future fertility. However, previous research on this topic has focused mostly on oral contraceptives,” she said.

Ms. Yland said that the findings on oral and injectable contraceptives were consistent with previous publications. However, “we were surprised to find that women who had recently used the hormonal IUD had a shorter time to pregnancy, compared with women who used barrier methods,” she said.

The take-home message for clinicians is that delays in the return to normal fertility were temporary for all hormonal contraceptive methods, Ms. Yland emphasized. “However, delays in the return of fertility after discontinuing certain hormonal methods, such as injectables, were considerably longer than that shown for oral contraceptives. These findings should be taken into account when women are considering contraceptive choice in the context of family planning and infertility management,” she noted.

“Future research should evaluate the potential associations between recent use of hormonal contraceptives and perinatal outcomes,” she added.
 

Managing expectations helps patients plan

“The question of return to fertility is one that many patients who use contraception have unless they have completed their child bearing,” said Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview. “For patients who want to plan a pregnancy, knowing what to expect in terms of return to fertility is important so they can make sure they are in the space and place they want to be with their health, life, job, and partner,” she said.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the study findings because they agree with previously published data. “Overall, except for the injection, people using any form of contraception are back to their baseline fertility within a few months,” she noted. “It also makes perfect sense for return to fertility to be longer with the injection, as it is designed to prevent pregnancy for 16 weeks after the injection is given. Unlike all the other methods, it cannot be removed from the body once given,” she said.

“Clinicians should continue to advise patients that their return to baseline fertility is relatively rapid with any contraception other than the Depo-Provera injection,” said Dr. Prager. “There are no data to support a benefit in switching from an IUD or implant to a combination hormonal method (pills, patch, ring) before starting to try to conceive,” she said.

“This study tries to account for differences in baseline fertility for people using the different methods, but since the choice of method was not randomized, there could still be baseline differences that were not measured or accounted for,” Dr. Prager noted. “A randomized study would certainly eliminate some of these biases; however, I don’t think the differences found in this study are so profound as to require such study,” she said. “Generally speaking, almost 80% of people using any form of contraception were able to conceive within 1 year of trying, which has been the stated fertility data for decades,” she said.

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Lead author Ms. Yland had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Yland JJ et al. BMJ. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3966.

Women who used injectable contraceptives had the longest delay in return to normal fertility after discontinuing use, according to a new prospective cohort study.

Women who used hormonal intrauterine devices, copper intrauterine devices, and implants had the shortest delays, based on the same research project, which involved analyzing data from approximately 18,000 women in North America and Denmark.

“Most research on the use of contraceptives and fertility has focused on the effect of oral contraceptives on fecundability,” and data on the association between fertility and other contraceptive methods are limited, wrote Jennifer J. Yland, MS, of Boston University School of Public Health and colleagues.

“Given the increasing popularity of long acting reversible contraceptive methods and other alternatives to oral contraceptives, more research into their short- and long-term effects on fertility is needed,” the researchers noted.

In the study, which was published in the BMJ, the researchers reviewed data from a total of 17,954 women from three cohort studies of individuals planning pregnancies between 2007 and 2019. Participants reported their contraceptive use and typical menstrual cycle at baseline, then responded to questionnaires every 2 months for up to a year or until pregnancy.

On average, users of injectable contraceptives had the longest delay in return of normal fertility (five to eight menstrual cycles), compared with four cycles for patch contraceptives, three cycles for oral and ring contraceptives, and two cycles for hormonal and copper intrauterine devices and implants.

A total of 10,729 pregnancies were reported within 66,759 menstrual cycles; approximately 77% of the women conceived within 12 months, and 56% conceived within 6 months.

Oral contraceptives were the most common method of contraception (38%), followed by barrier methods (31%), natural methods (15%), and long-acting reversible contraceptives (13%). Intrauterine devices were the most frequently used of long-acting reversible contraceptives (8% hormonal, 4% copper).

The time until fertility returned after discontinuing contraceptives was not associated with duration of contraceptive use.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential misclassification of menstrual cycles and the use of self-reports for the time of contraceptive discontinuation, especially for users of injectable contraceptives, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study size and show “little or no lasting effect” of long-term use of any of the reported contraceptive methods on fertility, the researchers noted. “Understanding the comparative effects of different contraceptives on fecundity is essential for family planning, counseling for contraception, and management of infertility,” they said.
 

Comparison of contraceptives can inform counseling

The study is important because the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods (IUDs, implants, patches, and injectable contraceptives) has become increasingly common worldwide, corresponding author Jennifer J. Yland, MS, said in an interview. “Many women are concerned about the potential effects of contraception on future fertility. However, previous research on this topic has focused mostly on oral contraceptives,” she said.

Ms. Yland said that the findings on oral and injectable contraceptives were consistent with previous publications. However, “we were surprised to find that women who had recently used the hormonal IUD had a shorter time to pregnancy, compared with women who used barrier methods,” she said.

The take-home message for clinicians is that delays in the return to normal fertility were temporary for all hormonal contraceptive methods, Ms. Yland emphasized. “However, delays in the return of fertility after discontinuing certain hormonal methods, such as injectables, were considerably longer than that shown for oral contraceptives. These findings should be taken into account when women are considering contraceptive choice in the context of family planning and infertility management,” she noted.

“Future research should evaluate the potential associations between recent use of hormonal contraceptives and perinatal outcomes,” she added.
 

Managing expectations helps patients plan

“The question of return to fertility is one that many patients who use contraception have unless they have completed their child bearing,” said Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview. “For patients who want to plan a pregnancy, knowing what to expect in terms of return to fertility is important so they can make sure they are in the space and place they want to be with their health, life, job, and partner,” she said.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the study findings because they agree with previously published data. “Overall, except for the injection, people using any form of contraception are back to their baseline fertility within a few months,” she noted. “It also makes perfect sense for return to fertility to be longer with the injection, as it is designed to prevent pregnancy for 16 weeks after the injection is given. Unlike all the other methods, it cannot be removed from the body once given,” she said.

“Clinicians should continue to advise patients that their return to baseline fertility is relatively rapid with any contraception other than the Depo-Provera injection,” said Dr. Prager. “There are no data to support a benefit in switching from an IUD or implant to a combination hormonal method (pills, patch, ring) before starting to try to conceive,” she said.

“This study tries to account for differences in baseline fertility for people using the different methods, but since the choice of method was not randomized, there could still be baseline differences that were not measured or accounted for,” Dr. Prager noted. “A randomized study would certainly eliminate some of these biases; however, I don’t think the differences found in this study are so profound as to require such study,” she said. “Generally speaking, almost 80% of people using any form of contraception were able to conceive within 1 year of trying, which has been the stated fertility data for decades,” she said.

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Lead author Ms. Yland had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Yland JJ et al. BMJ. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3966.

Clinical practice guidelines advise screening women for perinatal depression twice prenatally and once postpartum, but providers at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may not be adhering closely to those recommendations. In a multisite cohort study, the researchers enrolled women veterans who were pregnant and delivered newborns between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019. The researchers combined electronic health record and claims data with information collected from prenatal and postpartum telephone surveys.

Of the 663 women involved, 93% received primary care at a VA facility during pregnancy; 41% saw a VA mental health provider. Less than half of the sample had been screened for depression during the perinatal period, despite contact with VA providers. Only 13% of the women had both prenatal and postnatal screens.

Screened veterans were less likely to be diagnosed with depression by a VA provider in either the preconception or pregnancy periods, compared with those not screened (11% vs 24% and 14% vs 23%, respectively). 

Among unscreened women, 18% scored positive for depression prenatally and 9% postnatally on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression scale. The researchers note that lack of screening can hinder connection to VA mental health treatment and referral resources.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians screen mothers for postpartum depression at 1, 2, 4, and 6 months after childbirth. But extending that into toddlerhood could pick up more women at risk, say National Institutes of Health researchers. “[S]ix months may not be long enough to gauge depressive symptoms,” said Diane Putnick, PhD, primary author.

In their study of 4,866 women, the researchers analyzed data from the Upstate KIDS study, which included babies born between 2008 and 2010 in New York State. The researchers found that approximately 1 in 4 women experienced high levels of depressive symptoms at some point during the 3 postnatal years.

In addition to extending the screening period to 36 months, the researchers advise keeping watch on women with underlying conditions, such as mood disorders and/or gestational diabetes, who were more likely to have higher levels of depressive symptoms that persisted.

Clinical practice guidelines advise screening women for perinatal depression twice prenatally and once postpartum, but providers at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may not be adhering closely to those recommendations. In a multisite cohort study, the researchers enrolled women veterans who were pregnant and delivered newborns between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019. The researchers combined electronic health record and claims data with information collected from prenatal and postpartum telephone surveys.

Of the 663 women involved, 93% received primary care at a VA facility during pregnancy; 41% saw a VA mental health provider. Less than half of the sample had been screened for depression during the perinatal period, despite contact with VA providers. Only 13% of the women had both prenatal and postnatal screens.

Screened veterans were less likely to be diagnosed with depression by a VA provider in either the preconception or pregnancy periods, compared with those not screened (11% vs 24% and 14% vs 23%, respectively). 

Among unscreened women, 18% scored positive for depression prenatally and 9% postnatally on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression scale. The researchers note that lack of screening can hinder connection to VA mental health treatment and referral resources.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians screen mothers for postpartum depression at 1, 2, 4, and 6 months after childbirth. But extending that into toddlerhood could pick up more women at risk, say National Institutes of Health researchers. “[S]ix months may not be long enough to gauge depressive symptoms,” said Diane Putnick, PhD, primary author.

In their study of 4,866 women, the researchers analyzed data from the Upstate KIDS study, which included babies born between 2008 and 2010 in New York State. The researchers found that approximately 1 in 4 women experienced high levels of depressive symptoms at some point during the 3 postnatal years.

In addition to extending the screening period to 36 months, the researchers advise keeping watch on women with underlying conditions, such as mood disorders and/or gestational diabetes, who were more likely to have higher levels of depressive symptoms that persisted.

Clinical practice guidelines advise screening women for perinatal depression twice prenatally and once postpartum, but providers at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may not be adhering closely to those recommendations. In a multisite cohort study, the researchers enrolled women veterans who were pregnant and delivered newborns between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019. The researchers combined electronic health record and claims data with information collected from prenatal and postpartum telephone surveys.

Of the 663 women involved, 93% received primary care at a VA facility during pregnancy; 41% saw a VA mental health provider. Less than half of the sample had been screened for depression during the perinatal period, despite contact with VA providers. Only 13% of the women had both prenatal and postnatal screens.

Screened veterans were less likely to be diagnosed with depression by a VA provider in either the preconception or pregnancy periods, compared with those not screened (11% vs 24% and 14% vs 23%, respectively). 

Among unscreened women, 18% scored positive for depression prenatally and 9% postnatally on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression scale. The researchers note that lack of screening can hinder connection to VA mental health treatment and referral resources.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians screen mothers for postpartum depression at 1, 2, 4, and 6 months after childbirth. But extending that into toddlerhood could pick up more women at risk, say National Institutes of Health researchers. “[S]ix months may not be long enough to gauge depressive symptoms,” said Diane Putnick, PhD, primary author.

In their study of 4,866 women, the researchers analyzed data from the Upstate KIDS study, which included babies born between 2008 and 2010 in New York State. The researchers found that approximately 1 in 4 women experienced high levels of depressive symptoms at some point during the 3 postnatal years.

In addition to extending the screening period to 36 months, the researchers advise keeping watch on women with underlying conditions, such as mood disorders and/or gestational diabetes, who were more likely to have higher levels of depressive symptoms that persisted.

Many health care providers (HCPs) view the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system of electronic reminders as a model. User experience and improvements that make clinical life easier (like automated text messaging, which requires no hands-on staff involvement) have brought more HCPs into the fold. And during a viral pandemic, preventive care is ever more important, as are the ways to provide it. But a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study shows some non-VA providers have some catching up to do.

Although the CDC researchers noted that electronic reminders can improve preventive and follow-up care, they also pointed out that HCPs must first have the computing capabilities to accomplish this. They analyzed 2017 data (the most recent available) from the National Electronic Health Records Survey of > 10,000 physicians and found only 65% of office-based physicians did.

Not surprisingly, practices that used electronic health record (EHR) systems were more than 3 times as likely to also have computerized capability to identify patients who needed preventive care or follow-up (71% vs 23% of practices without EHR). Primary care physicians were more likely than surgeons and other nonprimary care physicians to have the capability (73% vs 55% and 59%, respectively). Age also entered into it, with 70% of physicians aged between 45 and 54 years having the capability, compared with 57% of those aged 65 to 84 years. Offices with multiple physicians were more likely to have computerized capability.

The VA began using computerized clinical reminders 20 years ago to encourage patients to take better care of themselves to, for example, moderate alcohol use, manage cholesterol, or stop smoking. In 2006, the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) won an Innovations in American Government Award from Harvard University. The committee called VistA innovative because of its “unique linkage with standardized, consistent performance measurement.” VistA, the committee said, “substantially improves efficiency, reduces costs and demonstrably improves clinical decision-making.”

However, when the VA was getting its electronic reminder system up to speed, not all users were comfortable with it. Researchers who studied uptake of a system that sent reminders about lipid management to patients with ischemic heart disease found “substantial barriers” to implementation, including a possibly significant effect of “prior culture and attitudes” toward reminders.

Four years after the VA began using computerized reminders, attendees at “Camp CPRS,” a week-long meeting to train employees in the Computerized Patient Record System, were asked about facilitation and barriers. More than half of respondents could report at least 1 situation in which reminders helped them deliver care more effectively. But “[w]hile the potential benefits of such a system are significant,” the researchers said, “and in fact some VA hospitals are showing an increase in compliance with some best practices…it is generally understood that some providers within the VA do not use the clinical reminders.” Some HCPs said they were hard to use and cited insufficient training.

Experience and consistent use pay off, though. For instance, researchers from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Washington evaluated the effectiveness of an electronic clinical reminder for brief alcohol counseling at 8 VA sites. They wanted to determine how often the HCPs used the reminder, and whether it helped patients resolve unhealthy alcohol use. The study, involving 4,198 participants who screened positive for alcohol use, found 71% of the patients had the clinical reminder documented in the EHR—a high rate, the researchers noted, relative to other studies. The results were similar across the 2-year period, even in the first 8 months.

Sustainability also is a factor. At the time of their study, the researchers said, no health care system had achieved sustained implementation of brief alcohol counseling for patients who screened positive. Moreover, the patients who had reminders were significantly more likely to report having resolved unhealthy alcohol use at follow-up.

Do electronic daily reminders really improve adherence? Valentin Rivish, DNP, RN, NE-BC, telehealth specialist and facility e-consult coordinator with the Phoenix VA Health Care System in Arizona, wanted to see what evidence exists on telehealth adherence and utilization. He enlisted 40 veterans whose home-telehealth response rates were < 70%. Over 4 weeks, the veterans received an electronic daily reminder sent to their home-telehealth device, with the goal of having them respond daily.

As Rivish expected, daily reminders did improve adherence. After 4 weeks, 24 participants (60%) showed an increased response rate, and 14 (35%) achieved at least a 70% response rate pos-intervention. As a result, the Phoenix telehealth department has included the cost-effective intervention in its standard operating procedure.  

The VA has continued to add to its repertoire of ways to stay in touch with patients. In 2018, for instance, it launched VEText, a text messaging appointment-reminder system. According to the Veterans Health Administration Office of Veterans Access to Care, in just the first few months more than 3.24 million patients had received VEText messages (and had canceled 319,504 appointments, freeing up time slots for other veterans).

This year, the VA, US Department of Defense, and US Coast Guard launched a joint health information exchange (HIE) that allows partners to quickly and securely share EHR data bidirectionally with participating community healthcare providers. To that end, the 46,000-member HIE is collaborating with the CommonWell Health Alliance, adding a nationwide network of more than 15,000 hospitals and clinics.

“As a clinician who is using the joint HIE, the more patient information I have access to, the more I can understand the full picture of my patients’ care and better meet their needs,” says Dr. Neil Evans, a VA primary care physician and clinical leader with the Federal Electronic Health Record Modernization office. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, efficient electronic health information is more important than ever.”

Many health care providers (HCPs) view the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system of electronic reminders as a model. User experience and improvements that make clinical life easier (like automated text messaging, which requires no hands-on staff involvement) have brought more HCPs into the fold. And during a viral pandemic, preventive care is ever more important, as are the ways to provide it. But a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study shows some non-VA providers have some catching up to do.

Although the CDC researchers noted that electronic reminders can improve preventive and follow-up care, they also pointed out that HCPs must first have the computing capabilities to accomplish this. They analyzed 2017 data (the most recent available) from the National Electronic Health Records Survey of > 10,000 physicians and found only 65% of office-based physicians did.

Not surprisingly, practices that used electronic health record (EHR) systems were more than 3 times as likely to also have computerized capability to identify patients who needed preventive care or follow-up (71% vs 23% of practices without EHR). Primary care physicians were more likely than surgeons and other nonprimary care physicians to have the capability (73% vs 55% and 59%, respectively). Age also entered into it, with 70% of physicians aged between 45 and 54 years having the capability, compared with 57% of those aged 65 to 84 years. Offices with multiple physicians were more likely to have computerized capability.

The VA began using computerized clinical reminders 20 years ago to encourage patients to take better care of themselves to, for example, moderate alcohol use, manage cholesterol, or stop smoking. In 2006, the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) won an Innovations in American Government Award from Harvard University. The committee called VistA innovative because of its “unique linkage with standardized, consistent performance measurement.” VistA, the committee said, “substantially improves efficiency, reduces costs and demonstrably improves clinical decision-making.”

However, when the VA was getting its electronic reminder system up to speed, not all users were comfortable with it. Researchers who studied uptake of a system that sent reminders about lipid management to patients with ischemic heart disease found “substantial barriers” to implementation, including a possibly significant effect of “prior culture and attitudes” toward reminders.

Four years after the VA began using computerized reminders, attendees at “Camp CPRS,” a week-long meeting to train employees in the Computerized Patient Record System, were asked about facilitation and barriers. More than half of respondents could report at least 1 situation in which reminders helped them deliver care more effectively. But “[w]hile the potential benefits of such a system are significant,” the researchers said, “and in fact some VA hospitals are showing an increase in compliance with some best practices…it is generally understood that some providers within the VA do not use the clinical reminders.” Some HCPs said they were hard to use and cited insufficient training.

Experience and consistent use pay off, though. For instance, researchers from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Washington evaluated the effectiveness of an electronic clinical reminder for brief alcohol counseling at 8 VA sites. They wanted to determine how often the HCPs used the reminder, and whether it helped patients resolve unhealthy alcohol use. The study, involving 4,198 participants who screened positive for alcohol use, found 71% of the patients had the clinical reminder documented in the EHR—a high rate, the researchers noted, relative to other studies. The results were similar across the 2-year period, even in the first 8 months.

Sustainability also is a factor. At the time of their study, the researchers said, no health care system had achieved sustained implementation of brief alcohol counseling for patients who screened positive. Moreover, the patients who had reminders were significantly more likely to report having resolved unhealthy alcohol use at follow-up.

Do electronic daily reminders really improve adherence? Valentin Rivish, DNP, RN, NE-BC, telehealth specialist and facility e-consult coordinator with the Phoenix VA Health Care System in Arizona, wanted to see what evidence exists on telehealth adherence and utilization. He enlisted 40 veterans whose home-telehealth response rates were < 70%. Over 4 weeks, the veterans received an electronic daily reminder sent to their home-telehealth device, with the goal of having them respond daily.

As Rivish expected, daily reminders did improve adherence. After 4 weeks, 24 participants (60%) showed an increased response rate, and 14 (35%) achieved at least a 70% response rate pos-intervention. As a result, the Phoenix telehealth department has included the cost-effective intervention in its standard operating procedure.  

The VA has continued to add to its repertoire of ways to stay in touch with patients. In 2018, for instance, it launched VEText, a text messaging appointment-reminder system. According to the Veterans Health Administration Office of Veterans Access to Care, in just the first few months more than 3.24 million patients had received VEText messages (and had canceled 319,504 appointments, freeing up time slots for other veterans).

This year, the VA, US Department of Defense, and US Coast Guard launched a joint health information exchange (HIE) that allows partners to quickly and securely share EHR data bidirectionally with participating community healthcare providers. To that end, the 46,000-member HIE is collaborating with the CommonWell Health Alliance, adding a nationwide network of more than 15,000 hospitals and clinics.

“As a clinician who is using the joint HIE, the more patient information I have access to, the more I can understand the full picture of my patients’ care and better meet their needs,” says Dr. Neil Evans, a VA primary care physician and clinical leader with the Federal Electronic Health Record Modernization office. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, efficient electronic health information is more important than ever.”

Many health care providers (HCPs) view the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system of electronic reminders as a model. User experience and improvements that make clinical life easier (like automated text messaging, which requires no hands-on staff involvement) have brought more HCPs into the fold. And during a viral pandemic, preventive care is ever more important, as are the ways to provide it. But a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study shows some non-VA providers have some catching up to do.

Although the CDC researchers noted that electronic reminders can improve preventive and follow-up care, they also pointed out that HCPs must first have the computing capabilities to accomplish this. They analyzed 2017 data (the most recent available) from the National Electronic Health Records Survey of > 10,000 physicians and found only 65% of office-based physicians did.

Not surprisingly, practices that used electronic health record (EHR) systems were more than 3 times as likely to also have computerized capability to identify patients who needed preventive care or follow-up (71% vs 23% of practices without EHR). Primary care physicians were more likely than surgeons and other nonprimary care physicians to have the capability (73% vs 55% and 59%, respectively). Age also entered into it, with 70% of physicians aged between 45 and 54 years having the capability, compared with 57% of those aged 65 to 84 years. Offices with multiple physicians were more likely to have computerized capability.

The VA began using computerized clinical reminders 20 years ago to encourage patients to take better care of themselves to, for example, moderate alcohol use, manage cholesterol, or stop smoking. In 2006, the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) won an Innovations in American Government Award from Harvard University. The committee called VistA innovative because of its “unique linkage with standardized, consistent performance measurement.” VistA, the committee said, “substantially improves efficiency, reduces costs and demonstrably improves clinical decision-making.”

However, when the VA was getting its electronic reminder system up to speed, not all users were comfortable with it. Researchers who studied uptake of a system that sent reminders about lipid management to patients with ischemic heart disease found “substantial barriers” to implementation, including a possibly significant effect of “prior culture and attitudes” toward reminders.

Four years after the VA began using computerized reminders, attendees at “Camp CPRS,” a week-long meeting to train employees in the Computerized Patient Record System, were asked about facilitation and barriers. More than half of respondents could report at least 1 situation in which reminders helped them deliver care more effectively. But “[w]hile the potential benefits of such a system are significant,” the researchers said, “and in fact some VA hospitals are showing an increase in compliance with some best practices…it is generally understood that some providers within the VA do not use the clinical reminders.” Some HCPs said they were hard to use and cited insufficient training.

Experience and consistent use pay off, though. For instance, researchers from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Washington evaluated the effectiveness of an electronic clinical reminder for brief alcohol counseling at 8 VA sites. They wanted to determine how often the HCPs used the reminder, and whether it helped patients resolve unhealthy alcohol use. The study, involving 4,198 participants who screened positive for alcohol use, found 71% of the patients had the clinical reminder documented in the EHR—a high rate, the researchers noted, relative to other studies. The results were similar across the 2-year period, even in the first 8 months.

Sustainability also is a factor. At the time of their study, the researchers said, no health care system had achieved sustained implementation of brief alcohol counseling for patients who screened positive. Moreover, the patients who had reminders were significantly more likely to report having resolved unhealthy alcohol use at follow-up.

Do electronic daily reminders really improve adherence? Valentin Rivish, DNP, RN, NE-BC, telehealth specialist and facility e-consult coordinator with the Phoenix VA Health Care System in Arizona, wanted to see what evidence exists on telehealth adherence and utilization. He enlisted 40 veterans whose home-telehealth response rates were < 70%. Over 4 weeks, the veterans received an electronic daily reminder sent to their home-telehealth device, with the goal of having them respond daily.

As Rivish expected, daily reminders did improve adherence. After 4 weeks, 24 participants (60%) showed an increased response rate, and 14 (35%) achieved at least a 70% response rate pos-intervention. As a result, the Phoenix telehealth department has included the cost-effective intervention in its standard operating procedure.  

The VA has continued to add to its repertoire of ways to stay in touch with patients. In 2018, for instance, it launched VEText, a text messaging appointment-reminder system. According to the Veterans Health Administration Office of Veterans Access to Care, in just the first few months more than 3.24 million patients had received VEText messages (and had canceled 319,504 appointments, freeing up time slots for other veterans).

This year, the VA, US Department of Defense, and US Coast Guard launched a joint health information exchange (HIE) that allows partners to quickly and securely share EHR data bidirectionally with participating community healthcare providers. To that end, the 46,000-member HIE is collaborating with the CommonWell Health Alliance, adding a nationwide network of more than 15,000 hospitals and clinics.

“As a clinician who is using the joint HIE, the more patient information I have access to, the more I can understand the full picture of my patients’ care and better meet their needs,” says Dr. Neil Evans, a VA primary care physician and clinical leader with the Federal Electronic Health Record Modernization office. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, efficient electronic health information is more important than ever.”

Normally, the lysosome, known as the cells’ “trash compactor,” destroys viruses before they can leave the cell. However, researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have discovered that SARS-CoV-2 is not like other viruses. The virus can deactivate that waste disposal system, exit without hindrance, and spread freely throughout the body.

“To our shock, these coronaviruses got out of the cells just fine,” said Nihal Altan-Bonnet, PhD, chief of the Laboratory of Host-Pathogen Dynamics at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, who coauthored the study report.

Most viruses exit via the biosynthetic secretory pathway, used to transport hormones, growth factors and other materials. The researchers wanted to learn whether coronaviruses took an alternate route. To find out, they conducted further studies, using microscopy and virus-specific markers. They discovered that coronaviruses somehow target the lysosome and congregate there. Although lysosomes are highly acidic, the coronaviruses were not destroyed.

That question led to more experiments. The researchers next found that lysosomes get “de-acidified” in coronavirus-infected cells, which weakens their destructive enzymes. The result: The coronavirus remains intact, ready to infect other cells upon exiting.

The coronaviruses are “very sneaky,” Altan-Bonnet says. “They’re using these lysosomes to get out, but they’re also disrupting the lysosome so it can’t do its job or function.” It’s possible that the way the coronavirus interferes with the lysosome’s “immunological machinery” underlies some of the immune system abnormalities seen in COVID-19 patients, such as cytokine storms.

Studying this coronavirus's heterodox ways may mean that researchers can figure out how to keep it from getting out unscathed, or restore the lysosome’s killing ability by re-acidifying it. Altan-Bonnet and coauthor Sourish Ghosh, PhD, say they have already identified one experimental enzyme inhibitor that potently blocks coronaviruses from exiting the cell.

The lysosome pathway, Altan-Bonnet says, “offers a whole different way of thinking about targeted therapeutics.”

Normally, the lysosome, known as the cells’ “trash compactor,” destroys viruses before they can leave the cell. However, researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have discovered that SARS-CoV-2 is not like other viruses. The virus can deactivate that waste disposal system, exit without hindrance, and spread freely throughout the body.

“To our shock, these coronaviruses got out of the cells just fine,” said Nihal Altan-Bonnet, PhD, chief of the Laboratory of Host-Pathogen Dynamics at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, who coauthored the study report.

Most viruses exit via the biosynthetic secretory pathway, used to transport hormones, growth factors and other materials. The researchers wanted to learn whether coronaviruses took an alternate route. To find out, they conducted further studies, using microscopy and virus-specific markers. They discovered that coronaviruses somehow target the lysosome and congregate there. Although lysosomes are highly acidic, the coronaviruses were not destroyed.

That question led to more experiments. The researchers next found that lysosomes get “de-acidified” in coronavirus-infected cells, which weakens their destructive enzymes. The result: The coronavirus remains intact, ready to infect other cells upon exiting.

The coronaviruses are “very sneaky,” Altan-Bonnet says. “They’re using these lysosomes to get out, but they’re also disrupting the lysosome so it can’t do its job or function.” It’s possible that the way the coronavirus interferes with the lysosome’s “immunological machinery” underlies some of the immune system abnormalities seen in COVID-19 patients, such as cytokine storms.

Studying this coronavirus's heterodox ways may mean that researchers can figure out how to keep it from getting out unscathed, or restore the lysosome’s killing ability by re-acidifying it. Altan-Bonnet and coauthor Sourish Ghosh, PhD, say they have already identified one experimental enzyme inhibitor that potently blocks coronaviruses from exiting the cell.

The lysosome pathway, Altan-Bonnet says, “offers a whole different way of thinking about targeted therapeutics.”

Normally, the lysosome, known as the cells’ “trash compactor,” destroys viruses before they can leave the cell. However, researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have discovered that SARS-CoV-2 is not like other viruses. The virus can deactivate that waste disposal system, exit without hindrance, and spread freely throughout the body.

“To our shock, these coronaviruses got out of the cells just fine,” said Nihal Altan-Bonnet, PhD, chief of the Laboratory of Host-Pathogen Dynamics at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, who coauthored the study report.

Most viruses exit via the biosynthetic secretory pathway, used to transport hormones, growth factors and other materials. The researchers wanted to learn whether coronaviruses took an alternate route. To find out, they conducted further studies, using microscopy and virus-specific markers. They discovered that coronaviruses somehow target the lysosome and congregate there. Although lysosomes are highly acidic, the coronaviruses were not destroyed.

That question led to more experiments. The researchers next found that lysosomes get “de-acidified” in coronavirus-infected cells, which weakens their destructive enzymes. The result: The coronavirus remains intact, ready to infect other cells upon exiting.

The coronaviruses are “very sneaky,” Altan-Bonnet says. “They’re using these lysosomes to get out, but they’re also disrupting the lysosome so it can’t do its job or function.” It’s possible that the way the coronavirus interferes with the lysosome’s “immunological machinery” underlies some of the immune system abnormalities seen in COVID-19 patients, such as cytokine storms.

Studying this coronavirus's heterodox ways may mean that researchers can figure out how to keep it from getting out unscathed, or restore the lysosome’s killing ability by re-acidifying it. Altan-Bonnet and coauthor Sourish Ghosh, PhD, say they have already identified one experimental enzyme inhibitor that potently blocks coronaviruses from exiting the cell.

The lysosome pathway, Altan-Bonnet says, “offers a whole different way of thinking about targeted therapeutics.”

Both obese and nonobese individuals can develop nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and lipid profiles were effective predictors in both groups, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 361 individuals.

Nephron/Wikimedia/Creative Commons License

Given the strong association between obesity and NAFLD, previous research on lipidomic profiles have focused on obese White patients, wrote Youngae Jung, MD, of the Korea Basic Science Institute, Seoul, and colleagues.

“However, there are insufficient data on circulating lipidomics of nonobese NAFLD patients,” they added.

In a study published in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, the researchers identified 295 adults with NAFLD and 66 controls. Overall, 130 participants were nonobese (body mass index <25 kg/m²) and 231 were obese (BMI, 25 or higher). The nonobese group included 51 patients with NAFL, 31 with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis , and 48 controls; the obese group included 106 patients with NAFL, 107 with NASH, and 18 controls.

Lipid profiles show predictive promise

Overall, changes in diacylglycerol (DAG) and triacylglycerol (TAG) appeared in both obese and nonobese patients with increases from NAFL to NASH, the researchers noted.

“Levels of DAGs with relatively short chains and a low degree of desaturation significantly increased in NAFL versus no NAFLD, regardless of obesity,” the researchers said. “In contrast, levels of DAGs with relatively long chains and a high degree of desaturation significantly decreased in NASH versus NAFL in the obese group, which was not observed in the nonobese group,” they noted.

In addition, saturated sphingomyelin (SM) species were significantly associated with visceral adiposity in nonobese NAFLD patients, but not in obese NAFLD patients, and SM levels were significantly associated with both systemic and adipose tissue insulin resistance.

The researchers identified five potential lipid metabolites for nonobese subjects and seven potential lipids for obese subjects that included DAGs, TAGs, and SMs that were distinct between NAFL and NASH patients in order to predict the histologic severity of NAFLD. Overall, these metabolite combinations were effective predictors of NAFLD/NASH in nonobese and obese patients. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve were 0.916 versus 0.813 for NAFLD versus non-NAFLD in nonobese patients, and 0.967 versus 0.812 for NAFLD versus non-NAFLD in the obese patients.
 

More BMI groups may yield more information

The key study limitation was the cross-sectional study design, the researchers noted. In addition, dividing patients into only two groups based on BMI may not reveal any distinct biology among lean NAFLD patients, who were included with overweight patients in the nonobese group.

However, the results were strengthened by the large amount of data and the confirmed diagnoses of NASH and fibrosis by an expert liver pathologist, they added.

“Therefore, our findings provide new insights that aid in the understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for the development and severity of nonobese NAFLD, which are relevant to precision medicine and personalized therapy based on various phenotypes of NAFLD,” they concluded.
 

Validation needed in other populations

“Liver biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing NAFLD/NASH but has its own limitations and risks, so many researchers in this field are looking for a noninvasive alternative to help with diagnosis,” Zachary Henry, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said in an interview. “Imaging methods such as transient elastography and MR-elastography have been introduced and many biochemical markers have been evaluated, yet all have their limitations. In the current study, the authors report a high diagnostic accuracy for evaluating NAFLD using lipidomic profiles, which could introduce a new noninvasive measurement of NAFLD.”

Dr. Henry said that he was not surprised by the study findings. However, “I believe they are important as they define a lipid profile that shows differences between patients with NASH versus patients with NAFLD versus patients without NAFLD,” he said. “NAFLD is a disease of disordered lipid metabolism in hepatocytes, and although it stands to reason there would be differences in lipid profiles, it is interesting to see the changes between DAGs and TAGs especially as disease progresses from NAFLD to NASH.

“Clinically, I do not think this really changes practice right now since it needs to be validated in other populations of NAFLD. However, it certainly adds to a growing armamentarium of noninvasive testing. Hopefully, we are able to combine some of these noninvasive tests in the future to better predict NAFLD and NASH as well as outcomes such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma,” he said.

“I think these lipidomic profiles need to be validated in non-Korean populations of patients with NAFLD to determine if these changes are ubiquitous to everyone or if a different profile exists based upon different genetics and environment,” Dr. Henry added. “As the authors note in their paper, there have been previously published differences between populations of NAFLD in Asia as compared to Western countries and it is unclear how, if at all, these lipidomic profiles relate to those differences.”

The study was funded by the Korea Basic Science Institute, the Korea Health Industry Department Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Henry had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Jung Y et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1111/apt.16066.

Both obese and nonobese individuals can develop nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and lipid profiles were effective predictors in both groups, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 361 individuals.

Nephron/Wikimedia/Creative Commons License

Given the strong association between obesity and NAFLD, previous research on lipidomic profiles have focused on obese White patients, wrote Youngae Jung, MD, of the Korea Basic Science Institute, Seoul, and colleagues.

“However, there are insufficient data on circulating lipidomics of nonobese NAFLD patients,” they added.

In a study published in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, the researchers identified 295 adults with NAFLD and 66 controls. Overall, 130 participants were nonobese (body mass index <25 kg/m²) and 231 were obese (BMI, 25 or higher). The nonobese group included 51 patients with NAFL, 31 with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis , and 48 controls; the obese group included 106 patients with NAFL, 107 with NASH, and 18 controls.

Lipid profiles show predictive promise

Overall, changes in diacylglycerol (DAG) and triacylglycerol (TAG) appeared in both obese and nonobese patients with increases from NAFL to NASH, the researchers noted.

“Levels of DAGs with relatively short chains and a low degree of desaturation significantly increased in NAFL versus no NAFLD, regardless of obesity,” the researchers said. “In contrast, levels of DAGs with relatively long chains and a high degree of desaturation significantly decreased in NASH versus NAFL in the obese group, which was not observed in the nonobese group,” they noted.

In addition, saturated sphingomyelin (SM) species were significantly associated with visceral adiposity in nonobese NAFLD patients, but not in obese NAFLD patients, and SM levels were significantly associated with both systemic and adipose tissue insulin resistance.

The researchers identified five potential lipid metabolites for nonobese subjects and seven potential lipids for obese subjects that included DAGs, TAGs, and SMs that were distinct between NAFL and NASH patients in order to predict the histologic severity of NAFLD. Overall, these metabolite combinations were effective predictors of NAFLD/NASH in nonobese and obese patients. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve were 0.916 versus 0.813 for NAFLD versus non-NAFLD in nonobese patients, and 0.967 versus 0.812 for NAFLD versus non-NAFLD in the obese patients.
 

More BMI groups may yield more information

The key study limitation was the cross-sectional study design, the researchers noted. In addition, dividing patients into only two groups based on BMI may not reveal any distinct biology among lean NAFLD patients, who were included with overweight patients in the nonobese group.

However, the results were strengthened by the large amount of data and the confirmed diagnoses of NASH and fibrosis by an expert liver pathologist, they added.

“Therefore, our findings provide new insights that aid in the understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for the development and severity of nonobese NAFLD, which are relevant to precision medicine and personalized therapy based on various phenotypes of NAFLD,” they concluded.
 

Validation needed in other populations

“Liver biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing NAFLD/NASH but has its own limitations and risks, so many researchers in this field are looking for a noninvasive alternative to help with diagnosis,” Zachary Henry, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said in an interview. “Imaging methods such as transient elastography and MR-elastography have been introduced and many biochemical markers have been evaluated, yet all have their limitations. In the current study, the authors report a high diagnostic accuracy for evaluating NAFLD using lipidomic profiles, which could introduce a new noninvasive measurement of NAFLD.”

Dr. Henry said that he was not surprised by the study findings. However, “I believe they are important as they define a lipid profile that shows differences between patients with NASH versus patients with NAFLD versus patients without NAFLD,” he said. “NAFLD is a disease of disordered lipid metabolism in hepatocytes, and although it stands to reason there would be differences in lipid profiles, it is interesting to see the changes between DAGs and TAGs especially as disease progresses from NAFLD to NASH.

“Clinically, I do not think this really changes practice right now since it needs to be validated in other populations of NAFLD. However, it certainly adds to a growing armamentarium of noninvasive testing. Hopefully, we are able to combine some of these noninvasive tests in the future to better predict NAFLD and NASH as well as outcomes such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma,” he said.

“I think these lipidomic profiles need to be validated in non-Korean populations of patients with NAFLD to determine if these changes are ubiquitous to everyone or if a different profile exists based upon different genetics and environment,” Dr. Henry added. “As the authors note in their paper, there have been previously published differences between populations of NAFLD in Asia as compared to Western countries and it is unclear how, if at all, these lipidomic profiles relate to those differences.”

The study was funded by the Korea Basic Science Institute, the Korea Health Industry Department Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Henry had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Jung Y et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1111/apt.16066.

Both obese and nonobese individuals can develop nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and lipid profiles were effective predictors in both groups, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 361 individuals.

Nephron/Wikimedia/Creative Commons License

Given the strong association between obesity and NAFLD, previous research on lipidomic profiles have focused on obese White patients, wrote Youngae Jung, MD, of the Korea Basic Science Institute, Seoul, and colleagues.

“However, there are insufficient data on circulating lipidomics of nonobese NAFLD patients,” they added.

In a study published in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, the researchers identified 295 adults with NAFLD and 66 controls. Overall, 130 participants were nonobese (body mass index <25 kg/m²) and 231 were obese (BMI, 25 or higher). The nonobese group included 51 patients with NAFL, 31 with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis , and 48 controls; the obese group included 106 patients with NAFL, 107 with NASH, and 18 controls.

Lipid profiles show predictive promise

Overall, changes in diacylglycerol (DAG) and triacylglycerol (TAG) appeared in both obese and nonobese patients with increases from NAFL to NASH, the researchers noted.

“Levels of DAGs with relatively short chains and a low degree of desaturation significantly increased in NAFL versus no NAFLD, regardless of obesity,” the researchers said. “In contrast, levels of DAGs with relatively long chains and a high degree of desaturation significantly decreased in NASH versus NAFL in the obese group, which was not observed in the nonobese group,” they noted.

In addition, saturated sphingomyelin (SM) species were significantly associated with visceral adiposity in nonobese NAFLD patients, but not in obese NAFLD patients, and SM levels were significantly associated with both systemic and adipose tissue insulin resistance.

The researchers identified five potential lipid metabolites for nonobese subjects and seven potential lipids for obese subjects that included DAGs, TAGs, and SMs that were distinct between NAFL and NASH patients in order to predict the histologic severity of NAFLD. Overall, these metabolite combinations were effective predictors of NAFLD/NASH in nonobese and obese patients. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve were 0.916 versus 0.813 for NAFLD versus non-NAFLD in nonobese patients, and 0.967 versus 0.812 for NAFLD versus non-NAFLD in the obese patients.
 

More BMI groups may yield more information

The key study limitation was the cross-sectional study design, the researchers noted. In addition, dividing patients into only two groups based on BMI may not reveal any distinct biology among lean NAFLD patients, who were included with overweight patients in the nonobese group.

However, the results were strengthened by the large amount of data and the confirmed diagnoses of NASH and fibrosis by an expert liver pathologist, they added.

“Therefore, our findings provide new insights that aid in the understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for the development and severity of nonobese NAFLD, which are relevant to precision medicine and personalized therapy based on various phenotypes of NAFLD,” they concluded.
 

Validation needed in other populations

“Liver biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing NAFLD/NASH but has its own limitations and risks, so many researchers in this field are looking for a noninvasive alternative to help with diagnosis,” Zachary Henry, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, said in an interview. “Imaging methods such as transient elastography and MR-elastography have been introduced and many biochemical markers have been evaluated, yet all have their limitations. In the current study, the authors report a high diagnostic accuracy for evaluating NAFLD using lipidomic profiles, which could introduce a new noninvasive measurement of NAFLD.”

Dr. Henry said that he was not surprised by the study findings. However, “I believe they are important as they define a lipid profile that shows differences between patients with NASH versus patients with NAFLD versus patients without NAFLD,” he said. “NAFLD is a disease of disordered lipid metabolism in hepatocytes, and although it stands to reason there would be differences in lipid profiles, it is interesting to see the changes between DAGs and TAGs especially as disease progresses from NAFLD to NASH.

“Clinically, I do not think this really changes practice right now since it needs to be validated in other populations of NAFLD. However, it certainly adds to a growing armamentarium of noninvasive testing. Hopefully, we are able to combine some of these noninvasive tests in the future to better predict NAFLD and NASH as well as outcomes such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma,” he said.

“I think these lipidomic profiles need to be validated in non-Korean populations of patients with NAFLD to determine if these changes are ubiquitous to everyone or if a different profile exists based upon different genetics and environment,” Dr. Henry added. “As the authors note in their paper, there have been previously published differences between populations of NAFLD in Asia as compared to Western countries and it is unclear how, if at all, these lipidomic profiles relate to those differences.”

The study was funded by the Korea Basic Science Institute, the Korea Health Industry Department Institute, and the National Research Foundation of Korea. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Henry had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Jung Y et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1111/apt.16066.

The state of Tennessee, where I worked and attended medical school, did not have legislation in place prohibiting termination of employment based on sexual orientation alone. As a lesbian, I never felt safe at work knowing that I could be fired at any time simply because of who I loved and how I identified. When I started medical school in rural Appalachia, I decided I would be “out” but remained cautious. That meant inspecting everyone I encountered for signs of acceptance and safety before sharing details about my life. As a third-year medical student, I started wearing a rainbow triangle on my white coat. One of the first patients I cared for cried and thanked me for wearing the pin. She then proceeded to tell me about her partner, her own struggles with depression, and the secrets she had to keep from her community. It was overwhelming and, yet, so familiar. I was struck by how wearing this pin, a small gesture, made this patient feel safe enough to come out to me and seek help for her depression. Although I found a supportive community in Tennessee, it was only after I moved to Massachusetts for residency—where antidiscrimination laws protected lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, plus all other gender and sexual minority (LGBTQIA+) identified people—did I feel safe to freely share about my partner and our life together.

A landmark decision in the Supreme Court

This past June, in a 6 to 3 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Bostock v Clayton County that Title VII’s ban on discrimination also protects LGBTQIA+ employees. Title VII is a federal law that protects employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.¹ In this decision, the court determined that “sex” cannot be differentiated from sexual orientation. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, stated, “It is impossible… to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”² Title VII not only protects employees in hiring and firing practices but also protects against harassment and retaliation. Prior to this ruling, there were no federal antidiscrimination laws for LGBTQIA+ individuals, and only 22 states and the District of Columbia had laws in place that specified antidiscrimination protection for this community.³ Because of this landmark decision, Title VII now protects all employees in all states from discrimination, including due to an individual’s sexual orientation.

This is a huge victory in the battle for equality; however, the fight is not over. Justice Gorsuch stated, “We do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms or anything else of the kind…whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.”² This victory sets a new precedent and will continue to be further defined with more court cases as states and employers push back against these protections.

Continue to: A worrying shift in the Court...

A worrying shift in the Court

We have already started to see the repercussions of this ruling from Supreme Court justices themselves. Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the Obergefell v Hodges decision in 2015, which established the constitutional right for marriage equality, recently wrote a petition to have the Supreme Court reconsider that ruling. He wrote “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”³ After the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court became decidedly more conservative with the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose mentor was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who also dissented in the 2015 case.

As we celebrate this huge win for equality in this June decision, we also must recognize that LGBTQIA+ rights are still at risk.

LGBTQIA+ patients at higher risk for litany of conditions

Even with the Bostock v Clayton County ruling, we must not forget that discrimination will continue to exist. As health care providers, we have a responsibility to advocate on behalf of our LGBTQIA+ colleagues and patients. According to the Healthy People 2020 survey, there are higher rates of obesity, tobacco dependence, and sexually transmitted infection, as well as lower adherence to cancer screening recommendations in the LGBTQIA+ community.⁴ These disparities are a result of systemic, legal, and social factors, including limited access to affirming and inclusive health care.⁵ The LGBTQIA+ community deserves better.

Take action

In the coming months and years, as the US Supreme Court hears more cases that will threaten the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, I challenge all clinicians to take action. Even the smallest of gestures, such as wearing a rainbow pin, can be transformative for our patients and within our communities.

• Advocate for your state to enact nondiscrimination laws protecting the LGBTQIA+ community. Find out if your state has a law.
• Support your LGBTQIA+ colleagues by establishing an employee support group.
• Educate yourself and your colleagues on LGBTQIA+ inclusive medical practices.

The state of Tennessee, where I worked and attended medical school, did not have legislation in place prohibiting termination of employment based on sexual orientation alone. As a lesbian, I never felt safe at work knowing that I could be fired at any time simply because of who I loved and how I identified. When I started medical school in rural Appalachia, I decided I would be “out” but remained cautious. That meant inspecting everyone I encountered for signs of acceptance and safety before sharing details about my life. As a third-year medical student, I started wearing a rainbow triangle on my white coat. One of the first patients I cared for cried and thanked me for wearing the pin. She then proceeded to tell me about her partner, her own struggles with depression, and the secrets she had to keep from her community. It was overwhelming and, yet, so familiar. I was struck by how wearing this pin, a small gesture, made this patient feel safe enough to come out to me and seek help for her depression. Although I found a supportive community in Tennessee, it was only after I moved to Massachusetts for residency—where antidiscrimination laws protected lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, plus all other gender and sexual minority (LGBTQIA+) identified people—did I feel safe to freely share about my partner and our life together.

A landmark decision in the Supreme Court

This past June, in a 6 to 3 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Bostock v Clayton County that Title VII’s ban on discrimination also protects LGBTQIA+ employees. Title VII is a federal law that protects employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.¹ In this decision, the court determined that “sex” cannot be differentiated from sexual orientation. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, stated, “It is impossible… to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”² Title VII not only protects employees in hiring and firing practices but also protects against harassment and retaliation. Prior to this ruling, there were no federal antidiscrimination laws for LGBTQIA+ individuals, and only 22 states and the District of Columbia had laws in place that specified antidiscrimination protection for this community.³ Because of this landmark decision, Title VII now protects all employees in all states from discrimination, including due to an individual’s sexual orientation.

This is a huge victory in the battle for equality; however, the fight is not over. Justice Gorsuch stated, “We do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms or anything else of the kind…whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.”² This victory sets a new precedent and will continue to be further defined with more court cases as states and employers push back against these protections.

Continue to: A worrying shift in the Court...

A worrying shift in the Court

We have already started to see the repercussions of this ruling from Supreme Court justices themselves. Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the Obergefell v Hodges decision in 2015, which established the constitutional right for marriage equality, recently wrote a petition to have the Supreme Court reconsider that ruling. He wrote “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”³ After the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court became decidedly more conservative with the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose mentor was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who also dissented in the 2015 case.

As we celebrate this huge win for equality in this June decision, we also must recognize that LGBTQIA+ rights are still at risk.

LGBTQIA+ patients at higher risk for litany of conditions

Even with the Bostock v Clayton County ruling, we must not forget that discrimination will continue to exist. As health care providers, we have a responsibility to advocate on behalf of our LGBTQIA+ colleagues and patients. According to the Healthy People 2020 survey, there are higher rates of obesity, tobacco dependence, and sexually transmitted infection, as well as lower adherence to cancer screening recommendations in the LGBTQIA+ community.⁴ These disparities are a result of systemic, legal, and social factors, including limited access to affirming and inclusive health care.⁵ The LGBTQIA+ community deserves better.

Take action

In the coming months and years, as the US Supreme Court hears more cases that will threaten the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, I challenge all clinicians to take action. Even the smallest of gestures, such as wearing a rainbow pin, can be transformative for our patients and within our communities.

• Advocate for your state to enact nondiscrimination laws protecting the LGBTQIA+ community. Find out if your state has a law.
• Support your LGBTQIA+ colleagues by establishing an employee support group.
• Educate yourself and your colleagues on LGBTQIA+ inclusive medical practices.

The state of Tennessee, where I worked and attended medical school, did not have legislation in place prohibiting termination of employment based on sexual orientation alone. As a lesbian, I never felt safe at work knowing that I could be fired at any time simply because of who I loved and how I identified. When I started medical school in rural Appalachia, I decided I would be “out” but remained cautious. That meant inspecting everyone I encountered for signs of acceptance and safety before sharing details about my life. As a third-year medical student, I started wearing a rainbow triangle on my white coat. One of the first patients I cared for cried and thanked me for wearing the pin. She then proceeded to tell me about her partner, her own struggles with depression, and the secrets she had to keep from her community. It was overwhelming and, yet, so familiar. I was struck by how wearing this pin, a small gesture, made this patient feel safe enough to come out to me and seek help for her depression. Although I found a supportive community in Tennessee, it was only after I moved to Massachusetts for residency—where antidiscrimination laws protected lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, plus all other gender and sexual minority (LGBTQIA+) identified people—did I feel safe to freely share about my partner and our life together.

A landmark decision in the Supreme Court

This past June, in a 6 to 3 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Bostock v Clayton County that Title VII’s ban on discrimination also protects LGBTQIA+ employees. Title VII is a federal law that protects employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.¹ In this decision, the court determined that “sex” cannot be differentiated from sexual orientation. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, stated, “It is impossible… to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”² Title VII not only protects employees in hiring and firing practices but also protects against harassment and retaliation. Prior to this ruling, there were no federal antidiscrimination laws for LGBTQIA+ individuals, and only 22 states and the District of Columbia had laws in place that specified antidiscrimination protection for this community.³ Because of this landmark decision, Title VII now protects all employees in all states from discrimination, including due to an individual’s sexual orientation.

This is a huge victory in the battle for equality; however, the fight is not over. Justice Gorsuch stated, “We do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms or anything else of the kind…whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.”² This victory sets a new precedent and will continue to be further defined with more court cases as states and employers push back against these protections.

Continue to: A worrying shift in the Court...

A worrying shift in the Court

We have already started to see the repercussions of this ruling from Supreme Court justices themselves. Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the Obergefell v Hodges decision in 2015, which established the constitutional right for marriage equality, recently wrote a petition to have the Supreme Court reconsider that ruling. He wrote “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”³ After the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court became decidedly more conservative with the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose mentor was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who also dissented in the 2015 case.

As we celebrate this huge win for equality in this June decision, we also must recognize that LGBTQIA+ rights are still at risk.

LGBTQIA+ patients at higher risk for litany of conditions

Even with the Bostock v Clayton County ruling, we must not forget that discrimination will continue to exist. As health care providers, we have a responsibility to advocate on behalf of our LGBTQIA+ colleagues and patients. According to the Healthy People 2020 survey, there are higher rates of obesity, tobacco dependence, and sexually transmitted infection, as well as lower adherence to cancer screening recommendations in the LGBTQIA+ community.⁴ These disparities are a result of systemic, legal, and social factors, including limited access to affirming and inclusive health care.⁵ The LGBTQIA+ community deserves better.

Take action

In the coming months and years, as the US Supreme Court hears more cases that will threaten the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, I challenge all clinicians to take action. Even the smallest of gestures, such as wearing a rainbow pin, can be transformative for our patients and within our communities.

• Advocate for your state to enact nondiscrimination laws protecting the LGBTQIA+ community. Find out if your state has a law.
• Support your LGBTQIA+ colleagues by establishing an employee support group.
• Educate yourself and your colleagues on LGBTQIA+ inclusive medical practices.

Nebulized delivery of surfactant reduced the need for intubation and liquid surfactant administration by half among newborns with signs of respiratory distress syndrome, according to results from a large randomized, multicenter trial.

Neonatologists have long sought alternatives to intubation for administering surfactant to newborns with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). An effective noninvasive aerosolized treatment has remained elusive, with small clinical trials that have produced mixed results.

In research published in Pediatrics, James J. Cummings, MD, of Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, and colleagues, randomized 457 infants (mean 33 weeks’ gestational age) with signs of RDS to either usual care or a nebulized bovine surfactant. Infants were recruited at 22 neonatal ICUs in the United States. Investigators were not blinded to treatment allocation and the decision to intubate was left up to the individual treating physician, because to do so, the authors wrote, would add “pragmatic strength” to the study, and “be ethically compliant with the infant’s best interest.”

Infants in the study received usual care or up to three treatments 4 or more hours apart of 35 mg/mL calfactant suspension, 210 mg phospholipid/kg body weight delivered into the mouth through a nebulizer modified with a pacifier. Dr. Cummings and colleagues found that intubation and liquid surfactant administration within the first 4 days after birth was 26% in the intervention group and 50% in the usual care group (P < .001).

The results remained significant after investigators adjusted for gestational age, birth weight, age when randomized, sex, delivery mode, and antenatal steroids. Rates of intubation for surfactant administration were lower for infants in the intervention group in all gestational age brackets except the youngest (23-24 weeks); all of these infants needed intubation. Respiratory support at days 3, 7, and 28 did not differ between study groups.

“Our study is the first to reveal the efficacy of an aerosolized surfactant delivery system that does not require a respiratory circuit interface,” the investigators wrote.

In previous trials of aerosolized surfactants, they noted, treatment was delivered with nasal continuous positive airway pressure. “By using a separate, pacifier interface, both the aerosol delivery and [nasal continuous positive airway pressure] flow can be managed independently, which should allow for safer patient care.”

Dr. Cummings and colleagues also acknowledged several important limitations of their study, including its nonmasked, nonblinded design, and that it enrolled few infants with less than 28 weeks’ gestation. It takes 1-2 hours to deliver aerosolized calfactant, and “we did not want to delay definitive treatment.”

In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Kirsten Glaser, MD, of the University of Leipzig (Germany), and Clyde Wright, MD of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, called the results promising. “Importantly, application of surfactant aerosols was well tolerated by using a modified nebulizer with a pacifier interface.”

The editorialists cautioned, however, of the study’s strong potential for selection bias. “Clinicians were aware that every infant randomly assigned to the nebulized surfactant arm received the intervention,” they wrote. “It is possible that clinicians delayed intubation and endotracheal surfactant instillation in this group, being biased by aerosolization and the hypothesis of lower risk of air leak and lung injury.”

Dr. Glaser and Dr. Wright further lamented that there were no formal criteria for administering surfactant therapy, and that the infants in the study might not be representative of those most in need of treatment. Today, bronchopulmonary dysplasia “primarily affects infants born at less than 28 weeks’ gestational age,” a minority of the infants recruited for this study, they wrote, urging further investigation in this patient group.

In an interview, neonatologist Roger F. Soll, MD, the H. Wallace Professor of Neonatology at the Larner College of Medicine at University of Vermont in Burlington, echoed the editorialists’ concerns that the study’s pragmatic design left a number of key questions unanswered. “It’s a promising study that laudably recruited on an order of magnitude more infants than any like it in the past,” Dr. Soll said. “And the kids who got the therapy seemed to do better, which is exciting. But with the broad entry criteria, the lack of formal diagnosis of RDS, and the outcome measures ultimately potentially biased by lack of blinding, it doesn’t give us the answers we need yet to consider aerosolized treatment.”

ONY Biotech, manufacturer of the study drug Infasurf, sponsored the trial. Dr. Cummings and one coauthor disclosed consulting arrangements with the sponsor, and another coauthor is an employee of the sponsor. The remaining investigators had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Glaser and Dr. Wright disclosed no conflicts of interest related to their editorial; Dr. Wright’s work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Soll is president of the Vermont Oxford Network and coordinating editor of Cochrane Neonatal.
 

SOURCE: Cummings JJ et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(5):e2020021576.

Nebulized delivery of surfactant reduced the need for intubation and liquid surfactant administration by half among newborns with signs of respiratory distress syndrome, according to results from a large randomized, multicenter trial.

Neonatologists have long sought alternatives to intubation for administering surfactant to newborns with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). An effective noninvasive aerosolized treatment has remained elusive, with small clinical trials that have produced mixed results.

In research published in Pediatrics, James J. Cummings, MD, of Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, and colleagues, randomized 457 infants (mean 33 weeks’ gestational age) with signs of RDS to either usual care or a nebulized bovine surfactant. Infants were recruited at 22 neonatal ICUs in the United States. Investigators were not blinded to treatment allocation and the decision to intubate was left up to the individual treating physician, because to do so, the authors wrote, would add “pragmatic strength” to the study, and “be ethically compliant with the infant’s best interest.”

Infants in the study received usual care or up to three treatments 4 or more hours apart of 35 mg/mL calfactant suspension, 210 mg phospholipid/kg body weight delivered into the mouth through a nebulizer modified with a pacifier. Dr. Cummings and colleagues found that intubation and liquid surfactant administration within the first 4 days after birth was 26% in the intervention group and 50% in the usual care group (P < .001).

The results remained significant after investigators adjusted for gestational age, birth weight, age when randomized, sex, delivery mode, and antenatal steroids. Rates of intubation for surfactant administration were lower for infants in the intervention group in all gestational age brackets except the youngest (23-24 weeks); all of these infants needed intubation. Respiratory support at days 3, 7, and 28 did not differ between study groups.

“Our study is the first to reveal the efficacy of an aerosolized surfactant delivery system that does not require a respiratory circuit interface,” the investigators wrote.

In previous trials of aerosolized surfactants, they noted, treatment was delivered with nasal continuous positive airway pressure. “By using a separate, pacifier interface, both the aerosol delivery and [nasal continuous positive airway pressure] flow can be managed independently, which should allow for safer patient care.”

Dr. Cummings and colleagues also acknowledged several important limitations of their study, including its nonmasked, nonblinded design, and that it enrolled few infants with less than 28 weeks’ gestation. It takes 1-2 hours to deliver aerosolized calfactant, and “we did not want to delay definitive treatment.”

In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Kirsten Glaser, MD, of the University of Leipzig (Germany), and Clyde Wright, MD of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, called the results promising. “Importantly, application of surfactant aerosols was well tolerated by using a modified nebulizer with a pacifier interface.”

The editorialists cautioned, however, of the study’s strong potential for selection bias. “Clinicians were aware that every infant randomly assigned to the nebulized surfactant arm received the intervention,” they wrote. “It is possible that clinicians delayed intubation and endotracheal surfactant instillation in this group, being biased by aerosolization and the hypothesis of lower risk of air leak and lung injury.”

Dr. Glaser and Dr. Wright further lamented that there were no formal criteria for administering surfactant therapy, and that the infants in the study might not be representative of those most in need of treatment. Today, bronchopulmonary dysplasia “primarily affects infants born at less than 28 weeks’ gestational age,” a minority of the infants recruited for this study, they wrote, urging further investigation in this patient group.

In an interview, neonatologist Roger F. Soll, MD, the H. Wallace Professor of Neonatology at the Larner College of Medicine at University of Vermont in Burlington, echoed the editorialists’ concerns that the study’s pragmatic design left a number of key questions unanswered. “It’s a promising study that laudably recruited on an order of magnitude more infants than any like it in the past,” Dr. Soll said. “And the kids who got the therapy seemed to do better, which is exciting. But with the broad entry criteria, the lack of formal diagnosis of RDS, and the outcome measures ultimately potentially biased by lack of blinding, it doesn’t give us the answers we need yet to consider aerosolized treatment.”

ONY Biotech, manufacturer of the study drug Infasurf, sponsored the trial. Dr. Cummings and one coauthor disclosed consulting arrangements with the sponsor, and another coauthor is an employee of the sponsor. The remaining investigators had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Glaser and Dr. Wright disclosed no conflicts of interest related to their editorial; Dr. Wright’s work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Soll is president of the Vermont Oxford Network and coordinating editor of Cochrane Neonatal.
 

SOURCE: Cummings JJ et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(5):e2020021576.

Nebulized delivery of surfactant reduced the need for intubation and liquid surfactant administration by half among newborns with signs of respiratory distress syndrome, according to results from a large randomized, multicenter trial.

Neonatologists have long sought alternatives to intubation for administering surfactant to newborns with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). An effective noninvasive aerosolized treatment has remained elusive, with small clinical trials that have produced mixed results.

In research published in Pediatrics, James J. Cummings, MD, of Albany (N.Y.) Medical Center, and colleagues, randomized 457 infants (mean 33 weeks’ gestational age) with signs of RDS to either usual care or a nebulized bovine surfactant. Infants were recruited at 22 neonatal ICUs in the United States. Investigators were not blinded to treatment allocation and the decision to intubate was left up to the individual treating physician, because to do so, the authors wrote, would add “pragmatic strength” to the study, and “be ethically compliant with the infant’s best interest.”

Infants in the study received usual care or up to three treatments 4 or more hours apart of 35 mg/mL calfactant suspension, 210 mg phospholipid/kg body weight delivered into the mouth through a nebulizer modified with a pacifier. Dr. Cummings and colleagues found that intubation and liquid surfactant administration within the first 4 days after birth was 26% in the intervention group and 50% in the usual care group (P < .001).

The results remained significant after investigators adjusted for gestational age, birth weight, age when randomized, sex, delivery mode, and antenatal steroids. Rates of intubation for surfactant administration were lower for infants in the intervention group in all gestational age brackets except the youngest (23-24 weeks); all of these infants needed intubation. Respiratory support at days 3, 7, and 28 did not differ between study groups.

“Our study is the first to reveal the efficacy of an aerosolized surfactant delivery system that does not require a respiratory circuit interface,” the investigators wrote.

In previous trials of aerosolized surfactants, they noted, treatment was delivered with nasal continuous positive airway pressure. “By using a separate, pacifier interface, both the aerosol delivery and [nasal continuous positive airway pressure] flow can be managed independently, which should allow for safer patient care.”

Dr. Cummings and colleagues also acknowledged several important limitations of their study, including its nonmasked, nonblinded design, and that it enrolled few infants with less than 28 weeks’ gestation. It takes 1-2 hours to deliver aerosolized calfactant, and “we did not want to delay definitive treatment.”

In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Kirsten Glaser, MD, of the University of Leipzig (Germany), and Clyde Wright, MD of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, called the results promising. “Importantly, application of surfactant aerosols was well tolerated by using a modified nebulizer with a pacifier interface.”

The editorialists cautioned, however, of the study’s strong potential for selection bias. “Clinicians were aware that every infant randomly assigned to the nebulized surfactant arm received the intervention,” they wrote. “It is possible that clinicians delayed intubation and endotracheal surfactant instillation in this group, being biased by aerosolization and the hypothesis of lower risk of air leak and lung injury.”

Dr. Glaser and Dr. Wright further lamented that there were no formal criteria for administering surfactant therapy, and that the infants in the study might not be representative of those most in need of treatment. Today, bronchopulmonary dysplasia “primarily affects infants born at less than 28 weeks’ gestational age,” a minority of the infants recruited for this study, they wrote, urging further investigation in this patient group.

In an interview, neonatologist Roger F. Soll, MD, the H. Wallace Professor of Neonatology at the Larner College of Medicine at University of Vermont in Burlington, echoed the editorialists’ concerns that the study’s pragmatic design left a number of key questions unanswered. “It’s a promising study that laudably recruited on an order of magnitude more infants than any like it in the past,” Dr. Soll said. “And the kids who got the therapy seemed to do better, which is exciting. But with the broad entry criteria, the lack of formal diagnosis of RDS, and the outcome measures ultimately potentially biased by lack of blinding, it doesn’t give us the answers we need yet to consider aerosolized treatment.”

ONY Biotech, manufacturer of the study drug Infasurf, sponsored the trial. Dr. Cummings and one coauthor disclosed consulting arrangements with the sponsor, and another coauthor is an employee of the sponsor. The remaining investigators had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Glaser and Dr. Wright disclosed no conflicts of interest related to their editorial; Dr. Wright’s work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Soll is president of the Vermont Oxford Network and coordinating editor of Cochrane Neonatal.
 

SOURCE: Cummings JJ et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(5):e2020021576.

Things will change. That is a constant. The practice of pediatrics will be different in the future. The pandemic has changed some things; mostly it has accelerated changes, advancements, improvements, and losses that were already occurring. Telemedicine will play a more prominent role in the future. The finances of solo and small-group practice have become more difficult. What will the new practice of pediatrics look like, and is it what you want to come to work each day to do?

IMAGELAGOON02/Thinkstock

As I wrote my prior column on the character traits/virtues of an admirable physician, I also began brainstorming this column on the traits of an admirable profession. Then the American Academy of Pediatrics’ virtual National Conference & Exhibition had many presentations encouraging pediatricians to adopt a conglomeration of activities in their offices. I became skeptical. Which should be selected? To make a wise choice, I review the major goals of medicine, which I have evolved to embrace as the quadruple aims.

First and hopefully always foremost, the health professions are dedicated to the health of their patients and, hopefully, the population at large. This trait dates to the Hippocratic Oath.

Second, physicians have a stewardship over a vast collection of knowledge, skills, resources, and funds. When I started my career, U.S. health care had increased from 6% of the gross domestic product to 9%, nearly twice that of other developed nations, and was expanding rapidly, contributing to widespread economic problems including the national debt. The health economists of the 1980’s made dire predictions that the nation was headed up to 12% of the GDP, which would cause the sky to start falling. Last I checked U.S. health care is approaching 18% of the GDP. The sky seems intact, although the oceans are rising and the hillsides are burning.

Managed care of the 1990s became focused on the consumer experience. Evaluations of physicians and nurses became dependent on consumer surveys. I recall one survey about the care I personally had received as day surgery. It was mostly about scheduling, being greeted on arrival, the waiting room, and other fluff. Only 1 of the over 20 questions had any bearing on whether I thought the diagnosis was correct, the treatment was effective, or my physician was competent. As a cancer patient, my priorities were not aligned with that survey’s concept of quality.

From 2008, I recall the Triple Aim: “Improving the U.S. health care system requires simultaneous pursuit of three aims: improving the experience of care, improving the health of populations, and reducing per capita costs of health care.”

Over the ensuing decade, physician wellness has been added to make a quadruple aim. If the system isn’t professionally rewarding, burnout occurs. Skills and experience are lost. The best and brightest are not attracted to the specialty. Quality goes down. So physicians must factor this into decisions about the future of pediatrics.

There are many social determinants of health that have large impacts on the population health of children, and it does not necessarily follow that I should spend my patient care time on those determinants. As a professional, I have a responsibility to ensure that I am treating important problems that match my extensive (and expensive) training, knowledge, skills, and experience.

I recently read a persuasive argument that caring for ADHD is an important and doable part of modern general pediatrics. I agree, but I agreed with the proponent’s idea 25 years ago when I joined a large group and saw my own ADHD patients. Change can be slow.

Pharmacology options for anxiety have become safer, more effective, and better understood in children. General pediatricians may now be able to provide important, earlier, and accessible intervention for pediatric anxiety and other mental health issues.

Food insecurity is a worsening issue during the pandemic, but not one which I have specialized abilities to address. A brochure listing available local resources could be posted in waiting rooms and exam rooms. Is spending time asking about it during a visit the best use of a pediatrician’s time? That is a choice a professional needs to make. It may depend on your patient panel and community resources. In the past, I was more inclined to focus on medical care and donate the extra income to my church’s food bank. But the world has changed. Perhaps the pediatrician’s office of the 2020s is a department store, with social workers, psychologists, and therapists located under the same roof. It reminds me of the Mayo model. Wealthy people would travel to Rochester for an executive physical. That physical would frequently recommend seeing a couple specialists before leaving town. It is an effective model but also luxurious.

Racism causes major harms, both to physical health and mental health. Is asking about it a wise use of limited time for well-child visits? What resources will you offer?

Climate change, hurricanes, and wildfires are harming children. Is debating the issue with your patient’s parents productive? I am zealous about the topic. I spend considerable time and money promoting the credibility of science within various religious organizations, but I try to avoid bringing politics into my interactions with patients.

As a professional, your choices may be different. Many people are telling you what you should care about. The executive well-child visit would be beneficial, but it would also take 2 hours. Don’t be misled into spending too much effort on issues not in your expertise. Choose wisely.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

Things will change. That is a constant. The practice of pediatrics will be different in the future. The pandemic has changed some things; mostly it has accelerated changes, advancements, improvements, and losses that were already occurring. Telemedicine will play a more prominent role in the future. The finances of solo and small-group practice have become more difficult. What will the new practice of pediatrics look like, and is it what you want to come to work each day to do?

IMAGELAGOON02/Thinkstock

As I wrote my prior column on the character traits/virtues of an admirable physician, I also began brainstorming this column on the traits of an admirable profession. Then the American Academy of Pediatrics’ virtual National Conference & Exhibition had many presentations encouraging pediatricians to adopt a conglomeration of activities in their offices. I became skeptical. Which should be selected? To make a wise choice, I review the major goals of medicine, which I have evolved to embrace as the quadruple aims.

First and hopefully always foremost, the health professions are dedicated to the health of their patients and, hopefully, the population at large. This trait dates to the Hippocratic Oath.

Second, physicians have a stewardship over a vast collection of knowledge, skills, resources, and funds. When I started my career, U.S. health care had increased from 6% of the gross domestic product to 9%, nearly twice that of other developed nations, and was expanding rapidly, contributing to widespread economic problems including the national debt. The health economists of the 1980’s made dire predictions that the nation was headed up to 12% of the GDP, which would cause the sky to start falling. Last I checked U.S. health care is approaching 18% of the GDP. The sky seems intact, although the oceans are rising and the hillsides are burning.

Managed care of the 1990s became focused on the consumer experience. Evaluations of physicians and nurses became dependent on consumer surveys. I recall one survey about the care I personally had received as day surgery. It was mostly about scheduling, being greeted on arrival, the waiting room, and other fluff. Only 1 of the over 20 questions had any bearing on whether I thought the diagnosis was correct, the treatment was effective, or my physician was competent. As a cancer patient, my priorities were not aligned with that survey’s concept of quality.

From 2008, I recall the Triple Aim: “Improving the U.S. health care system requires simultaneous pursuit of three aims: improving the experience of care, improving the health of populations, and reducing per capita costs of health care.”

Over the ensuing decade, physician wellness has been added to make a quadruple aim. If the system isn’t professionally rewarding, burnout occurs. Skills and experience are lost. The best and brightest are not attracted to the specialty. Quality goes down. So physicians must factor this into decisions about the future of pediatrics.

There are many social determinants of health that have large impacts on the population health of children, and it does not necessarily follow that I should spend my patient care time on those determinants. As a professional, I have a responsibility to ensure that I am treating important problems that match my extensive (and expensive) training, knowledge, skills, and experience.

I recently read a persuasive argument that caring for ADHD is an important and doable part of modern general pediatrics. I agree, but I agreed with the proponent’s idea 25 years ago when I joined a large group and saw my own ADHD patients. Change can be slow.

Pharmacology options for anxiety have become safer, more effective, and better understood in children. General pediatricians may now be able to provide important, earlier, and accessible intervention for pediatric anxiety and other mental health issues.

Food insecurity is a worsening issue during the pandemic, but not one which I have specialized abilities to address. A brochure listing available local resources could be posted in waiting rooms and exam rooms. Is spending time asking about it during a visit the best use of a pediatrician’s time? That is a choice a professional needs to make. It may depend on your patient panel and community resources. In the past, I was more inclined to focus on medical care and donate the extra income to my church’s food bank. But the world has changed. Perhaps the pediatrician’s office of the 2020s is a department store, with social workers, psychologists, and therapists located under the same roof. It reminds me of the Mayo model. Wealthy people would travel to Rochester for an executive physical. That physical would frequently recommend seeing a couple specialists before leaving town. It is an effective model but also luxurious.

Racism causes major harms, both to physical health and mental health. Is asking about it a wise use of limited time for well-child visits? What resources will you offer?

Climate change, hurricanes, and wildfires are harming children. Is debating the issue with your patient’s parents productive? I am zealous about the topic. I spend considerable time and money promoting the credibility of science within various religious organizations, but I try to avoid bringing politics into my interactions with patients.

As a professional, your choices may be different. Many people are telling you what you should care about. The executive well-child visit would be beneficial, but it would also take 2 hours. Don’t be misled into spending too much effort on issues not in your expertise. Choose wisely.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

Things will change. That is a constant. The practice of pediatrics will be different in the future. The pandemic has changed some things; mostly it has accelerated changes, advancements, improvements, and losses that were already occurring. Telemedicine will play a more prominent role in the future. The finances of solo and small-group practice have become more difficult. What will the new practice of pediatrics look like, and is it what you want to come to work each day to do?

IMAGELAGOON02/Thinkstock

As I wrote my prior column on the character traits/virtues of an admirable physician, I also began brainstorming this column on the traits of an admirable profession. Then the American Academy of Pediatrics’ virtual National Conference & Exhibition had many presentations encouraging pediatricians to adopt a conglomeration of activities in their offices. I became skeptical. Which should be selected? To make a wise choice, I review the major goals of medicine, which I have evolved to embrace as the quadruple aims.

First and hopefully always foremost, the health professions are dedicated to the health of their patients and, hopefully, the population at large. This trait dates to the Hippocratic Oath.

Second, physicians have a stewardship over a vast collection of knowledge, skills, resources, and funds. When I started my career, U.S. health care had increased from 6% of the gross domestic product to 9%, nearly twice that of other developed nations, and was expanding rapidly, contributing to widespread economic problems including the national debt. The health economists of the 1980’s made dire predictions that the nation was headed up to 12% of the GDP, which would cause the sky to start falling. Last I checked U.S. health care is approaching 18% of the GDP. The sky seems intact, although the oceans are rising and the hillsides are burning.

Managed care of the 1990s became focused on the consumer experience. Evaluations of physicians and nurses became dependent on consumer surveys. I recall one survey about the care I personally had received as day surgery. It was mostly about scheduling, being greeted on arrival, the waiting room, and other fluff. Only 1 of the over 20 questions had any bearing on whether I thought the diagnosis was correct, the treatment was effective, or my physician was competent. As a cancer patient, my priorities were not aligned with that survey’s concept of quality.

From 2008, I recall the Triple Aim: “Improving the U.S. health care system requires simultaneous pursuit of three aims: improving the experience of care, improving the health of populations, and reducing per capita costs of health care.”

Over the ensuing decade, physician wellness has been added to make a quadruple aim. If the system isn’t professionally rewarding, burnout occurs. Skills and experience are lost. The best and brightest are not attracted to the specialty. Quality goes down. So physicians must factor this into decisions about the future of pediatrics.

There are many social determinants of health that have large impacts on the population health of children, and it does not necessarily follow that I should spend my patient care time on those determinants. As a professional, I have a responsibility to ensure that I am treating important problems that match my extensive (and expensive) training, knowledge, skills, and experience.

I recently read a persuasive argument that caring for ADHD is an important and doable part of modern general pediatrics. I agree, but I agreed with the proponent’s idea 25 years ago when I joined a large group and saw my own ADHD patients. Change can be slow.

Pharmacology options for anxiety have become safer, more effective, and better understood in children. General pediatricians may now be able to provide important, earlier, and accessible intervention for pediatric anxiety and other mental health issues.

Food insecurity is a worsening issue during the pandemic, but not one which I have specialized abilities to address. A brochure listing available local resources could be posted in waiting rooms and exam rooms. Is spending time asking about it during a visit the best use of a pediatrician’s time? That is a choice a professional needs to make. It may depend on your patient panel and community resources. In the past, I was more inclined to focus on medical care and donate the extra income to my church’s food bank. But the world has changed. Perhaps the pediatrician’s office of the 2020s is a department store, with social workers, psychologists, and therapists located under the same roof. It reminds me of the Mayo model. Wealthy people would travel to Rochester for an executive physical. That physical would frequently recommend seeing a couple specialists before leaving town. It is an effective model but also luxurious.

Racism causes major harms, both to physical health and mental health. Is asking about it a wise use of limited time for well-child visits? What resources will you offer?

Climate change, hurricanes, and wildfires are harming children. Is debating the issue with your patient’s parents productive? I am zealous about the topic. I spend considerable time and money promoting the credibility of science within various religious organizations, but I try to avoid bringing politics into my interactions with patients.

As a professional, your choices may be different. Many people are telling you what you should care about. The executive well-child visit would be beneficial, but it would also take 2 hours. Don’t be misled into spending too much effort on issues not in your expertise. Choose wisely.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

Most patients with COVID-19 will have a mild presentation and not require hospitalization or any treatment. Inpatient management revolves around the supportive management of the most common complications of severe COVID-19, which includes pneumonia, hypoxemic respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and septic shock.

Currently, there is no clinically proven specific antiviral treatment for COVID-19. A few antivirals and treatment modalities have been studied and used, with the hope of decreasing mortality and improving recovery time for those with moderate to severe cases of COVID-19.
 

Remdesivir

The antiviral remdesivir was the second drug to receive emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease. Severe disease is defined as patients with an oxygen saturation less than 94% on room air or requiring supplemental oxygen or requiring mechanical ventilation or requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Remdesivir is a nucleotide analogue that has shown in vitro antiviral activity against a range of RNA viruses. It acts by causing premature termination of viral RNA transcription. Remdesivir is administered intravenously and the recommended dose is 200 mg on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for various time courses.

A few clinical studies have reported benefits of remdesivir rather than no remdesivir for treatment of severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommends 5 days of remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 on noninvasive supplemental oxygen and 10 days treatment for those on mechanical ventilation and ECMO. In a randomized, uncontrolled, phase 3 trial, investigators compared 5-day (n = 200) versus 10-day (n = 197) courses of remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19. Clinical data revealed no differences in outcomes in the two groups.

Common reported adverse effects of the drug include elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and/or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, vomiting, and hematochezia. There is insufficient data on using remdesivir in patients requiring dialysis.
 

Corticosteroids

Is dexamethasone effective for treating COVID-19? In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, corticosteroids were not recommended with the fear that, if started too soon, you could blunt the body’s natural defense system and that could allow the virus to thrive. Recent clinical data has shown clinical benefits and decreased mortality with the use of dexamethasone in patients with severe COVID-19 infection because glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and reduce progression to respiratory failure and death.

The Recovery Trial was an open label study which used 6-mg once-daily doses of dexamethasone for up to 10 days or until hospital discharge if sooner. The study concluded that the use of dexamethasone for up to 10 days in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 resulted in lower 28-day mortality than usual care.

Dexamethasone is recommended in COVID-19 patients who require supplemental oxygen. If dexamethasone is not available, alternative forms of steroids – prednisone, methylprednisolone, or hydrocortisone – can be used. However, there is no clear evidence that the use of other steroids provides the same benefit as dexamethasone.

Both the IDSA and National Institutes of Health guidelines have recommended the use of steroids. However, clinicians should closely monitor the adverse effects like hyperglycemia, secondary infections, psychiatric effects, and avascular necrosis.
 

Convalescent plasma

Convalescent plasma is a blood product believed to provide passive antibody therapy through the transmission of neutralizing viral antibodies. Convalescent plasma has been used for decades for different viral infections including the treatment of H1N1 influenza virus, polio, chicken pox, measles, SARS-CoV-1, and MERS-CoV.

On Aug. 23, 2020, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization for investigational convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. The FDA recommends neutralizing antibodies of at least 1:160. However, such assays have not been widely available and titers in plasma have often not been assessed prior to infusion.

There is no current standard recommended dosing. Most study protocols infuse 1-2 units of convalescent plasma for persons with COVID-19.

There is insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19. Existing data suggest that, if a benefit exists, convalescent plasma is most useful when given early and with a high titer of neutralizing antibodies.

The adverse effects of convalescent plasma is very similar to the receipt of other blood products, including allergic reactions to the plasma, transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO), transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), and acquisition of infections, though the latter is rare because of the rigorous screening process.
 

Tocilizumab

Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin (IL)-6 receptors. Tocilizumab is currently FDA approved for the treatment of severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome that is associated with chimeric antigen–receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and for the treatment of rheumatologic disorders.

The interest in using tocilizumab to treat persons with COVID-19 is based on the observations that a subset of patients with COVID-19 develop a severe inflammatory response that can result in cytokine storm resulting in ARDS, multiorgan failure, and potentially death. Very high levels of IL-6 have been observed in these individuals, thereby suggesting IL-6 may play a central role in the acute clinical decompensation seen with severe COVID-19.

The optimal dosing of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19 is not known. The FDA recommends dosing of tocilizumab for cytokine release syndrome should not exceed 800 mg. There is limited data about the potential benefit of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19. The COVACTA trial showed no difference between tocilizumab and placebo in regard to mortality. The time to hospital discharge was shorter in patients treated with tocilizumab; however, the difference was not statistically significant.

Reported adverse effects of tocilizumab include increase in ALT and AST, increased risk of serious infections (especially tuberculosis and invasive fungal infections), reactivation of hepatitis B virus, and rare reports of gastrointestinal perforation.
 

Hydroxychloroquine

Hydroxycholoroquine (HCQ) and its sister drug chloroquine, have been used for many decades as treatment for malaria and autoimmune diseases. HCQ gained widespread popularity in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic when clinical studies showed that it had significant in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, which provided the rationale for its use in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 infection.

It was the first drug that was authorized for emergency use by the FDA during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, On June 15, 2020, because of accumulating harmful data, the FDA revoked the emergency authorization use of HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment.

Randomized controlled trials showed that patients treated with HCQ experienced a longer hospital stay with increase in mortality rates and increased likelihood of being placed on mechanical ventilation. In addition, studies revealed an increase in QT prolongation in patients treated with HCQ, especially when coadministered with azithromycin, which can lead to torsades de pointes, ventricular tachycardia, and sudden cardiac death.

The IDSA and National Institutes of Health, both recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin to treat COVID-19 because the harms outweigh the benefits, even if high quality RCTs were to become available in the future.
 

Other drugs

There have been experimental studies on other medications for the treatment of COVID-19, including losartan, amlodipine, ivermectin, famotidine, Anakinra, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, and Janus kinase inhibitors, such as tofacitinib. Additionally, a few supplements such as vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc have been used in both inpatient and outpatient settings for COVID-19 treatment. Polyclonal antibodies are being investigated in phase 3 trials. However, the data is insufficient, and the effectiveness of these drugs is unknown. The COVID-19 treatment guidelines panel recommends against the use of these treatment modalities.

Dr Tiyouh is an infectious diseases physician at Keystone Health in Chambersburg, Pa. Dr. Tenneti completed medical school at Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre in Karnataka, India, and is interested in pursuing internal medicine residency. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg Hospital and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, and a member of the editorial advisory board for The Hospitalist.

Sources

Goldman JD et al. Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 May 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2015301.

Beigel JH et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764

Wang Y et al. Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2020 May 16;395(10236):1569-78.

National Institutes of Health. COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines.

Infectious Diseases Society of America. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines on the treatment and management of patients with COVID-19.

Joyner et al. Early safety indicators of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 patients. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(9):4791-7.

Luo P et al. Tocilizumab treatment in COVID-19: A single center experience. J Med Virol. 2020 Jul;92(7):814-8.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthcare Workers: Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).

University of Washington. COVID-19 Treatments: Prescribing Information, Clinical Studies, and Slide Decks.

Most patients with COVID-19 will have a mild presentation and not require hospitalization or any treatment. Inpatient management revolves around the supportive management of the most common complications of severe COVID-19, which includes pneumonia, hypoxemic respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and septic shock.

Currently, there is no clinically proven specific antiviral treatment for COVID-19. A few antivirals and treatment modalities have been studied and used, with the hope of decreasing mortality and improving recovery time for those with moderate to severe cases of COVID-19.
 

Remdesivir

The antiviral remdesivir was the second drug to receive emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease. Severe disease is defined as patients with an oxygen saturation less than 94% on room air or requiring supplemental oxygen or requiring mechanical ventilation or requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Remdesivir is a nucleotide analogue that has shown in vitro antiviral activity against a range of RNA viruses. It acts by causing premature termination of viral RNA transcription. Remdesivir is administered intravenously and the recommended dose is 200 mg on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for various time courses.

A few clinical studies have reported benefits of remdesivir rather than no remdesivir for treatment of severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommends 5 days of remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 on noninvasive supplemental oxygen and 10 days treatment for those on mechanical ventilation and ECMO. In a randomized, uncontrolled, phase 3 trial, investigators compared 5-day (n = 200) versus 10-day (n = 197) courses of remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19. Clinical data revealed no differences in outcomes in the two groups.

Common reported adverse effects of the drug include elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and/or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, vomiting, and hematochezia. There is insufficient data on using remdesivir in patients requiring dialysis.
 

Corticosteroids

Is dexamethasone effective for treating COVID-19? In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, corticosteroids were not recommended with the fear that, if started too soon, you could blunt the body’s natural defense system and that could allow the virus to thrive. Recent clinical data has shown clinical benefits and decreased mortality with the use of dexamethasone in patients with severe COVID-19 infection because glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and reduce progression to respiratory failure and death.

The Recovery Trial was an open label study which used 6-mg once-daily doses of dexamethasone for up to 10 days or until hospital discharge if sooner. The study concluded that the use of dexamethasone for up to 10 days in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 resulted in lower 28-day mortality than usual care.

Dexamethasone is recommended in COVID-19 patients who require supplemental oxygen. If dexamethasone is not available, alternative forms of steroids – prednisone, methylprednisolone, or hydrocortisone – can be used. However, there is no clear evidence that the use of other steroids provides the same benefit as dexamethasone.

Both the IDSA and National Institutes of Health guidelines have recommended the use of steroids. However, clinicians should closely monitor the adverse effects like hyperglycemia, secondary infections, psychiatric effects, and avascular necrosis.
 

Convalescent plasma

Convalescent plasma is a blood product believed to provide passive antibody therapy through the transmission of neutralizing viral antibodies. Convalescent plasma has been used for decades for different viral infections including the treatment of H1N1 influenza virus, polio, chicken pox, measles, SARS-CoV-1, and MERS-CoV.

On Aug. 23, 2020, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization for investigational convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. The FDA recommends neutralizing antibodies of at least 1:160. However, such assays have not been widely available and titers in plasma have often not been assessed prior to infusion.

There is no current standard recommended dosing. Most study protocols infuse 1-2 units of convalescent plasma for persons with COVID-19.

There is insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19. Existing data suggest that, if a benefit exists, convalescent plasma is most useful when given early and with a high titer of neutralizing antibodies.

The adverse effects of convalescent plasma is very similar to the receipt of other blood products, including allergic reactions to the plasma, transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO), transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), and acquisition of infections, though the latter is rare because of the rigorous screening process.
 

Tocilizumab

Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin (IL)-6 receptors. Tocilizumab is currently FDA approved for the treatment of severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome that is associated with chimeric antigen–receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and for the treatment of rheumatologic disorders.

The interest in using tocilizumab to treat persons with COVID-19 is based on the observations that a subset of patients with COVID-19 develop a severe inflammatory response that can result in cytokine storm resulting in ARDS, multiorgan failure, and potentially death. Very high levels of IL-6 have been observed in these individuals, thereby suggesting IL-6 may play a central role in the acute clinical decompensation seen with severe COVID-19.

The optimal dosing of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19 is not known. The FDA recommends dosing of tocilizumab for cytokine release syndrome should not exceed 800 mg. There is limited data about the potential benefit of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19. The COVACTA trial showed no difference between tocilizumab and placebo in regard to mortality. The time to hospital discharge was shorter in patients treated with tocilizumab; however, the difference was not statistically significant.

Reported adverse effects of tocilizumab include increase in ALT and AST, increased risk of serious infections (especially tuberculosis and invasive fungal infections), reactivation of hepatitis B virus, and rare reports of gastrointestinal perforation.
 

Hydroxychloroquine

Hydroxycholoroquine (HCQ) and its sister drug chloroquine, have been used for many decades as treatment for malaria and autoimmune diseases. HCQ gained widespread popularity in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic when clinical studies showed that it had significant in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, which provided the rationale for its use in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 infection.

It was the first drug that was authorized for emergency use by the FDA during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, On June 15, 2020, because of accumulating harmful data, the FDA revoked the emergency authorization use of HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment.

Randomized controlled trials showed that patients treated with HCQ experienced a longer hospital stay with increase in mortality rates and increased likelihood of being placed on mechanical ventilation. In addition, studies revealed an increase in QT prolongation in patients treated with HCQ, especially when coadministered with azithromycin, which can lead to torsades de pointes, ventricular tachycardia, and sudden cardiac death.

The IDSA and National Institutes of Health, both recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin to treat COVID-19 because the harms outweigh the benefits, even if high quality RCTs were to become available in the future.
 

Other drugs

There have been experimental studies on other medications for the treatment of COVID-19, including losartan, amlodipine, ivermectin, famotidine, Anakinra, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, and Janus kinase inhibitors, such as tofacitinib. Additionally, a few supplements such as vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc have been used in both inpatient and outpatient settings for COVID-19 treatment. Polyclonal antibodies are being investigated in phase 3 trials. However, the data is insufficient, and the effectiveness of these drugs is unknown. The COVID-19 treatment guidelines panel recommends against the use of these treatment modalities.

Dr Tiyouh is an infectious diseases physician at Keystone Health in Chambersburg, Pa. Dr. Tenneti completed medical school at Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre in Karnataka, India, and is interested in pursuing internal medicine residency. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg Hospital and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, and a member of the editorial advisory board for The Hospitalist.

Sources

Goldman JD et al. Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 May 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2015301.

Beigel JH et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764

Wang Y et al. Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2020 May 16;395(10236):1569-78.

National Institutes of Health. COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines.

Infectious Diseases Society of America. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines on the treatment and management of patients with COVID-19.

Joyner et al. Early safety indicators of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 patients. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(9):4791-7.

Luo P et al. Tocilizumab treatment in COVID-19: A single center experience. J Med Virol. 2020 Jul;92(7):814-8.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthcare Workers: Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).

University of Washington. COVID-19 Treatments: Prescribing Information, Clinical Studies, and Slide Decks.

Most patients with COVID-19 will have a mild presentation and not require hospitalization or any treatment. Inpatient management revolves around the supportive management of the most common complications of severe COVID-19, which includes pneumonia, hypoxemic respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and septic shock.

Currently, there is no clinically proven specific antiviral treatment for COVID-19. A few antivirals and treatment modalities have been studied and used, with the hope of decreasing mortality and improving recovery time for those with moderate to severe cases of COVID-19.
 

Remdesivir

The antiviral remdesivir was the second drug to receive emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in adults and children hospitalized with severe disease. Severe disease is defined as patients with an oxygen saturation less than 94% on room air or requiring supplemental oxygen or requiring mechanical ventilation or requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Remdesivir is a nucleotide analogue that has shown in vitro antiviral activity against a range of RNA viruses. It acts by causing premature termination of viral RNA transcription. Remdesivir is administered intravenously and the recommended dose is 200 mg on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for various time courses.

A few clinical studies have reported benefits of remdesivir rather than no remdesivir for treatment of severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommends 5 days of remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 on noninvasive supplemental oxygen and 10 days treatment for those on mechanical ventilation and ECMO. In a randomized, uncontrolled, phase 3 trial, investigators compared 5-day (n = 200) versus 10-day (n = 197) courses of remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19. Clinical data revealed no differences in outcomes in the two groups.

Common reported adverse effects of the drug include elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and/or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, vomiting, and hematochezia. There is insufficient data on using remdesivir in patients requiring dialysis.
 

Corticosteroids

Is dexamethasone effective for treating COVID-19? In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, corticosteroids were not recommended with the fear that, if started too soon, you could blunt the body’s natural defense system and that could allow the virus to thrive. Recent clinical data has shown clinical benefits and decreased mortality with the use of dexamethasone in patients with severe COVID-19 infection because glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and reduce progression to respiratory failure and death.

The Recovery Trial was an open label study which used 6-mg once-daily doses of dexamethasone for up to 10 days or until hospital discharge if sooner. The study concluded that the use of dexamethasone for up to 10 days in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 resulted in lower 28-day mortality than usual care.

Dexamethasone is recommended in COVID-19 patients who require supplemental oxygen. If dexamethasone is not available, alternative forms of steroids – prednisone, methylprednisolone, or hydrocortisone – can be used. However, there is no clear evidence that the use of other steroids provides the same benefit as dexamethasone.

Both the IDSA and National Institutes of Health guidelines have recommended the use of steroids. However, clinicians should closely monitor the adverse effects like hyperglycemia, secondary infections, psychiatric effects, and avascular necrosis.
 

Convalescent plasma

Convalescent plasma is a blood product believed to provide passive antibody therapy through the transmission of neutralizing viral antibodies. Convalescent plasma has been used for decades for different viral infections including the treatment of H1N1 influenza virus, polio, chicken pox, measles, SARS-CoV-1, and MERS-CoV.

On Aug. 23, 2020, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization for investigational convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. The FDA recommends neutralizing antibodies of at least 1:160. However, such assays have not been widely available and titers in plasma have often not been assessed prior to infusion.

There is no current standard recommended dosing. Most study protocols infuse 1-2 units of convalescent plasma for persons with COVID-19.

There is insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19. Existing data suggest that, if a benefit exists, convalescent plasma is most useful when given early and with a high titer of neutralizing antibodies.

The adverse effects of convalescent plasma is very similar to the receipt of other blood products, including allergic reactions to the plasma, transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO), transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), and acquisition of infections, though the latter is rare because of the rigorous screening process.
 

Tocilizumab

Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin (IL)-6 receptors. Tocilizumab is currently FDA approved for the treatment of severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome that is associated with chimeric antigen–receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and for the treatment of rheumatologic disorders.

The interest in using tocilizumab to treat persons with COVID-19 is based on the observations that a subset of patients with COVID-19 develop a severe inflammatory response that can result in cytokine storm resulting in ARDS, multiorgan failure, and potentially death. Very high levels of IL-6 have been observed in these individuals, thereby suggesting IL-6 may play a central role in the acute clinical decompensation seen with severe COVID-19.

The optimal dosing of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19 is not known. The FDA recommends dosing of tocilizumab for cytokine release syndrome should not exceed 800 mg. There is limited data about the potential benefit of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19. The COVACTA trial showed no difference between tocilizumab and placebo in regard to mortality. The time to hospital discharge was shorter in patients treated with tocilizumab; however, the difference was not statistically significant.

Reported adverse effects of tocilizumab include increase in ALT and AST, increased risk of serious infections (especially tuberculosis and invasive fungal infections), reactivation of hepatitis B virus, and rare reports of gastrointestinal perforation.
 

Hydroxychloroquine

Hydroxycholoroquine (HCQ) and its sister drug chloroquine, have been used for many decades as treatment for malaria and autoimmune diseases. HCQ gained widespread popularity in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic when clinical studies showed that it had significant in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, which provided the rationale for its use in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 infection.

It was the first drug that was authorized for emergency use by the FDA during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, On June 15, 2020, because of accumulating harmful data, the FDA revoked the emergency authorization use of HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment.

Randomized controlled trials showed that patients treated with HCQ experienced a longer hospital stay with increase in mortality rates and increased likelihood of being placed on mechanical ventilation. In addition, studies revealed an increase in QT prolongation in patients treated with HCQ, especially when coadministered with azithromycin, which can lead to torsades de pointes, ventricular tachycardia, and sudden cardiac death.

The IDSA and National Institutes of Health, both recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin to treat COVID-19 because the harms outweigh the benefits, even if high quality RCTs were to become available in the future.
 

Other drugs

There have been experimental studies on other medications for the treatment of COVID-19, including losartan, amlodipine, ivermectin, famotidine, Anakinra, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, and Janus kinase inhibitors, such as tofacitinib. Additionally, a few supplements such as vitamin C, vitamin D, and zinc have been used in both inpatient and outpatient settings for COVID-19 treatment. Polyclonal antibodies are being investigated in phase 3 trials. However, the data is insufficient, and the effectiveness of these drugs is unknown. The COVID-19 treatment guidelines panel recommends against the use of these treatment modalities.

Dr Tiyouh is an infectious diseases physician at Keystone Health in Chambersburg, Pa. Dr. Tenneti completed medical school at Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre in Karnataka, India, and is interested in pursuing internal medicine residency. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg Hospital and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, and a member of the editorial advisory board for The Hospitalist.

Sources

Goldman JD et al. Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 May 27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2015301.

Beigel JH et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764

Wang Y et al. Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2020 May 16;395(10236):1569-78.

National Institutes of Health. COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines.

Infectious Diseases Society of America. Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines on the treatment and management of patients with COVID-19.

Joyner et al. Early safety indicators of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 patients. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(9):4791-7.

Luo P et al. Tocilizumab treatment in COVID-19: A single center experience. J Med Virol. 2020 Jul;92(7):814-8.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthcare Workers: Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).

University of Washington. COVID-19 Treatments: Prescribing Information, Clinical Studies, and Slide Decks.