MDedge Pediatrics

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, says an oral drug the company is developing to treat COVID-19 symptoms could be available to the public by the end of the year.

“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.

An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.

“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”

The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.

Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.

The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.

In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.

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

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, says an oral drug the company is developing to treat COVID-19 symptoms could be available to the public by the end of the year.

“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.

An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.

“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”

The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.

Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.

The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.

In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.

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

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, says an oral drug the company is developing to treat COVID-19 symptoms could be available to the public by the end of the year.

“If all goes well, and we implement the same speed that we are, and if regulators do the same, and they are, I hope that (it will be available) by the end of the year,” Dr. Bourla said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

So far, the only antiviral drug authorized for use with COVID-19 is remdesivir, which is produced by Gilead Sciences and must be administered by injection in a health care setting.

An oral drug like the one Pfizer is developing could be taken at home and might keep people out of the hospital.

“Particular attention is on the oral because it provides several advantages,” Dr. Bourla said. “One of them is that you don’t need to go to the hospital to get the treatment, which is the case with all the injectables so far. You could get it at home, and that could be a game-changer.”

The drug might be effective against the emerging variants, he said. Pfizer is also working on an injectable antiviral drug.

Pfizer, with its European partner BioNTech, developed the first coronavirus vaccine authorized for use in the United States and Europe. The Pfizer pill under development would not be a vaccine to protect people from the virus but a drug to treat people who catch the virus.

The company announced in late March that it was starting clinical trials on the oral drug.

In a news release, the company said the oral drug would work by blocking protease, a critical enzyme that the virus needs to replicate. Protease inhibitors are used in medicines to treat HIV and hepatitis C.

A coronavirus vaccine that could be taken as a pill may enter clinical trials in the second quarter of 2021. The oral vaccine is being developed by Oravax Medical, a new joint venture of the Israeli-American company Oramed and the Indian company Premas Biotech. So far, all coronavirus vaccines are injectable.

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

People with psoriasis have a higher risk of infection with COVID-19 than the general population, but some systemic treatments appear to lower risk in patients, compared with those on topical therapy, a new study finds.

“Our study results suggest that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 illness,” study coauthor Jeffrey Liu, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after he presented the findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience. “And our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that certain systemic agents may confer a protective effect against COVID-19 illness.”

Mr. Liu and coinvestigators used a Symphony Health dataset to analyze the health records of 167,027 U.S. patients diagnosed with psoriasis and a control group of 1,002,162 patients. The participants, all at least 20 years old, had been treated for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis from May 2019 through Jan. 1, 2020, and were tracked until Nov. 11, 2020.

The ages and races of peoples in the two groups were roughly similar. Overall, 55% were women and 75% were White, and their average age was 58 years. Type 2 diabetes was more common in the psoriasis group than the control group (23% vs. 16%), as was obesity (27% vs. 15%). Of the patients with psoriasis, 60% were on topical treatments, 19% were on oral therapies, and 22% were on biologic therapy, with only a few taking both oral and biologic therapies.

After adjustment for age and gender, patients with psoriasis were 33% more likely than the control group to develop COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.38; P < .0001).

In a separate analysis, the gap persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities: Patients with psoriasis had a higher rate of COVID-19 infection vs. controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). Among all patients, non-White race, older age, and comorbidities were all linked to higher risk of COVID-19 (all P < .0001).

Psoriasis might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 because the presence of up-regulated genes in psoriatic skin “may lead to systemic hyperinflammation and sensitization of patients with psoriasis to proinflammatory cytokine storm,” Mr. Liu said. This, in turn, may trigger more severe symptomatic disease that requires medical treatment, he said.

Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies

After adjustment for age and gender, those treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors, methotrexate, and apremilast (Otezla) all had statistically lower risks of COVID-19 vs. those on topical therapy (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .0029 for TNF-alpha inhibitors; aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; P < .0001 for methotrexate; and aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; P < .0006 for apremilast).

Reduced risk held true for those in the separate analysis after adjustment for comorbidities and demographics (respectively, aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P < .0469; aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .0011; and aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P < .0014).

Apremilast and methotrexate may boost protection against COVID-19 by inhibiting the body’s production of cytokines, Mr. Liu said.

One message of the study is that “dermatologists should not be scared of prescribing biologics or oral therapies for psoriasis,” the study’s lead author Jashin J. Wu, MD, of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said in an interview.

However, the results on the effects of systemic therapies were not all positive. Interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors were an outlier: After adjustment for age and gender, patients treated with this class of drugs were 36% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those on oral agents (aIRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63; P < .0009).

Among patients on biologics, those taking IL-17 inhibitors had the highest risk of COVID-19, Mr. Liu said. “The risk was higher in this class regardless of reference group – general population, the topical cohort, and the oral cohort,” he said. “This may relate to the observation that this biologic class exerts more broad immunosuppressive effects on antiviral host immunity. Notably, large meta-estimates of pivotal trials have observed increased risk of respiratory tract infections for patients on IL-17 inhibitors.”

In an interview, Erica Dommasch, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, cautioned that “the data from this study is very hard to interpret.”

It’s likely that some patients with psoriasis on systemic medications “may have been the most careful about limiting exposures,” she said. “Thus, it’s hard to account for behavioral changes in individuals that may have led to the decreased incidence in psoriasis in patients on systemic agents versus topical therapy alone.”

Patients with psoriasis may also be tested more often for COVID-19, and unmeasured comorbidities like chronic kidney disease may play a role too, she said. Still, she added, “it’s reassuring that the authors did not find an increased rate of COVID among psoriasis patients on systemic agents versus topicals alone.” And she agreed with Dr. Wu about the importance of treating psoriasis with therapy beyond topical treatments during the pandemic: “Providers should feel comfortable prescribing systemic medications to psoriasis patients when otherwise appropriate.”

As for the next steps, Dr. Wu said, “we will be exploring more about the prognosis of COVID-19 infection in psoriasis patients. In addition, we will be exploring the relationship of COVID-19 infection with other inflammatory skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Wu discloses investigator, consultant, or speaker relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and Zerigo Health. Mr. Liu and Dr. Dommasch have no disclosures.

People with psoriasis have a higher risk of infection with COVID-19 than the general population, but some systemic treatments appear to lower risk in patients, compared with those on topical therapy, a new study finds.

“Our study results suggest that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 illness,” study coauthor Jeffrey Liu, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after he presented the findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience. “And our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that certain systemic agents may confer a protective effect against COVID-19 illness.”

Mr. Liu and coinvestigators used a Symphony Health dataset to analyze the health records of 167,027 U.S. patients diagnosed with psoriasis and a control group of 1,002,162 patients. The participants, all at least 20 years old, had been treated for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis from May 2019 through Jan. 1, 2020, and were tracked until Nov. 11, 2020.

The ages and races of peoples in the two groups were roughly similar. Overall, 55% were women and 75% were White, and their average age was 58 years. Type 2 diabetes was more common in the psoriasis group than the control group (23% vs. 16%), as was obesity (27% vs. 15%). Of the patients with psoriasis, 60% were on topical treatments, 19% were on oral therapies, and 22% were on biologic therapy, with only a few taking both oral and biologic therapies.

After adjustment for age and gender, patients with psoriasis were 33% more likely than the control group to develop COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.38; P < .0001).

In a separate analysis, the gap persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities: Patients with psoriasis had a higher rate of COVID-19 infection vs. controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). Among all patients, non-White race, older age, and comorbidities were all linked to higher risk of COVID-19 (all P < .0001).

Psoriasis might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 because the presence of up-regulated genes in psoriatic skin “may lead to systemic hyperinflammation and sensitization of patients with psoriasis to proinflammatory cytokine storm,” Mr. Liu said. This, in turn, may trigger more severe symptomatic disease that requires medical treatment, he said.

Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies

After adjustment for age and gender, those treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors, methotrexate, and apremilast (Otezla) all had statistically lower risks of COVID-19 vs. those on topical therapy (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .0029 for TNF-alpha inhibitors; aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; P < .0001 for methotrexate; and aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; P < .0006 for apremilast).

Reduced risk held true for those in the separate analysis after adjustment for comorbidities and demographics (respectively, aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P < .0469; aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .0011; and aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P < .0014).

Apremilast and methotrexate may boost protection against COVID-19 by inhibiting the body’s production of cytokines, Mr. Liu said.

One message of the study is that “dermatologists should not be scared of prescribing biologics or oral therapies for psoriasis,” the study’s lead author Jashin J. Wu, MD, of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said in an interview.

However, the results on the effects of systemic therapies were not all positive. Interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors were an outlier: After adjustment for age and gender, patients treated with this class of drugs were 36% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those on oral agents (aIRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63; P < .0009).

Among patients on biologics, those taking IL-17 inhibitors had the highest risk of COVID-19, Mr. Liu said. “The risk was higher in this class regardless of reference group – general population, the topical cohort, and the oral cohort,” he said. “This may relate to the observation that this biologic class exerts more broad immunosuppressive effects on antiviral host immunity. Notably, large meta-estimates of pivotal trials have observed increased risk of respiratory tract infections for patients on IL-17 inhibitors.”

In an interview, Erica Dommasch, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, cautioned that “the data from this study is very hard to interpret.”

It’s likely that some patients with psoriasis on systemic medications “may have been the most careful about limiting exposures,” she said. “Thus, it’s hard to account for behavioral changes in individuals that may have led to the decreased incidence in psoriasis in patients on systemic agents versus topical therapy alone.”

Patients with psoriasis may also be tested more often for COVID-19, and unmeasured comorbidities like chronic kidney disease may play a role too, she said. Still, she added, “it’s reassuring that the authors did not find an increased rate of COVID among psoriasis patients on systemic agents versus topicals alone.” And she agreed with Dr. Wu about the importance of treating psoriasis with therapy beyond topical treatments during the pandemic: “Providers should feel comfortable prescribing systemic medications to psoriasis patients when otherwise appropriate.”

As for the next steps, Dr. Wu said, “we will be exploring more about the prognosis of COVID-19 infection in psoriasis patients. In addition, we will be exploring the relationship of COVID-19 infection with other inflammatory skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Wu discloses investigator, consultant, or speaker relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and Zerigo Health. Mr. Liu and Dr. Dommasch have no disclosures.

People with psoriasis have a higher risk of infection with COVID-19 than the general population, but some systemic treatments appear to lower risk in patients, compared with those on topical therapy, a new study finds.

“Our study results suggest that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for COVID-19 illness,” study coauthor Jeffrey Liu, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after he presented the findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience. “And our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that certain systemic agents may confer a protective effect against COVID-19 illness.”

Mr. Liu and coinvestigators used a Symphony Health dataset to analyze the health records of 167,027 U.S. patients diagnosed with psoriasis and a control group of 1,002,162 patients. The participants, all at least 20 years old, had been treated for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis from May 2019 through Jan. 1, 2020, and were tracked until Nov. 11, 2020.

The ages and races of peoples in the two groups were roughly similar. Overall, 55% were women and 75% were White, and their average age was 58 years. Type 2 diabetes was more common in the psoriasis group than the control group (23% vs. 16%), as was obesity (27% vs. 15%). Of the patients with psoriasis, 60% were on topical treatments, 19% were on oral therapies, and 22% were on biologic therapy, with only a few taking both oral and biologic therapies.

After adjustment for age and gender, patients with psoriasis were 33% more likely than the control group to develop COVID-19 (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.38; P < .0001).

In a separate analysis, the gap persisted after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities: Patients with psoriasis had a higher rate of COVID-19 infection vs. controls (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.23; P < .0001). Among all patients, non-White race, older age, and comorbidities were all linked to higher risk of COVID-19 (all P < .0001).

Psoriasis might make patients more vulnerable to COVID-19 because the presence of up-regulated genes in psoriatic skin “may lead to systemic hyperinflammation and sensitization of patients with psoriasis to proinflammatory cytokine storm,” Mr. Liu said. This, in turn, may trigger more severe symptomatic disease that requires medical treatment, he said.

Reduced risk, compared with topical therapies

After adjustment for age and gender, those treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors, methotrexate, and apremilast (Otezla) all had statistically lower risks of COVID-19 vs. those on topical therapy (aIRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; P < .0029 for TNF-alpha inhibitors; aIRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; P < .0001 for methotrexate; and aIRR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; P < .0006 for apremilast).

Reduced risk held true for those in the separate analysis after adjustment for comorbidities and demographics (respectively, aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P < .0469; aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .0011; and aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P < .0014).

Apremilast and methotrexate may boost protection against COVID-19 by inhibiting the body’s production of cytokines, Mr. Liu said.

One message of the study is that “dermatologists should not be scared of prescribing biologics or oral therapies for psoriasis,” the study’s lead author Jashin J. Wu, MD, of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said in an interview.

However, the results on the effects of systemic therapies were not all positive. Interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors were an outlier: After adjustment for age and gender, patients treated with this class of drugs were 36% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those on oral agents (aIRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.13-1.63; P < .0009).

Among patients on biologics, those taking IL-17 inhibitors had the highest risk of COVID-19, Mr. Liu said. “The risk was higher in this class regardless of reference group – general population, the topical cohort, and the oral cohort,” he said. “This may relate to the observation that this biologic class exerts more broad immunosuppressive effects on antiviral host immunity. Notably, large meta-estimates of pivotal trials have observed increased risk of respiratory tract infections for patients on IL-17 inhibitors.”

In an interview, Erica Dommasch, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, cautioned that “the data from this study is very hard to interpret.”

It’s likely that some patients with psoriasis on systemic medications “may have been the most careful about limiting exposures,” she said. “Thus, it’s hard to account for behavioral changes in individuals that may have led to the decreased incidence in psoriasis in patients on systemic agents versus topical therapy alone.”

Patients with psoriasis may also be tested more often for COVID-19, and unmeasured comorbidities like chronic kidney disease may play a role too, she said. Still, she added, “it’s reassuring that the authors did not find an increased rate of COVID among psoriasis patients on systemic agents versus topicals alone.” And she agreed with Dr. Wu about the importance of treating psoriasis with therapy beyond topical treatments during the pandemic: “Providers should feel comfortable prescribing systemic medications to psoriasis patients when otherwise appropriate.”

As for the next steps, Dr. Wu said, “we will be exploring more about the prognosis of COVID-19 infection in psoriasis patients. In addition, we will be exploring the relationship of COVID-19 infection with other inflammatory skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Wu discloses investigator, consultant, or speaker relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Mindera, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Solius, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and Zerigo Health. Mr. Liu and Dr. Dommasch have no disclosures.

After hinting that new guidelines on outdoor mask-wearing were coming, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 27 officially gave a green light to fully vaccinated people gathering outside in uncrowded activities without the masks that have become so common during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is a minor – but still significant – step toward the end of pandemic restrictions.

“Over the past year, we have spent a lot of time telling Americans what they cannot do, what they should not do,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a White House press briefing. “Today, I’m going to tell you some of the things you can do if you are fully vaccinated.”

President Joe Biden affirmed the new guidelines at a press conference soon after the CDC briefing ended.

“Starting today, if you are fully vaccinated and you’re outdoors and not in a big crowd, you no longer need to wear a mask,” he said, adding “the bottom line is clear: If you’re vaccinated, you can do more things, more safely, both outdoors as well as indoors.”

President Biden emphasized the role science played in the decision, saying “The CDC is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low if you’ve both been fully vaccinated and are out in the open air.”

President Biden also said these new guidelines should be an incentive for more people to get vaccinated. “This is another great reason to go get vaccinated now. Now,” he said.

The CDC has long advised that outdoor activities are safer than indoor activities.

“Most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors. Less than 10% of documented transmissions in many studies have occurred outdoors,” said Dr. Walensky. “We also know there’s almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting, than the outdoor setting.”

Dr. Walensky said the lower risks outdoors, combined with growing vaccination coverage and falling COVID cases around the country, motivated the change.

The new guidelines come as the share of people in the United States who are vaccinated is growing. About 37% of all eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Nearly 54% have had at least one dose.

The new guidelines say unvaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors when gathering with others or dining at an outdoor restaurant.

And vaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors in crowded settings where social distancing might not always be possible, like a concert or sporting event. People are considered fully vaccinated when they are 2 weeks past their last shot

The CDC guidelines say people who live in the same house don’t need to wear masks if they’re exercising or hanging out together outdoors.

You also don’t need a mask if you’re attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends, whether you’re vaccinated or not.

The new guidelines also say it’s OK for fully vaccinated people to take their masks off outdoors when gathering in a small group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but suggest that unvaccinated people should still wear a mask.



Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.

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

After hinting that new guidelines on outdoor mask-wearing were coming, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 27 officially gave a green light to fully vaccinated people gathering outside in uncrowded activities without the masks that have become so common during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is a minor – but still significant – step toward the end of pandemic restrictions.

“Over the past year, we have spent a lot of time telling Americans what they cannot do, what they should not do,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a White House press briefing. “Today, I’m going to tell you some of the things you can do if you are fully vaccinated.”

President Joe Biden affirmed the new guidelines at a press conference soon after the CDC briefing ended.

“Starting today, if you are fully vaccinated and you’re outdoors and not in a big crowd, you no longer need to wear a mask,” he said, adding “the bottom line is clear: If you’re vaccinated, you can do more things, more safely, both outdoors as well as indoors.”

President Biden emphasized the role science played in the decision, saying “The CDC is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low if you’ve both been fully vaccinated and are out in the open air.”

President Biden also said these new guidelines should be an incentive for more people to get vaccinated. “This is another great reason to go get vaccinated now. Now,” he said.

The CDC has long advised that outdoor activities are safer than indoor activities.

“Most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors. Less than 10% of documented transmissions in many studies have occurred outdoors,” said Dr. Walensky. “We also know there’s almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting, than the outdoor setting.”

Dr. Walensky said the lower risks outdoors, combined with growing vaccination coverage and falling COVID cases around the country, motivated the change.

The new guidelines come as the share of people in the United States who are vaccinated is growing. About 37% of all eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Nearly 54% have had at least one dose.

The new guidelines say unvaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors when gathering with others or dining at an outdoor restaurant.

And vaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors in crowded settings where social distancing might not always be possible, like a concert or sporting event. People are considered fully vaccinated when they are 2 weeks past their last shot

The CDC guidelines say people who live in the same house don’t need to wear masks if they’re exercising or hanging out together outdoors.

You also don’t need a mask if you’re attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends, whether you’re vaccinated or not.

The new guidelines also say it’s OK for fully vaccinated people to take their masks off outdoors when gathering in a small group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but suggest that unvaccinated people should still wear a mask.



Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.

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

After hinting that new guidelines on outdoor mask-wearing were coming, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on April 27 officially gave a green light to fully vaccinated people gathering outside in uncrowded activities without the masks that have become so common during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is a minor – but still significant – step toward the end of pandemic restrictions.

“Over the past year, we have spent a lot of time telling Americans what they cannot do, what they should not do,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a White House press briefing. “Today, I’m going to tell you some of the things you can do if you are fully vaccinated.”

President Joe Biden affirmed the new guidelines at a press conference soon after the CDC briefing ended.

“Starting today, if you are fully vaccinated and you’re outdoors and not in a big crowd, you no longer need to wear a mask,” he said, adding “the bottom line is clear: If you’re vaccinated, you can do more things, more safely, both outdoors as well as indoors.”

President Biden emphasized the role science played in the decision, saying “The CDC is able to make this announcement because our scientists are convinced by the data that the odds of getting or giving the virus to others is very, very low if you’ve both been fully vaccinated and are out in the open air.”

President Biden also said these new guidelines should be an incentive for more people to get vaccinated. “This is another great reason to go get vaccinated now. Now,” he said.

The CDC has long advised that outdoor activities are safer than indoor activities.

“Most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors. Less than 10% of documented transmissions in many studies have occurred outdoors,” said Dr. Walensky. “We also know there’s almost a 20-fold increased risk of transmission in the indoor setting, than the outdoor setting.”

Dr. Walensky said the lower risks outdoors, combined with growing vaccination coverage and falling COVID cases around the country, motivated the change.

The new guidelines come as the share of people in the United States who are vaccinated is growing. About 37% of all eligible Americans are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Nearly 54% have had at least one dose.

The new guidelines say unvaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors when gathering with others or dining at an outdoor restaurant.

And vaccinated people should continue to wear masks outdoors in crowded settings where social distancing might not always be possible, like a concert or sporting event. People are considered fully vaccinated when they are 2 weeks past their last shot

The CDC guidelines say people who live in the same house don’t need to wear masks if they’re exercising or hanging out together outdoors.

You also don’t need a mask if you’re attending a small, outdoor gathering with fully vaccinated family and friends, whether you’re vaccinated or not.

The new guidelines also say it’s OK for fully vaccinated people to take their masks off outdoors when gathering in a small group of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but suggest that unvaccinated people should still wear a mask.



Reporter Marcia Frellick contributed to this report.

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

Further evidence supporting the safety of two antiseizure medications in pregnancy has come from a new study. The Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD) study found no difference in neurobehavioral development in children at age 3 born to women with epilepsy compared with children of healthy women without epilepsy. Most of the women with epilepsy in the study took either lamotrigine or levetiracetam, or a combination of the two, during their pregnancy.

However, a secondary analysis suggested a possible signal of exposure-dependent effects on child outcomes – worse outcomes with higher exposure levels – with levetiracetam.

The results were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Additional reassurance

“Our new study adds confidence to the use of lamotrigine and levetiracetam during pregnancy, adding larger numbers with a new cohort. In addition, it provides some preliminary data on some of the other new antiseizure medications, and it is the first study to address the effects of clearance in pregnancy to better assess exposure,” said lead investigator, Kimford J. Meador, MD. “Overall, I am reassured by this data, but there is still a lot that is unknown,” he added.

“Our main results show no difference in verbal index or general conceptual ability scores in children born to women with epilepsy compared to children born to healthy women. This is a big positive message,” Dr. Meador said.   

In terms of secondary analysis focusing on exposure levels (dose and blood levels of antiseizure medications), there was no overall signal of harm when looking at the whole group, but when the researchers analyzed the data on individual drugs, they found a “slight signal” toward reduced verbal index scores with increasing exposure levels with levetiracetam. No differences were seen on general conceptual ability. 

“In the secondary analysis, there was a marginal signal for exposure levels with levetiracetam, with increased blood levels of the drug associated with reduced verbal index scores,” reported Dr. Meador, professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University. “We saw some signal in the children when they were 2 years old, and this was still there but not as striking at 3 years old.” 

He said these secondary results should be interpreted with extreme caution. “We don’t want to overemphasize these secondary findings, as the primary outcome showed no difference, and there was no effect on exposure levels when looking at all the drugs together. I don’t want to oversimplify this, as I am still not sure whether this is a real association or not,” Dr. Meador commented.

He explained that conducting neurobehavioral tests on 2- and 3-year-olds was very difficult. “It is more of an art form than science, and as the children get older these signals often dissipate. We will know more by the time they are 6, when these tests become easier to conduct,” he said. He also noted that the results would need to be replicated in a different cohort.

“I don’t think these results would change how we manage women during pregnancy in terms of using levetiracetam. It is still a safe drug during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said.

He pointed out that data on safety in pregnancy is only available for very few antiseizure drugs. “There are over 30 antiseizure medications, but we have adequate data in pregnancy on only a handful. We have data suggesting lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine appear to be relatively safe, and evidence showing phenobarbital and valproate are not safe.”

Antiseizure medications as a class are among the most commonly prescribed teratogenic drugs given to women of childbearing age, Dr. Meador noted. They are used not only for epilepsy but also for many other psychiatric and pain indications, so these results are applicable to quite a broad population, he added.

He pointed out that previous studies did not assess exposure using blood levels, which is important, as clearance of drug increases during pregnancy but varies across antiseizure medications and across individuals on the same drug. “Thus, it is unclear if these changes could obscure exposure-dependent effects. Our present studies assessed blood levels to better measure fetal exposure.”
 

Advice for pregnant patients with epilepsy

Dr. Meador explained that risk for adverse effects with antiseizure medication always needs to be balanced with risk for seizures if the medication was not used.

“In women planning a pregnancy, we recommend that they plan ahead with their physician to try and use the safest antiseizure medication and gain good control beforehand and then maintain the same blood levels of whichever drug is being used during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said. “At present, lamotrigine and levetiracetam are the two safest drugs to use in pregnancy. They both look generally very safe compared with some other epilepsy drugs – such as valproate, which poses a serious risk to cognitive and behavioral development.” 

He also advised that women should be taking folic acid regularly, as this has been shown to be related to improved cognitive and behavioral outcomes. “Since half of pregnancies are not planned, it is important to take these actions before pregnancy,” he added.

The current study involved 289 women with epilepsy and 89 women without epilepsy, all of whom enrolled in the study during pregnancy. Use of antiseizure medications was recorded. Of the women with epilepsy, 74% were on monotherapy, with 43% on lamotrigine and 37% on levetiracetam. There were 4% who took no drug and 22% took more than one drug. Of those who took more than one drug, close to half took a combination of lamotrigine and levetiracetam. Levels of medications in the blood of the women with epilepsy were measured in the third trimester.
 

Assessment of neurobehavioral development

For the current analysis, the children were evaluated at age 3 with a series of cognitive and developmental tests that measured vocabulary, listening comprehension, number recall, and pattern recognition, and results were adjusted for mother’s IQ, education level, age at enrollment, postbirth average BAI (Beck Anxiety Inventory score), and child’s ethnicity, sex, and breastfeeding status.

The primary outcome showed that verbal Index scores at age 3 did not differ for children of women with epilepsy versus those for children of women without epilepsy (LS mean 102.7 vs. 102.1).

Antiseizure medication exposure as evident by the maximum third trimester blood levels was not related to verbal index scores (n = 265; adjusted parameter estimate, -1.9; 95% confidence interval, -6.8 to 3.1).

General conceptual ability scores also did not differ between the two groups: 105.1 for children of women with epilepsy versus 103.5 for children of healthy women.

In terms of exposure levels, the third trimester maximum observed ratio of antiseizure medication blood levels was not significantly associated with adjusted general conceptual ability scores for children of women with epilepsy; neither were monotherapies or polytherapies evaluated separately, Dr. Meador reported.

However, when the verbal index scores for the main antiepileptic drug groups were analyzed separately, exposure level to levetiracetam was the only one that was significant, with a P value of .028. But Dr. Meador again stressed that this finding should be interpreted with caution given that it is a secondary exploratory analysis without control for multiple comparisons.

The researchers plan to assess these children at older ages where evaluations are more sensitive to ultimate outcomes.

“Information on use in pregnancy for most antiseizure medications is still unknown, so further studies to assess risks for the newer antiseizure medications are needed,” Dr. Meador added. “Further, additional research is needed on the underlying mechanisms including genetic predispositions, since teratogens act on a susceptible genotype.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

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

Further evidence supporting the safety of two antiseizure medications in pregnancy has come from a new study. The Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD) study found no difference in neurobehavioral development in children at age 3 born to women with epilepsy compared with children of healthy women without epilepsy. Most of the women with epilepsy in the study took either lamotrigine or levetiracetam, or a combination of the two, during their pregnancy.

However, a secondary analysis suggested a possible signal of exposure-dependent effects on child outcomes – worse outcomes with higher exposure levels – with levetiracetam.

The results were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Additional reassurance

“Our new study adds confidence to the use of lamotrigine and levetiracetam during pregnancy, adding larger numbers with a new cohort. In addition, it provides some preliminary data on some of the other new antiseizure medications, and it is the first study to address the effects of clearance in pregnancy to better assess exposure,” said lead investigator, Kimford J. Meador, MD. “Overall, I am reassured by this data, but there is still a lot that is unknown,” he added.

“Our main results show no difference in verbal index or general conceptual ability scores in children born to women with epilepsy compared to children born to healthy women. This is a big positive message,” Dr. Meador said.   

In terms of secondary analysis focusing on exposure levels (dose and blood levels of antiseizure medications), there was no overall signal of harm when looking at the whole group, but when the researchers analyzed the data on individual drugs, they found a “slight signal” toward reduced verbal index scores with increasing exposure levels with levetiracetam. No differences were seen on general conceptual ability. 

“In the secondary analysis, there was a marginal signal for exposure levels with levetiracetam, with increased blood levels of the drug associated with reduced verbal index scores,” reported Dr. Meador, professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University. “We saw some signal in the children when they were 2 years old, and this was still there but not as striking at 3 years old.” 

He said these secondary results should be interpreted with extreme caution. “We don’t want to overemphasize these secondary findings, as the primary outcome showed no difference, and there was no effect on exposure levels when looking at all the drugs together. I don’t want to oversimplify this, as I am still not sure whether this is a real association or not,” Dr. Meador commented.

He explained that conducting neurobehavioral tests on 2- and 3-year-olds was very difficult. “It is more of an art form than science, and as the children get older these signals often dissipate. We will know more by the time they are 6, when these tests become easier to conduct,” he said. He also noted that the results would need to be replicated in a different cohort.

“I don’t think these results would change how we manage women during pregnancy in terms of using levetiracetam. It is still a safe drug during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said.

He pointed out that data on safety in pregnancy is only available for very few antiseizure drugs. “There are over 30 antiseizure medications, but we have adequate data in pregnancy on only a handful. We have data suggesting lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine appear to be relatively safe, and evidence showing phenobarbital and valproate are not safe.”

Antiseizure medications as a class are among the most commonly prescribed teratogenic drugs given to women of childbearing age, Dr. Meador noted. They are used not only for epilepsy but also for many other psychiatric and pain indications, so these results are applicable to quite a broad population, he added.

He pointed out that previous studies did not assess exposure using blood levels, which is important, as clearance of drug increases during pregnancy but varies across antiseizure medications and across individuals on the same drug. “Thus, it is unclear if these changes could obscure exposure-dependent effects. Our present studies assessed blood levels to better measure fetal exposure.”
 

Advice for pregnant patients with epilepsy

Dr. Meador explained that risk for adverse effects with antiseizure medication always needs to be balanced with risk for seizures if the medication was not used.

“In women planning a pregnancy, we recommend that they plan ahead with their physician to try and use the safest antiseizure medication and gain good control beforehand and then maintain the same blood levels of whichever drug is being used during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said. “At present, lamotrigine and levetiracetam are the two safest drugs to use in pregnancy. They both look generally very safe compared with some other epilepsy drugs – such as valproate, which poses a serious risk to cognitive and behavioral development.” 

He also advised that women should be taking folic acid regularly, as this has been shown to be related to improved cognitive and behavioral outcomes. “Since half of pregnancies are not planned, it is important to take these actions before pregnancy,” he added.

The current study involved 289 women with epilepsy and 89 women without epilepsy, all of whom enrolled in the study during pregnancy. Use of antiseizure medications was recorded. Of the women with epilepsy, 74% were on monotherapy, with 43% on lamotrigine and 37% on levetiracetam. There were 4% who took no drug and 22% took more than one drug. Of those who took more than one drug, close to half took a combination of lamotrigine and levetiracetam. Levels of medications in the blood of the women with epilepsy were measured in the third trimester.
 

Assessment of neurobehavioral development

For the current analysis, the children were evaluated at age 3 with a series of cognitive and developmental tests that measured vocabulary, listening comprehension, number recall, and pattern recognition, and results were adjusted for mother’s IQ, education level, age at enrollment, postbirth average BAI (Beck Anxiety Inventory score), and child’s ethnicity, sex, and breastfeeding status.

The primary outcome showed that verbal Index scores at age 3 did not differ for children of women with epilepsy versus those for children of women without epilepsy (LS mean 102.7 vs. 102.1).

Antiseizure medication exposure as evident by the maximum third trimester blood levels was not related to verbal index scores (n = 265; adjusted parameter estimate, -1.9; 95% confidence interval, -6.8 to 3.1).

General conceptual ability scores also did not differ between the two groups: 105.1 for children of women with epilepsy versus 103.5 for children of healthy women.

In terms of exposure levels, the third trimester maximum observed ratio of antiseizure medication blood levels was not significantly associated with adjusted general conceptual ability scores for children of women with epilepsy; neither were monotherapies or polytherapies evaluated separately, Dr. Meador reported.

However, when the verbal index scores for the main antiepileptic drug groups were analyzed separately, exposure level to levetiracetam was the only one that was significant, with a P value of .028. But Dr. Meador again stressed that this finding should be interpreted with caution given that it is a secondary exploratory analysis without control for multiple comparisons.

The researchers plan to assess these children at older ages where evaluations are more sensitive to ultimate outcomes.

“Information on use in pregnancy for most antiseizure medications is still unknown, so further studies to assess risks for the newer antiseizure medications are needed,” Dr. Meador added. “Further, additional research is needed on the underlying mechanisms including genetic predispositions, since teratogens act on a susceptible genotype.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

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

Further evidence supporting the safety of two antiseizure medications in pregnancy has come from a new study. The Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD) study found no difference in neurobehavioral development in children at age 3 born to women with epilepsy compared with children of healthy women without epilepsy. Most of the women with epilepsy in the study took either lamotrigine or levetiracetam, or a combination of the two, during their pregnancy.

However, a secondary analysis suggested a possible signal of exposure-dependent effects on child outcomes – worse outcomes with higher exposure levels – with levetiracetam.

The results were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Additional reassurance

“Our new study adds confidence to the use of lamotrigine and levetiracetam during pregnancy, adding larger numbers with a new cohort. In addition, it provides some preliminary data on some of the other new antiseizure medications, and it is the first study to address the effects of clearance in pregnancy to better assess exposure,” said lead investigator, Kimford J. Meador, MD. “Overall, I am reassured by this data, but there is still a lot that is unknown,” he added.

“Our main results show no difference in verbal index or general conceptual ability scores in children born to women with epilepsy compared to children born to healthy women. This is a big positive message,” Dr. Meador said.   

In terms of secondary analysis focusing on exposure levels (dose and blood levels of antiseizure medications), there was no overall signal of harm when looking at the whole group, but when the researchers analyzed the data on individual drugs, they found a “slight signal” toward reduced verbal index scores with increasing exposure levels with levetiracetam. No differences were seen on general conceptual ability. 

“In the secondary analysis, there was a marginal signal for exposure levels with levetiracetam, with increased blood levels of the drug associated with reduced verbal index scores,” reported Dr. Meador, professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University. “We saw some signal in the children when they were 2 years old, and this was still there but not as striking at 3 years old.” 

He said these secondary results should be interpreted with extreme caution. “We don’t want to overemphasize these secondary findings, as the primary outcome showed no difference, and there was no effect on exposure levels when looking at all the drugs together. I don’t want to oversimplify this, as I am still not sure whether this is a real association or not,” Dr. Meador commented.

He explained that conducting neurobehavioral tests on 2- and 3-year-olds was very difficult. “It is more of an art form than science, and as the children get older these signals often dissipate. We will know more by the time they are 6, when these tests become easier to conduct,” he said. He also noted that the results would need to be replicated in a different cohort.

“I don’t think these results would change how we manage women during pregnancy in terms of using levetiracetam. It is still a safe drug during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said.

He pointed out that data on safety in pregnancy is only available for very few antiseizure drugs. “There are over 30 antiseizure medications, but we have adequate data in pregnancy on only a handful. We have data suggesting lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine appear to be relatively safe, and evidence showing phenobarbital and valproate are not safe.”

Antiseizure medications as a class are among the most commonly prescribed teratogenic drugs given to women of childbearing age, Dr. Meador noted. They are used not only for epilepsy but also for many other psychiatric and pain indications, so these results are applicable to quite a broad population, he added.

He pointed out that previous studies did not assess exposure using blood levels, which is important, as clearance of drug increases during pregnancy but varies across antiseizure medications and across individuals on the same drug. “Thus, it is unclear if these changes could obscure exposure-dependent effects. Our present studies assessed blood levels to better measure fetal exposure.”
 

Advice for pregnant patients with epilepsy

Dr. Meador explained that risk for adverse effects with antiseizure medication always needs to be balanced with risk for seizures if the medication was not used.

“In women planning a pregnancy, we recommend that they plan ahead with their physician to try and use the safest antiseizure medication and gain good control beforehand and then maintain the same blood levels of whichever drug is being used during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said. “At present, lamotrigine and levetiracetam are the two safest drugs to use in pregnancy. They both look generally very safe compared with some other epilepsy drugs – such as valproate, which poses a serious risk to cognitive and behavioral development.” 

He also advised that women should be taking folic acid regularly, as this has been shown to be related to improved cognitive and behavioral outcomes. “Since half of pregnancies are not planned, it is important to take these actions before pregnancy,” he added.

The current study involved 289 women with epilepsy and 89 women without epilepsy, all of whom enrolled in the study during pregnancy. Use of antiseizure medications was recorded. Of the women with epilepsy, 74% were on monotherapy, with 43% on lamotrigine and 37% on levetiracetam. There were 4% who took no drug and 22% took more than one drug. Of those who took more than one drug, close to half took a combination of lamotrigine and levetiracetam. Levels of medications in the blood of the women with epilepsy were measured in the third trimester.
 

Assessment of neurobehavioral development

For the current analysis, the children were evaluated at age 3 with a series of cognitive and developmental tests that measured vocabulary, listening comprehension, number recall, and pattern recognition, and results were adjusted for mother’s IQ, education level, age at enrollment, postbirth average BAI (Beck Anxiety Inventory score), and child’s ethnicity, sex, and breastfeeding status.

The primary outcome showed that verbal Index scores at age 3 did not differ for children of women with epilepsy versus those for children of women without epilepsy (LS mean 102.7 vs. 102.1).

Antiseizure medication exposure as evident by the maximum third trimester blood levels was not related to verbal index scores (n = 265; adjusted parameter estimate, -1.9; 95% confidence interval, -6.8 to 3.1).

General conceptual ability scores also did not differ between the two groups: 105.1 for children of women with epilepsy versus 103.5 for children of healthy women.

In terms of exposure levels, the third trimester maximum observed ratio of antiseizure medication blood levels was not significantly associated with adjusted general conceptual ability scores for children of women with epilepsy; neither were monotherapies or polytherapies evaluated separately, Dr. Meador reported.

However, when the verbal index scores for the main antiepileptic drug groups were analyzed separately, exposure level to levetiracetam was the only one that was significant, with a P value of .028. But Dr. Meador again stressed that this finding should be interpreted with caution given that it is a secondary exploratory analysis without control for multiple comparisons.

The researchers plan to assess these children at older ages where evaluations are more sensitive to ultimate outcomes.

“Information on use in pregnancy for most antiseizure medications is still unknown, so further studies to assess risks for the newer antiseizure medications are needed,” Dr. Meador added. “Further, additional research is needed on the underlying mechanisms including genetic predispositions, since teratogens act on a susceptible genotype.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

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

A common cause of infant morbidity and hospitalization in developed countries, infant viral bronchiolitis, has long been bedeviled by treatment uncertainty beyond supportive care.

Rationales for most pharmacologic treatments continue to be debated, and clinical practice guidelines generally advise respiratory and hydration support, discouraging the use of chest radiography, albuterol, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and epinephrine.

Despite evidence that the latter interventions are ineffective, they are still too often applied, according to two recent studies, one in Pediatrics, the other in JAMA Pediatrics.

“The pull of the therapeutic vacuum surrounding this disease has been noted in the pages of this journal for at least 50 years, with Wright and Beem writing in 1965 that ‘energies should not be frittered away by the annoyance of unnecessary or futile medications and procedures’ for the child with bronchiolitis,” said emergency physicians Matthew J. Lipshaw, MD, MS, of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and Todd A. Florin, MD, MSCE, of Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

These remarks came in their editorial in Pediatrics wryly titled: “Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There” and published online to accompany a recent study of three network meta-analyses.

Led by Sarah A. Elliott, PhD, of the Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, this analysis amalgamated 150 randomized, controlled trials comparing a placebo or active comparator with any bronchodilator, glucocorticoid steroid, hypertonic saline solution, antibiotic, helium-oxygen therapy, or high-flow oxygen therapy. It then looked at the following outcomes in children aged 2 years and younger: hospital admission rate on day 1, hospital admission rate within 7 days, and total hospital length of stay.

Few treatments seemed more effective than nebulized placebo (0.9% saline) for short-term outcomes, the authors found. While nebulized epinephrine and nebulized hypertonic saline plus salbutamol appeared to reduce admission rates during the index ED presentation, and hypertonic saline, alone or in combination with epinephrine, seemed to reduce hospital stays, such treatment had no effect on admissions within 7 days of initial presentation. Furthermore, most benefits disappeared in higher-quality studies.

Concluding, albeit with weak evidence and low confidence, that some benefit might accrue with hypertonic saline with salbutamol to reduce admission rates on initial presentation to the ED, the authors called for well-designed studies on treatments in inpatients and outpatients.

According to Dr. Lipshaw, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics, the lack of benefit observed in superior studies limits the applicability of Dr. Elliott and colleagues’ results to immediate clinical practice. “These findings could be used, however, to target future high-quality studies toward the medications that they found might be useful,” he said in an interview.

For the present, other recent research augurs well for strategically reducing unnecessary care. In a paper published online in JAMA Pediatrics, Libby Haskell, MN, of the ED at Starship Children’s Hospital in Auckland, New Zealand, and associates reported on a cluster-randomized, controlled trial of targeted interventions.

Conducted in 2017 at 26 hospitals and with 3,727 babies in New Zealand and Australia, the study addressed drivers of non–evidence-based approaches with behavior-modifying approaches such as on-site clinical leads, stakeholder meetings, a train-the-trainer workshop, education, and audit and feedback.

The authors reported a 14.1% difference in rates of compliance during the first 24 hours of hospitalization favoring the intervention group for all five bronchiolitis guideline recommendations. The greatest change was seen in albuterol and chest radiography use, with other improvements in ED visits, inpatient consultations, and throughout hospitalization.

“These results provide clinicians and hospitals with clear implementation strategies to address unnecessary treatment of infants with bronchiolitis,” Dr. Haskell’s group wrote. Dr. Lipshaw agreed that multifaceted deimplementation packages including clinician and family education, audit and feedback, and clinical decision support have been successful. “Haskell et al. demonstrated that it is possible to successfully deimplement non–evidence-based practices for bronchiolitis with targeted inventions,” he said. “It would be wonderful to see their success replicated in the U.S.”


 

Why the slow adoption of guidelines?

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued bronchiolitis guidelines for babies to 23 months in 2014 and updated them in 2018. Why, then, has care in some centers been seemingly all over the map and counter to guidelines? “Both parents and clinicians are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of the child, and in the absence of high-value interventions, can feel the need to do something, even if that something is not supported by evidence,” Dr. Lipshaw said. 

Furthermore, with children in obvious distress, breathing fast and with difficulty, and sometimes unable to eat or drink, “we feel like we should have some way to make them feel better quicker. Unfortunately, none of the medications we have tried seem to be useful for most children, and we are left with supportive care measures such as suctioning their noses, giving them oxygen if their oxygen is low, and giving them fluids if they are dehydrated.”

Other physicians agree that taking a less-is-more approach can be challenging and even counterintuitive. “To families, seeing their child’s doctor ‘doing less’ can be frustrating,” admitted Diana S. Lee, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Beyond that, altering practice behavior will need more than guidelines, Dr. Lee said in an interview. “Haskell et al. showed targeted behavior-change interventions improved compliance with bronchiolitis guidelines, but such change requires motivation and resources, and the sustainability of this effect over time remains to be seen.”

At Dr. Lipshaw’s institution, treatment depends on the attending physician, “but we have an emergency department care algorithm, which does not recommend any inhaled medications or steroids in accordance with the 2014 AAP guidelines,” he said.

Similarly at Mount Sinai, practitioners strive to follow the AAP guidelines, although their implementation has not been immediate, Dr. Lee said. “This is a situation where we must make the effort to choose not to do more, given current evidence.”

But Michelle Dunn, MD, an attending physician in the division of general pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said the American practice norm already tends more to the observance than the breach of the guidelines, noting that since 2014 quality improvement efforts have been made throughout the country. “At our institution, we have effectively reduced the use of albuterol in patients with bronchiolitis and we use evidence-based therapy as much as possible, which in the case of bronchiolitis generally involves supportive management alone,” she said in an interview.

Still, Dr. Dunn added, many patients receive unnecessary diagnostic testing and ineffective therapies, with some providers facing psychological barriers to doing less. “However, with more and more evidence to support this, hopefully, physicians will become more comfortable with this.”

To that end, Dr. Lipshaw’s editorial urges physicians to “curb the rampant use of therapies repeatedly revealed to be ineffective,” citing team engagement, clear practice guidelines, and information technology as key factors in deimplementation. In the meantime, his mantra remains: “Don’t just do something, stand there.”

The study by Dr. Elliot and colleagues was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Knowledge Synthesis grant program. One coauthor is supported by a University of Ottawa Tier I Research Chair in Pediatric Emergency Medicine. Another is supported by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis and Translation and the Stollery Science Laboratory. Dr. Lipshaw and Dr. Florin disclosed no financial relationships relevant to their commentary. Dr. Haskell and colleagues were supported, variously, by the National Health and Medical Research Council of New Zealand, the Center of Research Excellence for Pediatric Emergency Medicine, the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program, Cure Kids New Zealand, the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation, and the Starship Foundation. Dr. Lee and Dr. Dunn had no competing interests to disclose with regard to their comments.

A common cause of infant morbidity and hospitalization in developed countries, infant viral bronchiolitis, has long been bedeviled by treatment uncertainty beyond supportive care.

Rationales for most pharmacologic treatments continue to be debated, and clinical practice guidelines generally advise respiratory and hydration support, discouraging the use of chest radiography, albuterol, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and epinephrine.

Despite evidence that the latter interventions are ineffective, they are still too often applied, according to two recent studies, one in Pediatrics, the other in JAMA Pediatrics.

“The pull of the therapeutic vacuum surrounding this disease has been noted in the pages of this journal for at least 50 years, with Wright and Beem writing in 1965 that ‘energies should not be frittered away by the annoyance of unnecessary or futile medications and procedures’ for the child with bronchiolitis,” said emergency physicians Matthew J. Lipshaw, MD, MS, of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and Todd A. Florin, MD, MSCE, of Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

These remarks came in their editorial in Pediatrics wryly titled: “Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There” and published online to accompany a recent study of three network meta-analyses.

Led by Sarah A. Elliott, PhD, of the Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, this analysis amalgamated 150 randomized, controlled trials comparing a placebo or active comparator with any bronchodilator, glucocorticoid steroid, hypertonic saline solution, antibiotic, helium-oxygen therapy, or high-flow oxygen therapy. It then looked at the following outcomes in children aged 2 years and younger: hospital admission rate on day 1, hospital admission rate within 7 days, and total hospital length of stay.

Few treatments seemed more effective than nebulized placebo (0.9% saline) for short-term outcomes, the authors found. While nebulized epinephrine and nebulized hypertonic saline plus salbutamol appeared to reduce admission rates during the index ED presentation, and hypertonic saline, alone or in combination with epinephrine, seemed to reduce hospital stays, such treatment had no effect on admissions within 7 days of initial presentation. Furthermore, most benefits disappeared in higher-quality studies.

Concluding, albeit with weak evidence and low confidence, that some benefit might accrue with hypertonic saline with salbutamol to reduce admission rates on initial presentation to the ED, the authors called for well-designed studies on treatments in inpatients and outpatients.

According to Dr. Lipshaw, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics, the lack of benefit observed in superior studies limits the applicability of Dr. Elliott and colleagues’ results to immediate clinical practice. “These findings could be used, however, to target future high-quality studies toward the medications that they found might be useful,” he said in an interview.

For the present, other recent research augurs well for strategically reducing unnecessary care. In a paper published online in JAMA Pediatrics, Libby Haskell, MN, of the ED at Starship Children’s Hospital in Auckland, New Zealand, and associates reported on a cluster-randomized, controlled trial of targeted interventions.

Conducted in 2017 at 26 hospitals and with 3,727 babies in New Zealand and Australia, the study addressed drivers of non–evidence-based approaches with behavior-modifying approaches such as on-site clinical leads, stakeholder meetings, a train-the-trainer workshop, education, and audit and feedback.

The authors reported a 14.1% difference in rates of compliance during the first 24 hours of hospitalization favoring the intervention group for all five bronchiolitis guideline recommendations. The greatest change was seen in albuterol and chest radiography use, with other improvements in ED visits, inpatient consultations, and throughout hospitalization.

“These results provide clinicians and hospitals with clear implementation strategies to address unnecessary treatment of infants with bronchiolitis,” Dr. Haskell’s group wrote. Dr. Lipshaw agreed that multifaceted deimplementation packages including clinician and family education, audit and feedback, and clinical decision support have been successful. “Haskell et al. demonstrated that it is possible to successfully deimplement non–evidence-based practices for bronchiolitis with targeted inventions,” he said. “It would be wonderful to see their success replicated in the U.S.”


 

Why the slow adoption of guidelines?

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued bronchiolitis guidelines for babies to 23 months in 2014 and updated them in 2018. Why, then, has care in some centers been seemingly all over the map and counter to guidelines? “Both parents and clinicians are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of the child, and in the absence of high-value interventions, can feel the need to do something, even if that something is not supported by evidence,” Dr. Lipshaw said. 

Furthermore, with children in obvious distress, breathing fast and with difficulty, and sometimes unable to eat or drink, “we feel like we should have some way to make them feel better quicker. Unfortunately, none of the medications we have tried seem to be useful for most children, and we are left with supportive care measures such as suctioning their noses, giving them oxygen if their oxygen is low, and giving them fluids if they are dehydrated.”

Other physicians agree that taking a less-is-more approach can be challenging and even counterintuitive. “To families, seeing their child’s doctor ‘doing less’ can be frustrating,” admitted Diana S. Lee, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Beyond that, altering practice behavior will need more than guidelines, Dr. Lee said in an interview. “Haskell et al. showed targeted behavior-change interventions improved compliance with bronchiolitis guidelines, but such change requires motivation and resources, and the sustainability of this effect over time remains to be seen.”

At Dr. Lipshaw’s institution, treatment depends on the attending physician, “but we have an emergency department care algorithm, which does not recommend any inhaled medications or steroids in accordance with the 2014 AAP guidelines,” he said.

Similarly at Mount Sinai, practitioners strive to follow the AAP guidelines, although their implementation has not been immediate, Dr. Lee said. “This is a situation where we must make the effort to choose not to do more, given current evidence.”

But Michelle Dunn, MD, an attending physician in the division of general pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said the American practice norm already tends more to the observance than the breach of the guidelines, noting that since 2014 quality improvement efforts have been made throughout the country. “At our institution, we have effectively reduced the use of albuterol in patients with bronchiolitis and we use evidence-based therapy as much as possible, which in the case of bronchiolitis generally involves supportive management alone,” she said in an interview.

Still, Dr. Dunn added, many patients receive unnecessary diagnostic testing and ineffective therapies, with some providers facing psychological barriers to doing less. “However, with more and more evidence to support this, hopefully, physicians will become more comfortable with this.”

To that end, Dr. Lipshaw’s editorial urges physicians to “curb the rampant use of therapies repeatedly revealed to be ineffective,” citing team engagement, clear practice guidelines, and information technology as key factors in deimplementation. In the meantime, his mantra remains: “Don’t just do something, stand there.”

The study by Dr. Elliot and colleagues was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Knowledge Synthesis grant program. One coauthor is supported by a University of Ottawa Tier I Research Chair in Pediatric Emergency Medicine. Another is supported by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis and Translation and the Stollery Science Laboratory. Dr. Lipshaw and Dr. Florin disclosed no financial relationships relevant to their commentary. Dr. Haskell and colleagues were supported, variously, by the National Health and Medical Research Council of New Zealand, the Center of Research Excellence for Pediatric Emergency Medicine, the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program, Cure Kids New Zealand, the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation, and the Starship Foundation. Dr. Lee and Dr. Dunn had no competing interests to disclose with regard to their comments.

A common cause of infant morbidity and hospitalization in developed countries, infant viral bronchiolitis, has long been bedeviled by treatment uncertainty beyond supportive care.

Rationales for most pharmacologic treatments continue to be debated, and clinical practice guidelines generally advise respiratory and hydration support, discouraging the use of chest radiography, albuterol, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and epinephrine.

Despite evidence that the latter interventions are ineffective, they are still too often applied, according to two recent studies, one in Pediatrics, the other in JAMA Pediatrics.

“The pull of the therapeutic vacuum surrounding this disease has been noted in the pages of this journal for at least 50 years, with Wright and Beem writing in 1965 that ‘energies should not be frittered away by the annoyance of unnecessary or futile medications and procedures’ for the child with bronchiolitis,” said emergency physicians Matthew J. Lipshaw, MD, MS, of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and Todd A. Florin, MD, MSCE, of Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

These remarks came in their editorial in Pediatrics wryly titled: “Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There” and published online to accompany a recent study of three network meta-analyses.

Led by Sarah A. Elliott, PhD, of the Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, this analysis amalgamated 150 randomized, controlled trials comparing a placebo or active comparator with any bronchodilator, glucocorticoid steroid, hypertonic saline solution, antibiotic, helium-oxygen therapy, or high-flow oxygen therapy. It then looked at the following outcomes in children aged 2 years and younger: hospital admission rate on day 1, hospital admission rate within 7 days, and total hospital length of stay.

Few treatments seemed more effective than nebulized placebo (0.9% saline) for short-term outcomes, the authors found. While nebulized epinephrine and nebulized hypertonic saline plus salbutamol appeared to reduce admission rates during the index ED presentation, and hypertonic saline, alone or in combination with epinephrine, seemed to reduce hospital stays, such treatment had no effect on admissions within 7 days of initial presentation. Furthermore, most benefits disappeared in higher-quality studies.

Concluding, albeit with weak evidence and low confidence, that some benefit might accrue with hypertonic saline with salbutamol to reduce admission rates on initial presentation to the ED, the authors called for well-designed studies on treatments in inpatients and outpatients.

According to Dr. Lipshaw, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics, the lack of benefit observed in superior studies limits the applicability of Dr. Elliott and colleagues’ results to immediate clinical practice. “These findings could be used, however, to target future high-quality studies toward the medications that they found might be useful,” he said in an interview.

For the present, other recent research augurs well for strategically reducing unnecessary care. In a paper published online in JAMA Pediatrics, Libby Haskell, MN, of the ED at Starship Children’s Hospital in Auckland, New Zealand, and associates reported on a cluster-randomized, controlled trial of targeted interventions.

Conducted in 2017 at 26 hospitals and with 3,727 babies in New Zealand and Australia, the study addressed drivers of non–evidence-based approaches with behavior-modifying approaches such as on-site clinical leads, stakeholder meetings, a train-the-trainer workshop, education, and audit and feedback.

The authors reported a 14.1% difference in rates of compliance during the first 24 hours of hospitalization favoring the intervention group for all five bronchiolitis guideline recommendations. The greatest change was seen in albuterol and chest radiography use, with other improvements in ED visits, inpatient consultations, and throughout hospitalization.

“These results provide clinicians and hospitals with clear implementation strategies to address unnecessary treatment of infants with bronchiolitis,” Dr. Haskell’s group wrote. Dr. Lipshaw agreed that multifaceted deimplementation packages including clinician and family education, audit and feedback, and clinical decision support have been successful. “Haskell et al. demonstrated that it is possible to successfully deimplement non–evidence-based practices for bronchiolitis with targeted inventions,” he said. “It would be wonderful to see their success replicated in the U.S.”


 

Why the slow adoption of guidelines?

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued bronchiolitis guidelines for babies to 23 months in 2014 and updated them in 2018. Why, then, has care in some centers been seemingly all over the map and counter to guidelines? “Both parents and clinicians are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of the child, and in the absence of high-value interventions, can feel the need to do something, even if that something is not supported by evidence,” Dr. Lipshaw said. 

Furthermore, with children in obvious distress, breathing fast and with difficulty, and sometimes unable to eat or drink, “we feel like we should have some way to make them feel better quicker. Unfortunately, none of the medications we have tried seem to be useful for most children, and we are left with supportive care measures such as suctioning their noses, giving them oxygen if their oxygen is low, and giving them fluids if they are dehydrated.”

Other physicians agree that taking a less-is-more approach can be challenging and even counterintuitive. “To families, seeing their child’s doctor ‘doing less’ can be frustrating,” admitted Diana S. Lee, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Beyond that, altering practice behavior will need more than guidelines, Dr. Lee said in an interview. “Haskell et al. showed targeted behavior-change interventions improved compliance with bronchiolitis guidelines, but such change requires motivation and resources, and the sustainability of this effect over time remains to be seen.”

At Dr. Lipshaw’s institution, treatment depends on the attending physician, “but we have an emergency department care algorithm, which does not recommend any inhaled medications or steroids in accordance with the 2014 AAP guidelines,” he said.

Similarly at Mount Sinai, practitioners strive to follow the AAP guidelines, although their implementation has not been immediate, Dr. Lee said. “This is a situation where we must make the effort to choose not to do more, given current evidence.”

But Michelle Dunn, MD, an attending physician in the division of general pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said the American practice norm already tends more to the observance than the breach of the guidelines, noting that since 2014 quality improvement efforts have been made throughout the country. “At our institution, we have effectively reduced the use of albuterol in patients with bronchiolitis and we use evidence-based therapy as much as possible, which in the case of bronchiolitis generally involves supportive management alone,” she said in an interview.

Still, Dr. Dunn added, many patients receive unnecessary diagnostic testing and ineffective therapies, with some providers facing psychological barriers to doing less. “However, with more and more evidence to support this, hopefully, physicians will become more comfortable with this.”

To that end, Dr. Lipshaw’s editorial urges physicians to “curb the rampant use of therapies repeatedly revealed to be ineffective,” citing team engagement, clear practice guidelines, and information technology as key factors in deimplementation. In the meantime, his mantra remains: “Don’t just do something, stand there.”

The study by Dr. Elliot and colleagues was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Knowledge Synthesis grant program. One coauthor is supported by a University of Ottawa Tier I Research Chair in Pediatric Emergency Medicine. Another is supported by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis and Translation and the Stollery Science Laboratory. Dr. Lipshaw and Dr. Florin disclosed no financial relationships relevant to their commentary. Dr. Haskell and colleagues were supported, variously, by the National Health and Medical Research Council of New Zealand, the Center of Research Excellence for Pediatric Emergency Medicine, the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program, Cure Kids New Zealand, the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation, and the Starship Foundation. Dr. Lee and Dr. Dunn had no competing interests to disclose with regard to their comments.

New cases of COVID-19 dropped among children for just the second time in the past 6 weeks, but that was not enough to reverse the trend in children’s share of the weekly total, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite the decline in new cases, which fell from 88,000 to just under 80,000, or 9.7%, during the week of April 16-22, children represented 20.8% of all COVID-19 cases reported for the week, surpassing the pandemic-high 20.6% seen just a week earlier, the AAP/CHA report shows.

The total number of cases in children is now over 3.7 million – that’s 13.7% of cases in all ages – since the start of the pandemic, and the cumulative rate of infection has reached 4,931 per 100,000 children, based on data from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Cases of more severe illness in children continue to trend lower. The cumulative number of hospitalizations in children (15,187) is only 2.0% of the total of almost 760,000 in the 25 jurisdictions (24 states and New York City) that report such data, and deaths in children now number 296, which is just 0.06% of all COVID-19–related mortality in 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their report.

Among those 46 jurisdictions, Texas has reported the most deaths (51) in children, followed by Arizona (29) and New York City (23), while 9 states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths so far. Children represent the highest proportion of deaths (0.19%) in Colorado, but Guam, with 2 child deaths among its total of 136, has by far the highest rate at 1.47%, the AAP/CHA data show.

Data from the 25 reporting jurisdictions show that children make up the largest share of hospitalizations (3.1%) in Colorado and Minnesota, while New York City (1.9%), Georgia (1.3%), and Rhode Island (1.3%) have the highest hospitalization rates among children diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the two groups reported.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 dropped among children for just the second time in the past 6 weeks, but that was not enough to reverse the trend in children’s share of the weekly total, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite the decline in new cases, which fell from 88,000 to just under 80,000, or 9.7%, during the week of April 16-22, children represented 20.8% of all COVID-19 cases reported for the week, surpassing the pandemic-high 20.6% seen just a week earlier, the AAP/CHA report shows.

The total number of cases in children is now over 3.7 million – that’s 13.7% of cases in all ages – since the start of the pandemic, and the cumulative rate of infection has reached 4,931 per 100,000 children, based on data from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Cases of more severe illness in children continue to trend lower. The cumulative number of hospitalizations in children (15,187) is only 2.0% of the total of almost 760,000 in the 25 jurisdictions (24 states and New York City) that report such data, and deaths in children now number 296, which is just 0.06% of all COVID-19–related mortality in 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their report.

Among those 46 jurisdictions, Texas has reported the most deaths (51) in children, followed by Arizona (29) and New York City (23), while 9 states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths so far. Children represent the highest proportion of deaths (0.19%) in Colorado, but Guam, with 2 child deaths among its total of 136, has by far the highest rate at 1.47%, the AAP/CHA data show.

Data from the 25 reporting jurisdictions show that children make up the largest share of hospitalizations (3.1%) in Colorado and Minnesota, while New York City (1.9%), Georgia (1.3%), and Rhode Island (1.3%) have the highest hospitalization rates among children diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the two groups reported.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 dropped among children for just the second time in the past 6 weeks, but that was not enough to reverse the trend in children’s share of the weekly total, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite the decline in new cases, which fell from 88,000 to just under 80,000, or 9.7%, during the week of April 16-22, children represented 20.8% of all COVID-19 cases reported for the week, surpassing the pandemic-high 20.6% seen just a week earlier, the AAP/CHA report shows.

The total number of cases in children is now over 3.7 million – that’s 13.7% of cases in all ages – since the start of the pandemic, and the cumulative rate of infection has reached 4,931 per 100,000 children, based on data from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Cases of more severe illness in children continue to trend lower. The cumulative number of hospitalizations in children (15,187) is only 2.0% of the total of almost 760,000 in the 25 jurisdictions (24 states and New York City) that report such data, and deaths in children now number 296, which is just 0.06% of all COVID-19–related mortality in 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their report.

Among those 46 jurisdictions, Texas has reported the most deaths (51) in children, followed by Arizona (29) and New York City (23), while 9 states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths so far. Children represent the highest proportion of deaths (0.19%) in Colorado, but Guam, with 2 child deaths among its total of 136, has by far the highest rate at 1.47%, the AAP/CHA data show.

Data from the 25 reporting jurisdictions show that children make up the largest share of hospitalizations (3.1%) in Colorado and Minnesota, while New York City (1.9%), Georgia (1.3%), and Rhode Island (1.3%) have the highest hospitalization rates among children diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the two groups reported.

[email protected]

Sofpironium bromide, a new topical anticholinergic agent, appears to be a safer version of glycopyrrolate for the treatment of axillary hyperhidrosis, according to 48-week safety and outcome data.

Koldunov/Thinkstock

A structural analogue of glycopyrrolate working through the same mechanism, sofpironium bromide was developed as a retrometabolic agent. This means it is rapidly transformed into an inactive metabolite after application, reducing risk of systemic effects, study investigator Stacy Smith, MD, explained in the late-breaking research session at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

The anticholinergic glycopyrrolate, which currently is the most commonly used therapy for hyperhidrosis, is absorbed through the skin and excreted through the urine. The systemic exposure to the active agent after topical application explains the substantial risk of adverse effects, said Dr. Smith, a clinician and researcher affiliated with the California Dermatology and Clinical Research Institute, Encinitas.

In contrast,“sofpironium bromide is the ideal topical medication, because it has strong activity at the application site but then reduced systemic activity due to the retrometabolism,” Dr. Smith said.

The 52-week data from the open-label, phase 3 trial supports the premise. In this study of 299 patients randomized to the 5% (102 patients) or 15% (197 patients) topical sofpironium bromide gel formulations, most anticholinergic adverse events were mild or moderate and transient, with complaints concentrated in the first 3 months of the trial.

“The retrometabolic pathway seems to work,” Dr. Smith said. He acknowledged that the treatment-naive patients who entered the study “had to get used to the drug over time,” but the data “show they did.”

The phase 3 trial of sofpironium bromide, which is already approved to treat axillary hyperhidrosis in Japan, did not have a placebo control. It was focused primarily on safety, but outcomes were assessed with the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure–Axillary (HDSM-Ax).

At least a 1-point improvement in the 7-point HDSM-Ax scale, which is considered clinically meaningful, was achieved by 86.1% and 85.8% of those treated with the 5% and 15% gels, respectively. A 2-point or greater improvement at the end of the study was observed in 69.4% and 61.9%, respectively.

“The medication works well and there was improved efficacy over time. About two-thirds of the patients had at least a 2-point improvement in the HDSM-Ax score at the end of 48 weeks,” Dr. Smith reported.

While response rates climbed over the course of the study, rates of adverse events fell markedly.

After 2 weeks of treatment, the proportions of patients with a treatment-related adverse event were 6% and just under 15% for the 5% and 15% topical-gel groups, respectively. At each 2-week interval when reassessed, the rates fell. By week 12, the rates were less than 2% and about 4% in the two groups, respectively.

The discontinuation rates overall for anticholinergic side effects were 3% and 8.1% for the lower and higher doses. Blurred vision accounted for the vast majority of these discontinuations in both groups. The other discontinuations, which included those for dry mouth, urinary retention, and mydriasis, occurred in one patient each. Again, discontinuations were most common in the first few months of the study.

For the total study population, mild (10.8% vs. 24%) and moderate (10.8% vs. 20.3%) side effects accounted for almost all side effects with the lower and higher doses of the topical drug. Only one patient in the low-dose group had a severe adverse event. At 6.1%, the proportion of the high-dose group with a severe adverse event was higher, but none of the adverse events were considered serious. All were transient.

These rates of adverse events are lower than those reported historically with effective doses of glycopyrrolate, Dr. Smith said.

The data presented by Dr. Smith are part of a phase 3 pivotal trials program designed to gain FDA approval. Going forward, these trials, which are enrolling patients as young as 9 years old, are expected to focus on clinical development of the 15% gel, he added.

The gel is delivered with a metered-dose pump that has an applicator, according to Brickell Biotech, the company developing the treatment in the United States. The 5% formulation was approved in Japan in September 2020, for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis.

In an interview, David M. Pariser, MD, professor of dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said that he believes that this drug has could be helpful if the pivotal studies confirm efficacy with a lower risk of adverse events relative to glycopyrrolate. “If it is true that, in phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, there are fewer systemic anticholinergic effects, then this drug will be very useful,” said Dr. Pariser, cofounder of the International Hyperhidrosis Society and an investigator on a previously published dose-ranging, phase 2 study of sofpironium bromide.

The trial was sponsored by Brickell Biotech, which compensated Dr. Smith and other coauthors for their participation. Dr. Pariser has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies with dermatologic products, including Brickell Biotech.

This article was updated 4/26/21.

Sofpironium bromide, a new topical anticholinergic agent, appears to be a safer version of glycopyrrolate for the treatment of axillary hyperhidrosis, according to 48-week safety and outcome data.

Koldunov/Thinkstock

A structural analogue of glycopyrrolate working through the same mechanism, sofpironium bromide was developed as a retrometabolic agent. This means it is rapidly transformed into an inactive metabolite after application, reducing risk of systemic effects, study investigator Stacy Smith, MD, explained in the late-breaking research session at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

The anticholinergic glycopyrrolate, which currently is the most commonly used therapy for hyperhidrosis, is absorbed through the skin and excreted through the urine. The systemic exposure to the active agent after topical application explains the substantial risk of adverse effects, said Dr. Smith, a clinician and researcher affiliated with the California Dermatology and Clinical Research Institute, Encinitas.

In contrast,“sofpironium bromide is the ideal topical medication, because it has strong activity at the application site but then reduced systemic activity due to the retrometabolism,” Dr. Smith said.

The 52-week data from the open-label, phase 3 trial supports the premise. In this study of 299 patients randomized to the 5% (102 patients) or 15% (197 patients) topical sofpironium bromide gel formulations, most anticholinergic adverse events were mild or moderate and transient, with complaints concentrated in the first 3 months of the trial.

“The retrometabolic pathway seems to work,” Dr. Smith said. He acknowledged that the treatment-naive patients who entered the study “had to get used to the drug over time,” but the data “show they did.”

The phase 3 trial of sofpironium bromide, which is already approved to treat axillary hyperhidrosis in Japan, did not have a placebo control. It was focused primarily on safety, but outcomes were assessed with the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure–Axillary (HDSM-Ax).

At least a 1-point improvement in the 7-point HDSM-Ax scale, which is considered clinically meaningful, was achieved by 86.1% and 85.8% of those treated with the 5% and 15% gels, respectively. A 2-point or greater improvement at the end of the study was observed in 69.4% and 61.9%, respectively.

“The medication works well and there was improved efficacy over time. About two-thirds of the patients had at least a 2-point improvement in the HDSM-Ax score at the end of 48 weeks,” Dr. Smith reported.

While response rates climbed over the course of the study, rates of adverse events fell markedly.

After 2 weeks of treatment, the proportions of patients with a treatment-related adverse event were 6% and just under 15% for the 5% and 15% topical-gel groups, respectively. At each 2-week interval when reassessed, the rates fell. By week 12, the rates were less than 2% and about 4% in the two groups, respectively.

The discontinuation rates overall for anticholinergic side effects were 3% and 8.1% for the lower and higher doses. Blurred vision accounted for the vast majority of these discontinuations in both groups. The other discontinuations, which included those for dry mouth, urinary retention, and mydriasis, occurred in one patient each. Again, discontinuations were most common in the first few months of the study.

For the total study population, mild (10.8% vs. 24%) and moderate (10.8% vs. 20.3%) side effects accounted for almost all side effects with the lower and higher doses of the topical drug. Only one patient in the low-dose group had a severe adverse event. At 6.1%, the proportion of the high-dose group with a severe adverse event was higher, but none of the adverse events were considered serious. All were transient.

These rates of adverse events are lower than those reported historically with effective doses of glycopyrrolate, Dr. Smith said.

The data presented by Dr. Smith are part of a phase 3 pivotal trials program designed to gain FDA approval. Going forward, these trials, which are enrolling patients as young as 9 years old, are expected to focus on clinical development of the 15% gel, he added.

The gel is delivered with a metered-dose pump that has an applicator, according to Brickell Biotech, the company developing the treatment in the United States. The 5% formulation was approved in Japan in September 2020, for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis.

In an interview, David M. Pariser, MD, professor of dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said that he believes that this drug has could be helpful if the pivotal studies confirm efficacy with a lower risk of adverse events relative to glycopyrrolate. “If it is true that, in phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, there are fewer systemic anticholinergic effects, then this drug will be very useful,” said Dr. Pariser, cofounder of the International Hyperhidrosis Society and an investigator on a previously published dose-ranging, phase 2 study of sofpironium bromide.

The trial was sponsored by Brickell Biotech, which compensated Dr. Smith and other coauthors for their participation. Dr. Pariser has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies with dermatologic products, including Brickell Biotech.

This article was updated 4/26/21.

Sofpironium bromide, a new topical anticholinergic agent, appears to be a safer version of glycopyrrolate for the treatment of axillary hyperhidrosis, according to 48-week safety and outcome data.

Koldunov/Thinkstock

A structural analogue of glycopyrrolate working through the same mechanism, sofpironium bromide was developed as a retrometabolic agent. This means it is rapidly transformed into an inactive metabolite after application, reducing risk of systemic effects, study investigator Stacy Smith, MD, explained in the late-breaking research session at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

The anticholinergic glycopyrrolate, which currently is the most commonly used therapy for hyperhidrosis, is absorbed through the skin and excreted through the urine. The systemic exposure to the active agent after topical application explains the substantial risk of adverse effects, said Dr. Smith, a clinician and researcher affiliated with the California Dermatology and Clinical Research Institute, Encinitas.

In contrast,“sofpironium bromide is the ideal topical medication, because it has strong activity at the application site but then reduced systemic activity due to the retrometabolism,” Dr. Smith said.

The 52-week data from the open-label, phase 3 trial supports the premise. In this study of 299 patients randomized to the 5% (102 patients) or 15% (197 patients) topical sofpironium bromide gel formulations, most anticholinergic adverse events were mild or moderate and transient, with complaints concentrated in the first 3 months of the trial.

“The retrometabolic pathway seems to work,” Dr. Smith said. He acknowledged that the treatment-naive patients who entered the study “had to get used to the drug over time,” but the data “show they did.”

The phase 3 trial of sofpironium bromide, which is already approved to treat axillary hyperhidrosis in Japan, did not have a placebo control. It was focused primarily on safety, but outcomes were assessed with the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure–Axillary (HDSM-Ax).

At least a 1-point improvement in the 7-point HDSM-Ax scale, which is considered clinically meaningful, was achieved by 86.1% and 85.8% of those treated with the 5% and 15% gels, respectively. A 2-point or greater improvement at the end of the study was observed in 69.4% and 61.9%, respectively.

“The medication works well and there was improved efficacy over time. About two-thirds of the patients had at least a 2-point improvement in the HDSM-Ax score at the end of 48 weeks,” Dr. Smith reported.

While response rates climbed over the course of the study, rates of adverse events fell markedly.

After 2 weeks of treatment, the proportions of patients with a treatment-related adverse event were 6% and just under 15% for the 5% and 15% topical-gel groups, respectively. At each 2-week interval when reassessed, the rates fell. By week 12, the rates were less than 2% and about 4% in the two groups, respectively.

The discontinuation rates overall for anticholinergic side effects were 3% and 8.1% for the lower and higher doses. Blurred vision accounted for the vast majority of these discontinuations in both groups. The other discontinuations, which included those for dry mouth, urinary retention, and mydriasis, occurred in one patient each. Again, discontinuations were most common in the first few months of the study.

For the total study population, mild (10.8% vs. 24%) and moderate (10.8% vs. 20.3%) side effects accounted for almost all side effects with the lower and higher doses of the topical drug. Only one patient in the low-dose group had a severe adverse event. At 6.1%, the proportion of the high-dose group with a severe adverse event was higher, but none of the adverse events were considered serious. All were transient.

These rates of adverse events are lower than those reported historically with effective doses of glycopyrrolate, Dr. Smith said.

The data presented by Dr. Smith are part of a phase 3 pivotal trials program designed to gain FDA approval. Going forward, these trials, which are enrolling patients as young as 9 years old, are expected to focus on clinical development of the 15% gel, he added.

The gel is delivered with a metered-dose pump that has an applicator, according to Brickell Biotech, the company developing the treatment in the United States. The 5% formulation was approved in Japan in September 2020, for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis.

In an interview, David M. Pariser, MD, professor of dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said that he believes that this drug has could be helpful if the pivotal studies confirm efficacy with a lower risk of adverse events relative to glycopyrrolate. “If it is true that, in phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, there are fewer systemic anticholinergic effects, then this drug will be very useful,” said Dr. Pariser, cofounder of the International Hyperhidrosis Society and an investigator on a previously published dose-ranging, phase 2 study of sofpironium bromide.

The trial was sponsored by Brickell Biotech, which compensated Dr. Smith and other coauthors for their participation. Dr. Pariser has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies with dermatologic products, including Brickell Biotech.

This article was updated 4/26/21.

Use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine should resume in the United States for all adults, the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Contol and Prevention said April 23, although health care providers should warn patients of the risk of developing the rare and serious blood clots that caused the agencies to pause the vaccine’s distribution earlier this month.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

Use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine should resume in the United States for all adults, the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Contol and Prevention said April 23, although health care providers should warn patients of the risk of developing the rare and serious blood clots that caused the agencies to pause the vaccine’s distribution earlier this month.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

Use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine should resume in the United States for all adults, the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Contol and Prevention said April 23, although health care providers should warn patients of the risk of developing the rare and serious blood clots that caused the agencies to pause the vaccine’s distribution earlier this month.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

Long-haul COVID-19 patients face many health threats – including a higher chance of dying – up to 6 months after they catch the virus, according to a massive study published in the journal Nature.

Researchers examined more than 87,000 COVID-19 patients and nearly 5 million control patients in a federal database. They found COVID-19 patients had a 59% higher risk of death up to 6 months after infection, compared with noninfected people.

Those findings translate into about 8 extra deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months, because many deaths caused by long-term COVID complications are not recorded as COVID-19 deaths, the researchers said. Among patients who were hospitalized and died after more than 30 days, there were 29 excess deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months.

“As far as total pandemic death toll, these numbers suggest that the deaths we’re counting due to the immediate viral infection are only the tip of the iceberg,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the senior author of the study and a director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, said in a news release from the Washington University, St. Louis.

Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore says more than 3 million people worldwide and about 570,000 people in the United States have died of coronavirus-related reasons.

Long-haul COVID patients also had a much higher chance of getting sick, and not just in the respiratory system, according to the study.

The patients had a high rate of stroke and other nervous system ailments, mental health problems such as depression, the onset of diabetes, heart disease and other coronary problems, diarrhea and digestive disorders, kidney disease, blood clots, joint pain, hair loss, and general fatigue.

Patients often had clusters of these ailments. And the more severe the case of COVID-19, the higher the chance of long-term health problems, the study said.

Researchers based their study on health care databases of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Besides the 87,000 COVID patients, the database included about 5 million patients who didn’t catch COVID. The veterans in the study were about 88% men, but the large sample size included 8,880 women with confirmed cases, the news release said.

Dr. Al-Aly, an assistant professor at Washington University, said the study shows that long-haul COVID-19 could be “America’s next big health crisis.”

“Our study demonstrates that, up to 6 months after diagnosis, the risk of death following even a mild case of COVID-19 is not trivial and increases with disease severity,” he said. “Given that more than 30 million Americans have been infected with this virus, and given that the burden of long COVID-19 is substantial, the lingering effects of this disease will reverberate for many years and even decades.”

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

Long-haul COVID-19 patients face many health threats – including a higher chance of dying – up to 6 months after they catch the virus, according to a massive study published in the journal Nature.

Researchers examined more than 87,000 COVID-19 patients and nearly 5 million control patients in a federal database. They found COVID-19 patients had a 59% higher risk of death up to 6 months after infection, compared with noninfected people.

Those findings translate into about 8 extra deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months, because many deaths caused by long-term COVID complications are not recorded as COVID-19 deaths, the researchers said. Among patients who were hospitalized and died after more than 30 days, there were 29 excess deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months.

“As far as total pandemic death toll, these numbers suggest that the deaths we’re counting due to the immediate viral infection are only the tip of the iceberg,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the senior author of the study and a director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, said in a news release from the Washington University, St. Louis.

Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore says more than 3 million people worldwide and about 570,000 people in the United States have died of coronavirus-related reasons.

Long-haul COVID patients also had a much higher chance of getting sick, and not just in the respiratory system, according to the study.

The patients had a high rate of stroke and other nervous system ailments, mental health problems such as depression, the onset of diabetes, heart disease and other coronary problems, diarrhea and digestive disorders, kidney disease, blood clots, joint pain, hair loss, and general fatigue.

Patients often had clusters of these ailments. And the more severe the case of COVID-19, the higher the chance of long-term health problems, the study said.

Researchers based their study on health care databases of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Besides the 87,000 COVID patients, the database included about 5 million patients who didn’t catch COVID. The veterans in the study were about 88% men, but the large sample size included 8,880 women with confirmed cases, the news release said.

Dr. Al-Aly, an assistant professor at Washington University, said the study shows that long-haul COVID-19 could be “America’s next big health crisis.”

“Our study demonstrates that, up to 6 months after diagnosis, the risk of death following even a mild case of COVID-19 is not trivial and increases with disease severity,” he said. “Given that more than 30 million Americans have been infected with this virus, and given that the burden of long COVID-19 is substantial, the lingering effects of this disease will reverberate for many years and even decades.”

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

Long-haul COVID-19 patients face many health threats – including a higher chance of dying – up to 6 months after they catch the virus, according to a massive study published in the journal Nature.

Researchers examined more than 87,000 COVID-19 patients and nearly 5 million control patients in a federal database. They found COVID-19 patients had a 59% higher risk of death up to 6 months after infection, compared with noninfected people.

Those findings translate into about 8 extra deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months, because many deaths caused by long-term COVID complications are not recorded as COVID-19 deaths, the researchers said. Among patients who were hospitalized and died after more than 30 days, there were 29 excess deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months.

“As far as total pandemic death toll, these numbers suggest that the deaths we’re counting due to the immediate viral infection are only the tip of the iceberg,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the senior author of the study and a director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, said in a news release from the Washington University, St. Louis.

Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore says more than 3 million people worldwide and about 570,000 people in the United States have died of coronavirus-related reasons.

Long-haul COVID patients also had a much higher chance of getting sick, and not just in the respiratory system, according to the study.

The patients had a high rate of stroke and other nervous system ailments, mental health problems such as depression, the onset of diabetes, heart disease and other coronary problems, diarrhea and digestive disorders, kidney disease, blood clots, joint pain, hair loss, and general fatigue.

Patients often had clusters of these ailments. And the more severe the case of COVID-19, the higher the chance of long-term health problems, the study said.

Researchers based their study on health care databases of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Besides the 87,000 COVID patients, the database included about 5 million patients who didn’t catch COVID. The veterans in the study were about 88% men, but the large sample size included 8,880 women with confirmed cases, the news release said.

Dr. Al-Aly, an assistant professor at Washington University, said the study shows that long-haul COVID-19 could be “America’s next big health crisis.”

“Our study demonstrates that, up to 6 months after diagnosis, the risk of death following even a mild case of COVID-19 is not trivial and increases with disease severity,” he said. “Given that more than 30 million Americans have been infected with this virus, and given that the burden of long COVID-19 is substantial, the lingering effects of this disease will reverberate for many years and even decades.”

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

Young athletes are unlikely to experience ongoing heart problems post–COVID-19 infection.

In a multicenter study conducted during September-December 2020, only 0.7% of 3,018 collegiate athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection were found to have definite, probable, or possible infection-related cardiac involvement.

None experienced an adverse cardiac event and only five (0.2%) required hospitalization for noncardiac complications of COVID-19.

“The take-home message is that cardiac involvement does not happen as much as we had initially feared. It’s in the range of 0.5% to 3%, depending on how you define cardiac involvement, which is not nothing, but it’s not the 30% or 50% that some early studies hinted at,” said Kimberly G. Harmon, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle.

Nearly 20,000 athletes tested

The researchers prospectively tested 19,378 athletes for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 42 U.S. colleges and universities during the study period. A total of 3,018 (16%; mean age, 20 years; 32% female) tested positive and underwent cardiac evaluation.

“We didn’t prescribe what the schools had to do in terms of cardiac evaluation, but most of these colleges are well resourced, and about 74% of athletes were evaluated using the triad testing strategy of 12-lead electrocardiography, cardiac troponin, and transthoracic echocardiography [TEE], with cardiac magnetic resonance [CMR ]when indicated,” explained Dr. Harmon. Only 198 athletes underwent primary screening with CMR.

Athletes were often tested multiple times for SARS-CoV-2 infection by participating institutions and were included in this study if they had any positive test and underwent postinfection cardiac screening.

The cohort includes athletes representing 26 distinct sporting disciplines, including American-style football (36%), basketball (9%), and cross country/track and field (8%). Most were asymptomatic or had only mild COVID-19 symptoms (33% and 29%, respectively).
 

‘Exercise appears to be protective’

Abnormal findings suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 cardiac involvement were detected by ECG in 0.7% of athletes (21 of 2,999), cardiac troponin elevation in 0.9% (24/2,719), and abnormal TTE findings in 0.9% (24/2,556).

The odds of having cardiac involvement was 3.1 times higher in athletes with cardiopulmonary symptoms.

“One thing we’ve seen in the literature and in this cohort, is that exercise appears to be protective to some extent from COVID-19. We had a lot of cases, but in the whole cohort, only five athletes were hospitalized with COVID and those were for noncardiac reasons,” said Dr. Harmon.

During a median clinical surveillance of 113 days, there was one (0.03%) adverse cardiac event likely unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The diagnostic yield for probable or definite cardiac involvement was 6.7 times higher for a CMR obtained for clinical reasons (10.1%) versus a primary screening CMR (1.5%).

“This is data we desperately needed. Small, single-center studies early in the pandemic had indicated a higher prevalence of cardiac involvement, which led us to be very conservative about return-to-play in the early days,” said Jeffrey Lander, MD, who was not involved in the study.

Limit CMR to symptomatic athletes

“I think this data can be extended beyond the college athlete. And it’s fair to say to high school athletes and young recreational athletes who have had asymptomatic or mild infection, you probably don’t need further workup if you’re feeling fine,” suggested Dr. Harmon.

“For those with moderate or severe illness, then the triple screen protocol is a good idea, particularly if they are having any symptoms,” she added.

Dr. Lander agrees that athletes should be screened by appropriate providers before returning to sports, but that CMR should not be used routinely for return-to-play screening.

“We’ve never taken a group of, say, 1,000 college athletes who just recovered from the flu and done cardiac MRIs on them, so it’s a bit like opening Pandora’s box when it’s used too liberally. It’s difficult to assess if the findings are secondary to COVID infection or from something entirely unrelated,” he noted.

ORCCA is a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine to track COVID-19 cases among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes. The current study was supported by a grant from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.

Young athletes are unlikely to experience ongoing heart problems post–COVID-19 infection.

In a multicenter study conducted during September-December 2020, only 0.7% of 3,018 collegiate athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection were found to have definite, probable, or possible infection-related cardiac involvement.

None experienced an adverse cardiac event and only five (0.2%) required hospitalization for noncardiac complications of COVID-19.

“The take-home message is that cardiac involvement does not happen as much as we had initially feared. It’s in the range of 0.5% to 3%, depending on how you define cardiac involvement, which is not nothing, but it’s not the 30% or 50% that some early studies hinted at,” said Kimberly G. Harmon, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle.

Nearly 20,000 athletes tested

The researchers prospectively tested 19,378 athletes for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 42 U.S. colleges and universities during the study period. A total of 3,018 (16%; mean age, 20 years; 32% female) tested positive and underwent cardiac evaluation.

“We didn’t prescribe what the schools had to do in terms of cardiac evaluation, but most of these colleges are well resourced, and about 74% of athletes were evaluated using the triad testing strategy of 12-lead electrocardiography, cardiac troponin, and transthoracic echocardiography [TEE], with cardiac magnetic resonance [CMR ]when indicated,” explained Dr. Harmon. Only 198 athletes underwent primary screening with CMR.

Athletes were often tested multiple times for SARS-CoV-2 infection by participating institutions and were included in this study if they had any positive test and underwent postinfection cardiac screening.

The cohort includes athletes representing 26 distinct sporting disciplines, including American-style football (36%), basketball (9%), and cross country/track and field (8%). Most were asymptomatic or had only mild COVID-19 symptoms (33% and 29%, respectively).
 

‘Exercise appears to be protective’

Abnormal findings suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 cardiac involvement were detected by ECG in 0.7% of athletes (21 of 2,999), cardiac troponin elevation in 0.9% (24/2,719), and abnormal TTE findings in 0.9% (24/2,556).

The odds of having cardiac involvement was 3.1 times higher in athletes with cardiopulmonary symptoms.

“One thing we’ve seen in the literature and in this cohort, is that exercise appears to be protective to some extent from COVID-19. We had a lot of cases, but in the whole cohort, only five athletes were hospitalized with COVID and those were for noncardiac reasons,” said Dr. Harmon.

During a median clinical surveillance of 113 days, there was one (0.03%) adverse cardiac event likely unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The diagnostic yield for probable or definite cardiac involvement was 6.7 times higher for a CMR obtained for clinical reasons (10.1%) versus a primary screening CMR (1.5%).

“This is data we desperately needed. Small, single-center studies early in the pandemic had indicated a higher prevalence of cardiac involvement, which led us to be very conservative about return-to-play in the early days,” said Jeffrey Lander, MD, who was not involved in the study.

Limit CMR to symptomatic athletes

“I think this data can be extended beyond the college athlete. And it’s fair to say to high school athletes and young recreational athletes who have had asymptomatic or mild infection, you probably don’t need further workup if you’re feeling fine,” suggested Dr. Harmon.

“For those with moderate or severe illness, then the triple screen protocol is a good idea, particularly if they are having any symptoms,” she added.

Dr. Lander agrees that athletes should be screened by appropriate providers before returning to sports, but that CMR should not be used routinely for return-to-play screening.

“We’ve never taken a group of, say, 1,000 college athletes who just recovered from the flu and done cardiac MRIs on them, so it’s a bit like opening Pandora’s box when it’s used too liberally. It’s difficult to assess if the findings are secondary to COVID infection or from something entirely unrelated,” he noted.

ORCCA is a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine to track COVID-19 cases among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes. The current study was supported by a grant from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.

Young athletes are unlikely to experience ongoing heart problems post–COVID-19 infection.

In a multicenter study conducted during September-December 2020, only 0.7% of 3,018 collegiate athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection were found to have definite, probable, or possible infection-related cardiac involvement.

None experienced an adverse cardiac event and only five (0.2%) required hospitalization for noncardiac complications of COVID-19.

“The take-home message is that cardiac involvement does not happen as much as we had initially feared. It’s in the range of 0.5% to 3%, depending on how you define cardiac involvement, which is not nothing, but it’s not the 30% or 50% that some early studies hinted at,” said Kimberly G. Harmon, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle.

Nearly 20,000 athletes tested

The researchers prospectively tested 19,378 athletes for SARS-CoV-2 infection from 42 U.S. colleges and universities during the study period. A total of 3,018 (16%; mean age, 20 years; 32% female) tested positive and underwent cardiac evaluation.

“We didn’t prescribe what the schools had to do in terms of cardiac evaluation, but most of these colleges are well resourced, and about 74% of athletes were evaluated using the triad testing strategy of 12-lead electrocardiography, cardiac troponin, and transthoracic echocardiography [TEE], with cardiac magnetic resonance [CMR ]when indicated,” explained Dr. Harmon. Only 198 athletes underwent primary screening with CMR.

Athletes were often tested multiple times for SARS-CoV-2 infection by participating institutions and were included in this study if they had any positive test and underwent postinfection cardiac screening.

The cohort includes athletes representing 26 distinct sporting disciplines, including American-style football (36%), basketball (9%), and cross country/track and field (8%). Most were asymptomatic or had only mild COVID-19 symptoms (33% and 29%, respectively).
 

‘Exercise appears to be protective’

Abnormal findings suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 cardiac involvement were detected by ECG in 0.7% of athletes (21 of 2,999), cardiac troponin elevation in 0.9% (24/2,719), and abnormal TTE findings in 0.9% (24/2,556).

The odds of having cardiac involvement was 3.1 times higher in athletes with cardiopulmonary symptoms.

“One thing we’ve seen in the literature and in this cohort, is that exercise appears to be protective to some extent from COVID-19. We had a lot of cases, but in the whole cohort, only five athletes were hospitalized with COVID and those were for noncardiac reasons,” said Dr. Harmon.

During a median clinical surveillance of 113 days, there was one (0.03%) adverse cardiac event likely unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The diagnostic yield for probable or definite cardiac involvement was 6.7 times higher for a CMR obtained for clinical reasons (10.1%) versus a primary screening CMR (1.5%).

“This is data we desperately needed. Small, single-center studies early in the pandemic had indicated a higher prevalence of cardiac involvement, which led us to be very conservative about return-to-play in the early days,” said Jeffrey Lander, MD, who was not involved in the study.

Limit CMR to symptomatic athletes

“I think this data can be extended beyond the college athlete. And it’s fair to say to high school athletes and young recreational athletes who have had asymptomatic or mild infection, you probably don’t need further workup if you’re feeling fine,” suggested Dr. Harmon.

“For those with moderate or severe illness, then the triple screen protocol is a good idea, particularly if they are having any symptoms,” she added.

Dr. Lander agrees that athletes should be screened by appropriate providers before returning to sports, but that CMR should not be used routinely for return-to-play screening.

“We’ve never taken a group of, say, 1,000 college athletes who just recovered from the flu and done cardiac MRIs on them, so it’s a bit like opening Pandora’s box when it’s used too liberally. It’s difficult to assess if the findings are secondary to COVID infection or from something entirely unrelated,” he noted.

ORCCA is a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine to track COVID-19 cases among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes. The current study was supported by a grant from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.