MDedge Rheumatology

Parents who did not vaccinate their children against influenza last year were significantly less likely to do so this year than parents whose children were vaccinated last year, based on survey data from more than 2,000 parents with babies and young children.

Choreograph/Thinkstock

“Pediatric vaccination will be an important component to mitigating a dual influenza/COVID-19 epidemic,” Rebeccah L. Sokol, PhD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, reported in Pediatrics.

Although the pandemic has increased acceptance of some healthy behaviors including handwashing and social distancing, the impact on influenza vaccination rates remains unknown, they said.

To assess parents’ current intentions for flu vaccination of young children this season, the researchers conducted an online survey of 2,164 parents or guardians of children aged between 6 months and 5 years in the United States. The 15-minute online survey was conducted in May 2020 and participants received gift cards. The primary outcome was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parental intentions for having their child vaccinated against seasonal flu this year.

“We measured change categorically, with response options ranging from 1 (I became much less likely to get my child the flu shot next year) to 5 (I became much more likely to get my child the flu shot next year),” the researchers said.
 

Pandemic changes some parents’ plans

Overall, 60% of parents said that the ongoing pandemic had altered their flu vaccination intentions for their children. About 34% percent of parents whose children did not receive flu vaccine last year said they would not seek the vaccine this year because of the pandemic, compared with 25% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

Approximately 21% of parents whose children received no flu vaccine last year said the pandemic made them more likely to seek vaccination for the 2020-2021 season, compared with 38% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine.

“These results suggest that overall seasonal influenza vaccination rates may not increase simply because of an ongoing infectious disease pandemic. Instead, a significant predictor of future behavior remains past behavior,” Dr. Sokol and Dr. Grummon said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of a convenience sample and the timing of the survey in May 2020, meaning that survey results might not be generalizable this fall as the pandemic persists, they noted. “Additionally, we assessed intentions to vaccinate; future research will clarify the COVID-19 pandemic’s influence on actual vaccination behaviors.”

The challenge of how to increase uptake of the influenza vaccine during the era of COVID-19 remains, and targeted efforts could include social norms messaging through social media, mass media, or health care providers to increase parents’ intentions to vaccinate, as well as vaccination reminders and presumptive announcements from health care providers that present vaccination as the default option, the researchers added.
 

Potential for ‘twindemic’ is real

The uptake of flu vaccination is especially important this year, Christopher J. Harrison, MD, director of the vaccine and treatment evaluation unit and professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, said in an interview.

“This year we are entering a flu season where the certainty of the timing as well as the potential severity of the season are not known. That said, social distancing and wearing masks – to the extent that enough people conform to COVID-19 precautions – could delay or even blunt the usual influenza season,” he noted.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have had their credibility damaged by the challenges of creating a successful response on the fly to a uniquely multifaceted virus to which previous rules do not apply, Dr. Harrison said. In addition, public confidence was eroded when information about testing and reopening policies were released by non-CDC nonscientists and labeled “CDC recommended,” with no opportunity for the scientific community to correct inaccuracies.

“The current study reveals that public trust in influenza vaccine and indirectly in health authorities has been affected by the pandemic,” said Dr. Harrison. “Vaccine hesitancy has increased somewhat even among previous vaccine accepters. One wonders if promises of a quick COVID-19 vaccine increased mistrust of the FDA because of safety concerns, even among the most ardent provaccine population, and whether these concerns are bleeding over into influenza vaccine concerns.

“This only adds to the anxiety that families feel about visiting any medical facility for routine vaccines while the pandemic rages, and we now are in a fall SARS-CoV-2 resurgence,” he added.

Although the current study data are concerning, “there could still be a net gain of pediatric influenza vaccine uptake this season because the 34% less likely to immunize among previously nonimmunizing families would be counterbalanced by 21% of the same group being more likely to immunize their children [theoretical net loss of 13%],” Dr. Harrison explained. “But the pandemic seems to have motivated previously influenza-immunizing families, i.e. while 24% were less likely, 39% are more likely to immunize [theoretical net gain of 15%]. That said, we would still be way short of the number needed to get to herd immunity.”

Dr. Harrison said he found the findings somewhat surprising, but perhaps he should not have. “I had hoped for more acceptance rather than most people staying in their prior vaccine ‘opinion lanes,’ ending up with likely little overall net change in plans to immunize despite increased health awareness caused by a pandemic.”

However, “the U.S. population has been polarized on vaccines and particularly influenza vaccines for more than 50 years, so why would a pandemic make us less polarized, particularly when the pandemic itself has been a polarizing event?” he questioned.

The greatest barriers to flu vaccination for children this year include a lack of motivation among families to visit immunization sites, given the ongoing need for social distancing and masks, Dr. Harrison said.

“Another barrier is the waning public confidence in our medical/scientific national leaders and organizations,” he emphasized. “This makes it crucial that primary care providers step up and be extra strong vaccine advocates, despite the fact that pandemic economics and necessary safety processes have stressed providers and devastated practices. Indeed, in times of medical stress, no one gets more trust from families than their own personal provider.”

Ultimately, avenues for future research include asking diverse groups of families what they feel they need to hear to be more engaged in immunizing children against influenza. But for now, the current study findings identify that “the public is not uniformly responding to the pandemic’s influence on their likelihood of immunizing their children against influenza,” Dr. Harrison said.

“We now know the size of the problem and hopefully governments, public health organizations, pediatric advocates and clinical care givers can find ways to magnify the message that a pandemic year is not a year to avoid seasonal influenza vaccine unless one has a true contraindication,” Dr. Harrison said.

In addition, “one wonders if the poll were taken today – post the president’s COVID-19 illness – would the answers be different?” he noted.

Dr. Sokol’s work was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development but otherwise had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Harrison disclosed that his institution receives grant funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline for pediatric noninfluenza vaccine studies on which he is a subinvestigator, and support from the CDC for pediatric respiratory and gastrointestinal virus surveillance studies on which he is an investigator.

SOURCE: Sokol RL, Grummon AH. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-022871.

Parents who did not vaccinate their children against influenza last year were significantly less likely to do so this year than parents whose children were vaccinated last year, based on survey data from more than 2,000 parents with babies and young children.

Choreograph/Thinkstock

“Pediatric vaccination will be an important component to mitigating a dual influenza/COVID-19 epidemic,” Rebeccah L. Sokol, PhD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, reported in Pediatrics.

Although the pandemic has increased acceptance of some healthy behaviors including handwashing and social distancing, the impact on influenza vaccination rates remains unknown, they said.

To assess parents’ current intentions for flu vaccination of young children this season, the researchers conducted an online survey of 2,164 parents or guardians of children aged between 6 months and 5 years in the United States. The 15-minute online survey was conducted in May 2020 and participants received gift cards. The primary outcome was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parental intentions for having their child vaccinated against seasonal flu this year.

“We measured change categorically, with response options ranging from 1 (I became much less likely to get my child the flu shot next year) to 5 (I became much more likely to get my child the flu shot next year),” the researchers said.
 

Pandemic changes some parents’ plans

Overall, 60% of parents said that the ongoing pandemic had altered their flu vaccination intentions for their children. About 34% percent of parents whose children did not receive flu vaccine last year said they would not seek the vaccine this year because of the pandemic, compared with 25% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

Approximately 21% of parents whose children received no flu vaccine last year said the pandemic made them more likely to seek vaccination for the 2020-2021 season, compared with 38% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine.

“These results suggest that overall seasonal influenza vaccination rates may not increase simply because of an ongoing infectious disease pandemic. Instead, a significant predictor of future behavior remains past behavior,” Dr. Sokol and Dr. Grummon said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of a convenience sample and the timing of the survey in May 2020, meaning that survey results might not be generalizable this fall as the pandemic persists, they noted. “Additionally, we assessed intentions to vaccinate; future research will clarify the COVID-19 pandemic’s influence on actual vaccination behaviors.”

The challenge of how to increase uptake of the influenza vaccine during the era of COVID-19 remains, and targeted efforts could include social norms messaging through social media, mass media, or health care providers to increase parents’ intentions to vaccinate, as well as vaccination reminders and presumptive announcements from health care providers that present vaccination as the default option, the researchers added.
 

Potential for ‘twindemic’ is real

The uptake of flu vaccination is especially important this year, Christopher J. Harrison, MD, director of the vaccine and treatment evaluation unit and professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, said in an interview.

“This year we are entering a flu season where the certainty of the timing as well as the potential severity of the season are not known. That said, social distancing and wearing masks – to the extent that enough people conform to COVID-19 precautions – could delay or even blunt the usual influenza season,” he noted.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have had their credibility damaged by the challenges of creating a successful response on the fly to a uniquely multifaceted virus to which previous rules do not apply, Dr. Harrison said. In addition, public confidence was eroded when information about testing and reopening policies were released by non-CDC nonscientists and labeled “CDC recommended,” with no opportunity for the scientific community to correct inaccuracies.

“The current study reveals that public trust in influenza vaccine and indirectly in health authorities has been affected by the pandemic,” said Dr. Harrison. “Vaccine hesitancy has increased somewhat even among previous vaccine accepters. One wonders if promises of a quick COVID-19 vaccine increased mistrust of the FDA because of safety concerns, even among the most ardent provaccine population, and whether these concerns are bleeding over into influenza vaccine concerns.

“This only adds to the anxiety that families feel about visiting any medical facility for routine vaccines while the pandemic rages, and we now are in a fall SARS-CoV-2 resurgence,” he added.

Although the current study data are concerning, “there could still be a net gain of pediatric influenza vaccine uptake this season because the 34% less likely to immunize among previously nonimmunizing families would be counterbalanced by 21% of the same group being more likely to immunize their children [theoretical net loss of 13%],” Dr. Harrison explained. “But the pandemic seems to have motivated previously influenza-immunizing families, i.e. while 24% were less likely, 39% are more likely to immunize [theoretical net gain of 15%]. That said, we would still be way short of the number needed to get to herd immunity.”

Dr. Harrison said he found the findings somewhat surprising, but perhaps he should not have. “I had hoped for more acceptance rather than most people staying in their prior vaccine ‘opinion lanes,’ ending up with likely little overall net change in plans to immunize despite increased health awareness caused by a pandemic.”

However, “the U.S. population has been polarized on vaccines and particularly influenza vaccines for more than 50 years, so why would a pandemic make us less polarized, particularly when the pandemic itself has been a polarizing event?” he questioned.

The greatest barriers to flu vaccination for children this year include a lack of motivation among families to visit immunization sites, given the ongoing need for social distancing and masks, Dr. Harrison said.

“Another barrier is the waning public confidence in our medical/scientific national leaders and organizations,” he emphasized. “This makes it crucial that primary care providers step up and be extra strong vaccine advocates, despite the fact that pandemic economics and necessary safety processes have stressed providers and devastated practices. Indeed, in times of medical stress, no one gets more trust from families than their own personal provider.”

Ultimately, avenues for future research include asking diverse groups of families what they feel they need to hear to be more engaged in immunizing children against influenza. But for now, the current study findings identify that “the public is not uniformly responding to the pandemic’s influence on their likelihood of immunizing their children against influenza,” Dr. Harrison said.

“We now know the size of the problem and hopefully governments, public health organizations, pediatric advocates and clinical care givers can find ways to magnify the message that a pandemic year is not a year to avoid seasonal influenza vaccine unless one has a true contraindication,” Dr. Harrison said.

In addition, “one wonders if the poll were taken today – post the president’s COVID-19 illness – would the answers be different?” he noted.

Dr. Sokol’s work was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development but otherwise had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Harrison disclosed that his institution receives grant funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline for pediatric noninfluenza vaccine studies on which he is a subinvestigator, and support from the CDC for pediatric respiratory and gastrointestinal virus surveillance studies on which he is an investigator.

SOURCE: Sokol RL, Grummon AH. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-022871.

Parents who did not vaccinate their children against influenza last year were significantly less likely to do so this year than parents whose children were vaccinated last year, based on survey data from more than 2,000 parents with babies and young children.

Choreograph/Thinkstock

“Pediatric vaccination will be an important component to mitigating a dual influenza/COVID-19 epidemic,” Rebeccah L. Sokol, PhD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, reported in Pediatrics.

Although the pandemic has increased acceptance of some healthy behaviors including handwashing and social distancing, the impact on influenza vaccination rates remains unknown, they said.

To assess parents’ current intentions for flu vaccination of young children this season, the researchers conducted an online survey of 2,164 parents or guardians of children aged between 6 months and 5 years in the United States. The 15-minute online survey was conducted in May 2020 and participants received gift cards. The primary outcome was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parental intentions for having their child vaccinated against seasonal flu this year.

“We measured change categorically, with response options ranging from 1 (I became much less likely to get my child the flu shot next year) to 5 (I became much more likely to get my child the flu shot next year),” the researchers said.
 

Pandemic changes some parents’ plans

Overall, 60% of parents said that the ongoing pandemic had altered their flu vaccination intentions for their children. About 34% percent of parents whose children did not receive flu vaccine last year said they would not seek the vaccine this year because of the pandemic, compared with 25% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

Approximately 21% of parents whose children received no flu vaccine last year said the pandemic made them more likely to seek vaccination for the 2020-2021 season, compared with 38% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine.

“These results suggest that overall seasonal influenza vaccination rates may not increase simply because of an ongoing infectious disease pandemic. Instead, a significant predictor of future behavior remains past behavior,” Dr. Sokol and Dr. Grummon said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of a convenience sample and the timing of the survey in May 2020, meaning that survey results might not be generalizable this fall as the pandemic persists, they noted. “Additionally, we assessed intentions to vaccinate; future research will clarify the COVID-19 pandemic’s influence on actual vaccination behaviors.”

The challenge of how to increase uptake of the influenza vaccine during the era of COVID-19 remains, and targeted efforts could include social norms messaging through social media, mass media, or health care providers to increase parents’ intentions to vaccinate, as well as vaccination reminders and presumptive announcements from health care providers that present vaccination as the default option, the researchers added.
 

Potential for ‘twindemic’ is real

The uptake of flu vaccination is especially important this year, Christopher J. Harrison, MD, director of the vaccine and treatment evaluation unit and professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, said in an interview.

“This year we are entering a flu season where the certainty of the timing as well as the potential severity of the season are not known. That said, social distancing and wearing masks – to the extent that enough people conform to COVID-19 precautions – could delay or even blunt the usual influenza season,” he noted.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have had their credibility damaged by the challenges of creating a successful response on the fly to a uniquely multifaceted virus to which previous rules do not apply, Dr. Harrison said. In addition, public confidence was eroded when information about testing and reopening policies were released by non-CDC nonscientists and labeled “CDC recommended,” with no opportunity for the scientific community to correct inaccuracies.

“The current study reveals that public trust in influenza vaccine and indirectly in health authorities has been affected by the pandemic,” said Dr. Harrison. “Vaccine hesitancy has increased somewhat even among previous vaccine accepters. One wonders if promises of a quick COVID-19 vaccine increased mistrust of the FDA because of safety concerns, even among the most ardent provaccine population, and whether these concerns are bleeding over into influenza vaccine concerns.

“This only adds to the anxiety that families feel about visiting any medical facility for routine vaccines while the pandemic rages, and we now are in a fall SARS-CoV-2 resurgence,” he added.

Although the current study data are concerning, “there could still be a net gain of pediatric influenza vaccine uptake this season because the 34% less likely to immunize among previously nonimmunizing families would be counterbalanced by 21% of the same group being more likely to immunize their children [theoretical net loss of 13%],” Dr. Harrison explained. “But the pandemic seems to have motivated previously influenza-immunizing families, i.e. while 24% were less likely, 39% are more likely to immunize [theoretical net gain of 15%]. That said, we would still be way short of the number needed to get to herd immunity.”

Dr. Harrison said he found the findings somewhat surprising, but perhaps he should not have. “I had hoped for more acceptance rather than most people staying in their prior vaccine ‘opinion lanes,’ ending up with likely little overall net change in plans to immunize despite increased health awareness caused by a pandemic.”

However, “the U.S. population has been polarized on vaccines and particularly influenza vaccines for more than 50 years, so why would a pandemic make us less polarized, particularly when the pandemic itself has been a polarizing event?” he questioned.

The greatest barriers to flu vaccination for children this year include a lack of motivation among families to visit immunization sites, given the ongoing need for social distancing and masks, Dr. Harrison said.

“Another barrier is the waning public confidence in our medical/scientific national leaders and organizations,” he emphasized. “This makes it crucial that primary care providers step up and be extra strong vaccine advocates, despite the fact that pandemic economics and necessary safety processes have stressed providers and devastated practices. Indeed, in times of medical stress, no one gets more trust from families than their own personal provider.”

Ultimately, avenues for future research include asking diverse groups of families what they feel they need to hear to be more engaged in immunizing children against influenza. But for now, the current study findings identify that “the public is not uniformly responding to the pandemic’s influence on their likelihood of immunizing their children against influenza,” Dr. Harrison said.

“We now know the size of the problem and hopefully governments, public health organizations, pediatric advocates and clinical care givers can find ways to magnify the message that a pandemic year is not a year to avoid seasonal influenza vaccine unless one has a true contraindication,” Dr. Harrison said.

In addition, “one wonders if the poll were taken today – post the president’s COVID-19 illness – would the answers be different?” he noted.

Dr. Sokol’s work was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development but otherwise had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Harrison disclosed that his institution receives grant funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline for pediatric noninfluenza vaccine studies on which he is a subinvestigator, and support from the CDC for pediatric respiratory and gastrointestinal virus surveillance studies on which he is an investigator.

SOURCE: Sokol RL, Grummon AH. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-022871.

Cardiac stress testing before hip and knee replacements has dropped steadily since 2006, according to results from a new study that also showed major cardiac complications to be low in the absence of stress testing – even among people with established risk factors.

Routine stress testing before noncardiac surgeries has come under fire in recent decades as an overuse of resources and a burden on patients. Practice guidelines issued in 2007 and 2014 by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association sought to limit the use of preoperative testing to patients with specific cardiovascular risk factors who might have their management changed by the test results.

For their study, published online in JAMA Cardiology, Daniel S. Rubin, MD, of the University of Chicago and colleagues looked at employee-based insurance data, which included Medicare Advantage claims, for more than 800,000 total hip or knee arthroplasties (28% hip and 72% knee replacements) conducted between 2004 and 2017.

While some 10% of the cohort (mean age 62, 58% women) received a stress test in the 2 months before surgery, the investigators found that the frequency of preoperative stress testing dropped annually starting in late 2006, when it peaked at about 14%, to about 7% in 2017. Older age, male sex and a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score of 1 or greater were all associated with a higher likelihood of being tested.

The overall frequency of myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest was 0.24%, occurring in 1,677 of 686,067 patients. While the rate was higher in patients with at least one RCRI condition, this did not differ significantly between those who received a preoperative stress test and those who did not (0.60%; 221 of 36,554 vs. 0.57%; 694 of 122,466 patients.

The 2007 and 2014 ACC/AHA guidelines make clear that patients with zero RCRI conditions – which comprise a history of ischemic heart disease, heart failure, insulin therapy for diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, or chronic kidney disease – should not receive a stress test before an intermediate-risk surgery such as a hip or knee replacement. But in this study, Dr. Rubin and his colleagues found that almost half of patients who had no RCRI risk factors were stress tested anyway. This means, Dr. Rubin said in an interview, that “there’s still room for improvement” in reducing testing.

“I never want to question how a physician chooses to practice, but I have to applaud physicians for reining in the use of this test. We’re using less of this test and yet the incidence of myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest is also going down, which also calls into question whether we’re getting better at choosing the right patients for the test; or the test doesn’t impact outcomes; or overall health of these patients is improving,” he said.

One surprise finding in the study, Dr. Rubin noted, was a higher rate of complications among people without RCRI conditions who were stress tested, compared with those who were not, with a mean complication rate of 0.27%, compared with 0.14% among those who did not receive a test (P < .001). “The RCRI doesn’t capture certain things,” Dr. Rubin said. “And we know that no risk stratification tool is going to capture everything.”

The RCRI, he noted, is based on a clinical history. “If you haven’t been diagnosed yet, it won’t appear as a risk factor, even if you’re clearly at risk. The question then becomes for a physician, do you do the test or not? On a day-to-day basis it’s hard to make that decision because you want what’s best for the individual patient – and it’s hard to generalize from a study of 800,000 people what’s right for that one patient. That said, it doesn’t appear that stress testing improves outcomes and a decrease in testing appears appropriate.”

Dr. Rubin and his colleagues described as a weakness of their study that it did not capture the full scope of preoperative stress testing among Medicare patients, who are older and therefore more likely to be tested.

That the 2007 and 2014 practice guidelines bore on the drop in testing was not demonstrated by Dr. Rubin and colleagues’ study, which saw declines begin even before the guidelines were published. Nonetheless, the results appear to validate the approach advocated in the guidelines, said guideline coauthor Joshua Beckman, MD, of Vanderbilt University, whose recent research has focused on identifying risk factors for MI after noncardiac surgery.

“I hope that the guidelines have helped in changing the culture for the use of preoperative stress testing as a regular thing,” Dr. Beckman said in an interview. “In fact, the guidelines say you shouldn’t do anything before an operation that you wouldn’t do anyway. So these findings are certainly in agreement with what we’re suggesting and support the idea that unless you have something that is unstable or active, stress testing isn’t likely to help.”

Annemarie Thompson, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., another coauthor on the 2014 guidelines, commented in an interview that Dr. Rubin and colleagues’ findings of a doubled rate of complications among people without RCRI conditions who were stress tested, compared with those who were not might mean something “other than just sheer overuse or overordering of tests inappropriately.”

Rather, she said, physicians might be seeing something in the clinic that cannot be captured by a screening tool reliant on existing diagnoses. “Maybe when they’re sitting in front of you in a clinic, they’re so immobile that you’re left wondering. Or maybe they haven’t been seen by a doctor in a long time,” Dr. Thompson said. “So they don’t have diagnoses if they haven’t been followed. I think what [this finding] shows is that clinicians are detecting something. They may not know what it is. But we have to give a little wiggle room to the clinician who is sitting there looking at a patient who looks like they may not make it through surgery.”

Dr. Thompson said it would be helpful, after a big-data study like this one, to go through the clinical histories of those patients – in this study fewer than 100 – who had no RCRI risk factors and yet were stress tested and ended up having complications. “Until then we’re not going to solve the mystery,” she said. “But it’s a very, very interesting study.”

Dr. Rubin is the president of DRDR Mobile Health, a company that creates mobile applications for health care and from which he has not received compensation. One of his coauthors on the study, Dr. Peter Nagele, reported fee income from Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Beckman disclosed personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and other pharmaceutical manufacturers. Dr. Thompson has no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rubin et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.4311.

Cardiac stress testing before hip and knee replacements has dropped steadily since 2006, according to results from a new study that also showed major cardiac complications to be low in the absence of stress testing – even among people with established risk factors.

Routine stress testing before noncardiac surgeries has come under fire in recent decades as an overuse of resources and a burden on patients. Practice guidelines issued in 2007 and 2014 by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association sought to limit the use of preoperative testing to patients with specific cardiovascular risk factors who might have their management changed by the test results.

For their study, published online in JAMA Cardiology, Daniel S. Rubin, MD, of the University of Chicago and colleagues looked at employee-based insurance data, which included Medicare Advantage claims, for more than 800,000 total hip or knee arthroplasties (28% hip and 72% knee replacements) conducted between 2004 and 2017.

While some 10% of the cohort (mean age 62, 58% women) received a stress test in the 2 months before surgery, the investigators found that the frequency of preoperative stress testing dropped annually starting in late 2006, when it peaked at about 14%, to about 7% in 2017. Older age, male sex and a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score of 1 or greater were all associated with a higher likelihood of being tested.

The overall frequency of myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest was 0.24%, occurring in 1,677 of 686,067 patients. While the rate was higher in patients with at least one RCRI condition, this did not differ significantly between those who received a preoperative stress test and those who did not (0.60%; 221 of 36,554 vs. 0.57%; 694 of 122,466 patients.

The 2007 and 2014 ACC/AHA guidelines make clear that patients with zero RCRI conditions – which comprise a history of ischemic heart disease, heart failure, insulin therapy for diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, or chronic kidney disease – should not receive a stress test before an intermediate-risk surgery such as a hip or knee replacement. But in this study, Dr. Rubin and his colleagues found that almost half of patients who had no RCRI risk factors were stress tested anyway. This means, Dr. Rubin said in an interview, that “there’s still room for improvement” in reducing testing.

“I never want to question how a physician chooses to practice, but I have to applaud physicians for reining in the use of this test. We’re using less of this test and yet the incidence of myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest is also going down, which also calls into question whether we’re getting better at choosing the right patients for the test; or the test doesn’t impact outcomes; or overall health of these patients is improving,” he said.

One surprise finding in the study, Dr. Rubin noted, was a higher rate of complications among people without RCRI conditions who were stress tested, compared with those who were not, with a mean complication rate of 0.27%, compared with 0.14% among those who did not receive a test (P < .001). “The RCRI doesn’t capture certain things,” Dr. Rubin said. “And we know that no risk stratification tool is going to capture everything.”

The RCRI, he noted, is based on a clinical history. “If you haven’t been diagnosed yet, it won’t appear as a risk factor, even if you’re clearly at risk. The question then becomes for a physician, do you do the test or not? On a day-to-day basis it’s hard to make that decision because you want what’s best for the individual patient – and it’s hard to generalize from a study of 800,000 people what’s right for that one patient. That said, it doesn’t appear that stress testing improves outcomes and a decrease in testing appears appropriate.”

Dr. Rubin and his colleagues described as a weakness of their study that it did not capture the full scope of preoperative stress testing among Medicare patients, who are older and therefore more likely to be tested.

That the 2007 and 2014 practice guidelines bore on the drop in testing was not demonstrated by Dr. Rubin and colleagues’ study, which saw declines begin even before the guidelines were published. Nonetheless, the results appear to validate the approach advocated in the guidelines, said guideline coauthor Joshua Beckman, MD, of Vanderbilt University, whose recent research has focused on identifying risk factors for MI after noncardiac surgery.

“I hope that the guidelines have helped in changing the culture for the use of preoperative stress testing as a regular thing,” Dr. Beckman said in an interview. “In fact, the guidelines say you shouldn’t do anything before an operation that you wouldn’t do anyway. So these findings are certainly in agreement with what we’re suggesting and support the idea that unless you have something that is unstable or active, stress testing isn’t likely to help.”

Annemarie Thompson, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., another coauthor on the 2014 guidelines, commented in an interview that Dr. Rubin and colleagues’ findings of a doubled rate of complications among people without RCRI conditions who were stress tested, compared with those who were not might mean something “other than just sheer overuse or overordering of tests inappropriately.”

Rather, she said, physicians might be seeing something in the clinic that cannot be captured by a screening tool reliant on existing diagnoses. “Maybe when they’re sitting in front of you in a clinic, they’re so immobile that you’re left wondering. Or maybe they haven’t been seen by a doctor in a long time,” Dr. Thompson said. “So they don’t have diagnoses if they haven’t been followed. I think what [this finding] shows is that clinicians are detecting something. They may not know what it is. But we have to give a little wiggle room to the clinician who is sitting there looking at a patient who looks like they may not make it through surgery.”

Dr. Thompson said it would be helpful, after a big-data study like this one, to go through the clinical histories of those patients – in this study fewer than 100 – who had no RCRI risk factors and yet were stress tested and ended up having complications. “Until then we’re not going to solve the mystery,” she said. “But it’s a very, very interesting study.”

Dr. Rubin is the president of DRDR Mobile Health, a company that creates mobile applications for health care and from which he has not received compensation. One of his coauthors on the study, Dr. Peter Nagele, reported fee income from Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Beckman disclosed personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and other pharmaceutical manufacturers. Dr. Thompson has no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rubin et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.4311.

Cardiac stress testing before hip and knee replacements has dropped steadily since 2006, according to results from a new study that also showed major cardiac complications to be low in the absence of stress testing – even among people with established risk factors.

Routine stress testing before noncardiac surgeries has come under fire in recent decades as an overuse of resources and a burden on patients. Practice guidelines issued in 2007 and 2014 by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association sought to limit the use of preoperative testing to patients with specific cardiovascular risk factors who might have their management changed by the test results.

For their study, published online in JAMA Cardiology, Daniel S. Rubin, MD, of the University of Chicago and colleagues looked at employee-based insurance data, which included Medicare Advantage claims, for more than 800,000 total hip or knee arthroplasties (28% hip and 72% knee replacements) conducted between 2004 and 2017.

While some 10% of the cohort (mean age 62, 58% women) received a stress test in the 2 months before surgery, the investigators found that the frequency of preoperative stress testing dropped annually starting in late 2006, when it peaked at about 14%, to about 7% in 2017. Older age, male sex and a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score of 1 or greater were all associated with a higher likelihood of being tested.

The overall frequency of myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest was 0.24%, occurring in 1,677 of 686,067 patients. While the rate was higher in patients with at least one RCRI condition, this did not differ significantly between those who received a preoperative stress test and those who did not (0.60%; 221 of 36,554 vs. 0.57%; 694 of 122,466 patients.

The 2007 and 2014 ACC/AHA guidelines make clear that patients with zero RCRI conditions – which comprise a history of ischemic heart disease, heart failure, insulin therapy for diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, or chronic kidney disease – should not receive a stress test before an intermediate-risk surgery such as a hip or knee replacement. But in this study, Dr. Rubin and his colleagues found that almost half of patients who had no RCRI risk factors were stress tested anyway. This means, Dr. Rubin said in an interview, that “there’s still room for improvement” in reducing testing.

“I never want to question how a physician chooses to practice, but I have to applaud physicians for reining in the use of this test. We’re using less of this test and yet the incidence of myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest is also going down, which also calls into question whether we’re getting better at choosing the right patients for the test; or the test doesn’t impact outcomes; or overall health of these patients is improving,” he said.

One surprise finding in the study, Dr. Rubin noted, was a higher rate of complications among people without RCRI conditions who were stress tested, compared with those who were not, with a mean complication rate of 0.27%, compared with 0.14% among those who did not receive a test (P < .001). “The RCRI doesn’t capture certain things,” Dr. Rubin said. “And we know that no risk stratification tool is going to capture everything.”

The RCRI, he noted, is based on a clinical history. “If you haven’t been diagnosed yet, it won’t appear as a risk factor, even if you’re clearly at risk. The question then becomes for a physician, do you do the test or not? On a day-to-day basis it’s hard to make that decision because you want what’s best for the individual patient – and it’s hard to generalize from a study of 800,000 people what’s right for that one patient. That said, it doesn’t appear that stress testing improves outcomes and a decrease in testing appears appropriate.”

Dr. Rubin and his colleagues described as a weakness of their study that it did not capture the full scope of preoperative stress testing among Medicare patients, who are older and therefore more likely to be tested.

That the 2007 and 2014 practice guidelines bore on the drop in testing was not demonstrated by Dr. Rubin and colleagues’ study, which saw declines begin even before the guidelines were published. Nonetheless, the results appear to validate the approach advocated in the guidelines, said guideline coauthor Joshua Beckman, MD, of Vanderbilt University, whose recent research has focused on identifying risk factors for MI after noncardiac surgery.

“I hope that the guidelines have helped in changing the culture for the use of preoperative stress testing as a regular thing,” Dr. Beckman said in an interview. “In fact, the guidelines say you shouldn’t do anything before an operation that you wouldn’t do anyway. So these findings are certainly in agreement with what we’re suggesting and support the idea that unless you have something that is unstable or active, stress testing isn’t likely to help.”

Annemarie Thompson, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., another coauthor on the 2014 guidelines, commented in an interview that Dr. Rubin and colleagues’ findings of a doubled rate of complications among people without RCRI conditions who were stress tested, compared with those who were not might mean something “other than just sheer overuse or overordering of tests inappropriately.”

Rather, she said, physicians might be seeing something in the clinic that cannot be captured by a screening tool reliant on existing diagnoses. “Maybe when they’re sitting in front of you in a clinic, they’re so immobile that you’re left wondering. Or maybe they haven’t been seen by a doctor in a long time,” Dr. Thompson said. “So they don’t have diagnoses if they haven’t been followed. I think what [this finding] shows is that clinicians are detecting something. They may not know what it is. But we have to give a little wiggle room to the clinician who is sitting there looking at a patient who looks like they may not make it through surgery.”

Dr. Thompson said it would be helpful, after a big-data study like this one, to go through the clinical histories of those patients – in this study fewer than 100 – who had no RCRI risk factors and yet were stress tested and ended up having complications. “Until then we’re not going to solve the mystery,” she said. “But it’s a very, very interesting study.”

Dr. Rubin is the president of DRDR Mobile Health, a company that creates mobile applications for health care and from which he has not received compensation. One of his coauthors on the study, Dr. Peter Nagele, reported fee income from Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Beckman disclosed personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and other pharmaceutical manufacturers. Dr. Thompson has no disclosures.

SOURCE: Rubin et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.4311.

President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis is raising fresh questions about the White House’s strategy for testing and containing the virus for a president whose cavalier attitude about the coronavirus has persisted since it landed on American shores.

The president has said others are tested before getting close to him, appearing to hold it as an iron shield of safety. He has largely eschewed mask-wearing and social distancing in meetings, travel and public events, while holding rallies for thousands of often maskless supporters.

The Trump administration has increasingly pinned its coronavirus testing strategy for the nation on antigen tests, which do not need a traditional lab for processing and quickly return results to patients. But the results are less accurate than those of the slower PCR tests. 

An early antigen test used by the White House was woefully inaccurate. But the new antigen test the White House is using has not been independently evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Moreover, this is the kit the Trump administration is pushing out to thousands of nursing homes to test residents and staff.

Testing “isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card,’” said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director of clinical labs at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and creator of its test for the novel coronavirus. In general, antigen tests can miss up to half the cases that are detected by polymerase chain reaction tests, depending on the population of patients tested, he said.

The White House said the president’s diagnosis was confirmed with a PCR test but declined to say which test delivered his initial result. The White House has been using a new antigen test from Abbott Laboratories to screen its staff for COVID-19, according to two administration officials. 

The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within 7 days of COVID symptoms appearing.

The president and first lady have both had symptoms, according to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the first lady’s Twitter account. The president was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday evening “out of an abundance of caution,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.

Vice President Mike Pence is also tested daily for the virus and tested negative, spokesperson Devin O’Malley said Friday, but he did not respond to a follow-up question about which test was used.

Trump heavily promoted another Abbott rapid testing device, the ID NOW, earlier this year. But that test relies on different technology than the newer Abbott antigen test.

“I have not seen any independent evaluation of the Binax assay in the literature or in the blogs,” Wells said. “It is an unknown.”

The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that it had signed a $760 million contract with Abbott for 150 million BinaxNOW antigen tests, which are now being distributed to nursing homes and historically black colleges and universities, as well as to governors to help inform decisions about opening and closing schools. The Big Ten football conference has also pinned playing hopes on the deployment of antigen tests following Trump’s political pressure.

However, even senior federal officials concede that a test alone isn’t likely to stop the spread of a virus that has sickened more than 7 million Americans.

“Testing does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces, washing hands, or wearing a mask when you can’t physically distance; further, a negative test today does not mean that you won’t be positive tomorrow,” Adm. Brett Giroir, the senior HHS official helming the administration’s testing effort, said in a statement at the time.

Trump could be part of a “super-spreading event,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Given the timing of Trump’s positive test — which he announced on Twitter early Friday – his infection “likely happened 5 or more days ago,” Osterholm said. “If so, then he was widely infectious as early as Tuesday,” the day of the first presidential debate in Cleveland.

At least seven people who attended a Rose Garden announcement last Saturday, when Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, have since tested positive for the coronavirus. They include Trump’s former adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, and the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins.

“Having that many infected people there all at one time, we’re still going to see transmission coming off that event for a couple days,” Osterholm said.

Osterholm notes that about 20% of infected people lead to 80% of COVID-19 cases, because “super spreaders” can infect so many people at once.

He notes that participants and audience members at Tuesday’s debate were separated by at least 6 feet. But 6 feet isn’t always enough to prevent infection, he said.

While many COVID-19 infections appear to be spread by respiratory droplets, which usually fall to the ground within 6 feet, people who are singing or speaking loudly can project virus much further. Evidence also suggests that the novel coronavirus can spread through aerosols, floating in the air like a speck of dust.

“I wonder how much virus was floating in that room that night,” Osterholm said.

Other experts say it’s too soon to say whether Trump was infected in a super-spreader event. “The president and his wife have had many exposures to many people in enclosed venues without protection,” so they could have been infected at any number of places, said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. 

Although Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for the virus with a PCR test Friday, experts note that false-negative results are common in the first few days after infection. Test results over the next several days will yield more useful information.

It can take more than a week for the virus to reproduce enough to be detected, Wells said: “You are probably not detectable for 3, 5, 7, even 10 days after you’re exposed.”

In Minnesota, where Trump held an outdoor campaign rally in Duluth with hundreds of attendees Wednesday, health officials warned that a 14-day quarantine is necessary, regardless of test results.

“Anyone who was a direct contact of President Trump or known COVID-19 cases needs to quarantine and should get tested,” the Minnesota Department of Health said.

Ongoing lapses in test result reporting could hamper efforts to track and isolate sick people. As of Sept. 10, 21 states and the District of Columbia were not reporting all antigen test results, according to a KHN investigation, a lapse in reporting that officials say leaves them blind to disease spread. Since then, public health departments in Arizona, North Carolina and South Dakota all have announced plans to add antigen testing to their case reporting.

Requests for comment to the D.C. Department of Health were referred to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office, which did not respond. District health officials told KHN in early September that the White House does not report antigen test results to them – a potential violation of federal law under the CARES Act, which says any institution performing tests to diagnose COVID-19 must report all results to local or state public health departments.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said it’s not surprising that Trump tested positive, given that so many of his close associates – including his national security adviser and Secret Service officers – have also been infected by the virus.

“When you look at the number of social contacts and travel schedules, it’s not surprising,” Adalja said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis is raising fresh questions about the White House’s strategy for testing and containing the virus for a president whose cavalier attitude about the coronavirus has persisted since it landed on American shores.

The president has said others are tested before getting close to him, appearing to hold it as an iron shield of safety. He has largely eschewed mask-wearing and social distancing in meetings, travel and public events, while holding rallies for thousands of often maskless supporters.

The Trump administration has increasingly pinned its coronavirus testing strategy for the nation on antigen tests, which do not need a traditional lab for processing and quickly return results to patients. But the results are less accurate than those of the slower PCR tests. 

An early antigen test used by the White House was woefully inaccurate. But the new antigen test the White House is using has not been independently evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Moreover, this is the kit the Trump administration is pushing out to thousands of nursing homes to test residents and staff.

Testing “isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card,’” said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director of clinical labs at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and creator of its test for the novel coronavirus. In general, antigen tests can miss up to half the cases that are detected by polymerase chain reaction tests, depending on the population of patients tested, he said.

The White House said the president’s diagnosis was confirmed with a PCR test but declined to say which test delivered his initial result. The White House has been using a new antigen test from Abbott Laboratories to screen its staff for COVID-19, according to two administration officials. 

The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within 7 days of COVID symptoms appearing.

The president and first lady have both had symptoms, according to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the first lady’s Twitter account. The president was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday evening “out of an abundance of caution,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.

Vice President Mike Pence is also tested daily for the virus and tested negative, spokesperson Devin O’Malley said Friday, but he did not respond to a follow-up question about which test was used.

Trump heavily promoted another Abbott rapid testing device, the ID NOW, earlier this year. But that test relies on different technology than the newer Abbott antigen test.

“I have not seen any independent evaluation of the Binax assay in the literature or in the blogs,” Wells said. “It is an unknown.”

The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that it had signed a $760 million contract with Abbott for 150 million BinaxNOW antigen tests, which are now being distributed to nursing homes and historically black colleges and universities, as well as to governors to help inform decisions about opening and closing schools. The Big Ten football conference has also pinned playing hopes on the deployment of antigen tests following Trump’s political pressure.

However, even senior federal officials concede that a test alone isn’t likely to stop the spread of a virus that has sickened more than 7 million Americans.

“Testing does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces, washing hands, or wearing a mask when you can’t physically distance; further, a negative test today does not mean that you won’t be positive tomorrow,” Adm. Brett Giroir, the senior HHS official helming the administration’s testing effort, said in a statement at the time.

Trump could be part of a “super-spreading event,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Given the timing of Trump’s positive test — which he announced on Twitter early Friday – his infection “likely happened 5 or more days ago,” Osterholm said. “If so, then he was widely infectious as early as Tuesday,” the day of the first presidential debate in Cleveland.

At least seven people who attended a Rose Garden announcement last Saturday, when Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, have since tested positive for the coronavirus. They include Trump’s former adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, and the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins.

“Having that many infected people there all at one time, we’re still going to see transmission coming off that event for a couple days,” Osterholm said.

Osterholm notes that about 20% of infected people lead to 80% of COVID-19 cases, because “super spreaders” can infect so many people at once.

He notes that participants and audience members at Tuesday’s debate were separated by at least 6 feet. But 6 feet isn’t always enough to prevent infection, he said.

While many COVID-19 infections appear to be spread by respiratory droplets, which usually fall to the ground within 6 feet, people who are singing or speaking loudly can project virus much further. Evidence also suggests that the novel coronavirus can spread through aerosols, floating in the air like a speck of dust.

“I wonder how much virus was floating in that room that night,” Osterholm said.

Other experts say it’s too soon to say whether Trump was infected in a super-spreader event. “The president and his wife have had many exposures to many people in enclosed venues without protection,” so they could have been infected at any number of places, said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. 

Although Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for the virus with a PCR test Friday, experts note that false-negative results are common in the first few days after infection. Test results over the next several days will yield more useful information.

It can take more than a week for the virus to reproduce enough to be detected, Wells said: “You are probably not detectable for 3, 5, 7, even 10 days after you’re exposed.”

In Minnesota, where Trump held an outdoor campaign rally in Duluth with hundreds of attendees Wednesday, health officials warned that a 14-day quarantine is necessary, regardless of test results.

“Anyone who was a direct contact of President Trump or known COVID-19 cases needs to quarantine and should get tested,” the Minnesota Department of Health said.

Ongoing lapses in test result reporting could hamper efforts to track and isolate sick people. As of Sept. 10, 21 states and the District of Columbia were not reporting all antigen test results, according to a KHN investigation, a lapse in reporting that officials say leaves them blind to disease spread. Since then, public health departments in Arizona, North Carolina and South Dakota all have announced plans to add antigen testing to their case reporting.

Requests for comment to the D.C. Department of Health were referred to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office, which did not respond. District health officials told KHN in early September that the White House does not report antigen test results to them – a potential violation of federal law under the CARES Act, which says any institution performing tests to diagnose COVID-19 must report all results to local or state public health departments.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said it’s not surprising that Trump tested positive, given that so many of his close associates – including his national security adviser and Secret Service officers – have also been infected by the virus.

“When you look at the number of social contacts and travel schedules, it’s not surprising,” Adalja said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis is raising fresh questions about the White House’s strategy for testing and containing the virus for a president whose cavalier attitude about the coronavirus has persisted since it landed on American shores.

The president has said others are tested before getting close to him, appearing to hold it as an iron shield of safety. He has largely eschewed mask-wearing and social distancing in meetings, travel and public events, while holding rallies for thousands of often maskless supporters.

The Trump administration has increasingly pinned its coronavirus testing strategy for the nation on antigen tests, which do not need a traditional lab for processing and quickly return results to patients. But the results are less accurate than those of the slower PCR tests. 

An early antigen test used by the White House was woefully inaccurate. But the new antigen test the White House is using has not been independently evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Moreover, this is the kit the Trump administration is pushing out to thousands of nursing homes to test residents and staff.

Testing “isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card,’” said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director of clinical labs at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and creator of its test for the novel coronavirus. In general, antigen tests can miss up to half the cases that are detected by polymerase chain reaction tests, depending on the population of patients tested, he said.

The White House said the president’s diagnosis was confirmed with a PCR test but declined to say which test delivered his initial result. The White House has been using a new antigen test from Abbott Laboratories to screen its staff for COVID-19, according to two administration officials. 

The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within 7 days of COVID symptoms appearing.

The president and first lady have both had symptoms, according to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the first lady’s Twitter account. The president was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday evening “out of an abundance of caution,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.

Vice President Mike Pence is also tested daily for the virus and tested negative, spokesperson Devin O’Malley said Friday, but he did not respond to a follow-up question about which test was used.

Trump heavily promoted another Abbott rapid testing device, the ID NOW, earlier this year. But that test relies on different technology than the newer Abbott antigen test.

“I have not seen any independent evaluation of the Binax assay in the literature or in the blogs,” Wells said. “It is an unknown.”

The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that it had signed a $760 million contract with Abbott for 150 million BinaxNOW antigen tests, which are now being distributed to nursing homes and historically black colleges and universities, as well as to governors to help inform decisions about opening and closing schools. The Big Ten football conference has also pinned playing hopes on the deployment of antigen tests following Trump’s political pressure.

However, even senior federal officials concede that a test alone isn’t likely to stop the spread of a virus that has sickened more than 7 million Americans.

“Testing does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces, washing hands, or wearing a mask when you can’t physically distance; further, a negative test today does not mean that you won’t be positive tomorrow,” Adm. Brett Giroir, the senior HHS official helming the administration’s testing effort, said in a statement at the time.

Trump could be part of a “super-spreading event,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Given the timing of Trump’s positive test — which he announced on Twitter early Friday – his infection “likely happened 5 or more days ago,” Osterholm said. “If so, then he was widely infectious as early as Tuesday,” the day of the first presidential debate in Cleveland.

At least seven people who attended a Rose Garden announcement last Saturday, when Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, have since tested positive for the coronavirus. They include Trump’s former adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, and the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins.

“Having that many infected people there all at one time, we’re still going to see transmission coming off that event for a couple days,” Osterholm said.

Osterholm notes that about 20% of infected people lead to 80% of COVID-19 cases, because “super spreaders” can infect so many people at once.

He notes that participants and audience members at Tuesday’s debate were separated by at least 6 feet. But 6 feet isn’t always enough to prevent infection, he said.

While many COVID-19 infections appear to be spread by respiratory droplets, which usually fall to the ground within 6 feet, people who are singing or speaking loudly can project virus much further. Evidence also suggests that the novel coronavirus can spread through aerosols, floating in the air like a speck of dust.

“I wonder how much virus was floating in that room that night,” Osterholm said.

Other experts say it’s too soon to say whether Trump was infected in a super-spreader event. “The president and his wife have had many exposures to many people in enclosed venues without protection,” so they could have been infected at any number of places, said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. 

Although Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for the virus with a PCR test Friday, experts note that false-negative results are common in the first few days after infection. Test results over the next several days will yield more useful information.

It can take more than a week for the virus to reproduce enough to be detected, Wells said: “You are probably not detectable for 3, 5, 7, even 10 days after you’re exposed.”

In Minnesota, where Trump held an outdoor campaign rally in Duluth with hundreds of attendees Wednesday, health officials warned that a 14-day quarantine is necessary, regardless of test results.

“Anyone who was a direct contact of President Trump or known COVID-19 cases needs to quarantine and should get tested,” the Minnesota Department of Health said.

Ongoing lapses in test result reporting could hamper efforts to track and isolate sick people. As of Sept. 10, 21 states and the District of Columbia were not reporting all antigen test results, according to a KHN investigation, a lapse in reporting that officials say leaves them blind to disease spread. Since then, public health departments in Arizona, North Carolina and South Dakota all have announced plans to add antigen testing to their case reporting.

Requests for comment to the D.C. Department of Health were referred to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office, which did not respond. District health officials told KHN in early September that the White House does not report antigen test results to them – a potential violation of federal law under the CARES Act, which says any institution performing tests to diagnose COVID-19 must report all results to local or state public health departments.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said it’s not surprising that Trump tested positive, given that so many of his close associates – including his national security adviser and Secret Service officers – have also been infected by the virus.

“When you look at the number of social contacts and travel schedules, it’s not surprising,” Adalja said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine Shingrix appears to be effective in older adults with autoimmune diseases who are not receiving treatment regimens that suppress the immune system, according to a post hoc analysis of patients in two clinical trials.

jarun011/thinkstock

A two-dose regimen of Shingrix was effective in 90.5% of a subset of patients in two phase 3 clinical trials of adults who were aged at least 50 years, according to Alemnew F. Dagnew, MD, of GlaxoSmithKline and colleagues. The lowest rates of effectiveness with Shingrix, for patients aged between 70-79 years, was 84.4%, the researchers reported in Rheumatology.

The CDC recommends adults aged at least 50 years receive two doses of Shingrix to help prevent reoccurrence of herpes zoster, or Zostavax (zoster vaccine live) if adults are allergic to components of the Shingrix vaccine or have tested negative for varicella zoster virus immunity.

Dr. Dagnew and colleagues evaluated Shingrix in 983 patients who received two doses of Shingrix and 960 patients who received placebo from the ZOE-50 and ZOE-70 trials, where each dose was administered at least 2 months apart. The mean age of patients in both groups was 68.8 years in the Shingrix group and 69.4 years in the placebo group, and more than half of patients in both Shingrix (59.9%) and placebo groups (60.8%) were women. About 7% of the patients in two clinical trial had a pIMD.

At enrollment, the most common preexisting immune-mediated disorders (pIMDs) were psoriasis (215 patients taking Shingrix vs. 239 patients on placebo), spondyloarthropathy (109 patients taking Shingrix vs. 89 patients on placebo), rheumatoid arthritis (96 patients taking Shingrix vs. 94 patients on placebo), and celiac disease (41 patients taking Shingrix vs. 34 patients on placebo). Dr. Dagnew and colleagues examined the subgroup of patients with pIMDs for safety and vaccine efficacy, which was defined as not developing herpes zoster before the second dose.

Overall, the efficacy of Shingrix was 90.5% across all age groups (95% confidence interval, 73.5%-97.5%), with the group aged between 70-79 years having the lowest rate of effectiveness (95% CI, 30.8%-98.3%). The rate of severe adverse events was 14.6% in the Shingrix group and 11.7% in the placebo group between the first Shingrix dose and for up to 1 year after the second dose. The most common adverse events were infections and infestations as well as cardiac disorders. “Our data show a balance between study groups in the frequency and nature of SAEs, confirming the favorable safety profile of [Shingrix] in populations with pIMDs,” Dr. Dagnew and colleagues wrote.

The researchers acknowledged that the ZOE-50/70 studies were underpowered to detect the efficacy and safety of Shingrix in individuals with pIMDs but said that the large number of participants in the studies let them estimate efficacy and adverse events for this subgroup. They also noted there was no randomization of pIMDs at enrollment, even though pIMDs occurred at similar rates between Shingrix and placebo groups.

This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline; the company helped with conducting and analyzing the study and also provided the costs associated with publishing it. Five authors reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline during the time the work was conducted, and four of the five own stock in the company. One author is now an employee of UCB. One author reported having served on the advisory boards for Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Curevo.

SOURCE: Dagnew AF et al. Rheumatology. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa424.

The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine Shingrix appears to be effective in older adults with autoimmune diseases who are not receiving treatment regimens that suppress the immune system, according to a post hoc analysis of patients in two clinical trials.

jarun011/thinkstock

A two-dose regimen of Shingrix was effective in 90.5% of a subset of patients in two phase 3 clinical trials of adults who were aged at least 50 years, according to Alemnew F. Dagnew, MD, of GlaxoSmithKline and colleagues. The lowest rates of effectiveness with Shingrix, for patients aged between 70-79 years, was 84.4%, the researchers reported in Rheumatology.

The CDC recommends adults aged at least 50 years receive two doses of Shingrix to help prevent reoccurrence of herpes zoster, or Zostavax (zoster vaccine live) if adults are allergic to components of the Shingrix vaccine or have tested negative for varicella zoster virus immunity.

Dr. Dagnew and colleagues evaluated Shingrix in 983 patients who received two doses of Shingrix and 960 patients who received placebo from the ZOE-50 and ZOE-70 trials, where each dose was administered at least 2 months apart. The mean age of patients in both groups was 68.8 years in the Shingrix group and 69.4 years in the placebo group, and more than half of patients in both Shingrix (59.9%) and placebo groups (60.8%) were women. About 7% of the patients in two clinical trial had a pIMD.

At enrollment, the most common preexisting immune-mediated disorders (pIMDs) were psoriasis (215 patients taking Shingrix vs. 239 patients on placebo), spondyloarthropathy (109 patients taking Shingrix vs. 89 patients on placebo), rheumatoid arthritis (96 patients taking Shingrix vs. 94 patients on placebo), and celiac disease (41 patients taking Shingrix vs. 34 patients on placebo). Dr. Dagnew and colleagues examined the subgroup of patients with pIMDs for safety and vaccine efficacy, which was defined as not developing herpes zoster before the second dose.

Overall, the efficacy of Shingrix was 90.5% across all age groups (95% confidence interval, 73.5%-97.5%), with the group aged between 70-79 years having the lowest rate of effectiveness (95% CI, 30.8%-98.3%). The rate of severe adverse events was 14.6% in the Shingrix group and 11.7% in the placebo group between the first Shingrix dose and for up to 1 year after the second dose. The most common adverse events were infections and infestations as well as cardiac disorders. “Our data show a balance between study groups in the frequency and nature of SAEs, confirming the favorable safety profile of [Shingrix] in populations with pIMDs,” Dr. Dagnew and colleagues wrote.

The researchers acknowledged that the ZOE-50/70 studies were underpowered to detect the efficacy and safety of Shingrix in individuals with pIMDs but said that the large number of participants in the studies let them estimate efficacy and adverse events for this subgroup. They also noted there was no randomization of pIMDs at enrollment, even though pIMDs occurred at similar rates between Shingrix and placebo groups.

This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline; the company helped with conducting and analyzing the study and also provided the costs associated with publishing it. Five authors reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline during the time the work was conducted, and four of the five own stock in the company. One author is now an employee of UCB. One author reported having served on the advisory boards for Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Curevo.

SOURCE: Dagnew AF et al. Rheumatology. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa424.

The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine Shingrix appears to be effective in older adults with autoimmune diseases who are not receiving treatment regimens that suppress the immune system, according to a post hoc analysis of patients in two clinical trials.

jarun011/thinkstock

A two-dose regimen of Shingrix was effective in 90.5% of a subset of patients in two phase 3 clinical trials of adults who were aged at least 50 years, according to Alemnew F. Dagnew, MD, of GlaxoSmithKline and colleagues. The lowest rates of effectiveness with Shingrix, for patients aged between 70-79 years, was 84.4%, the researchers reported in Rheumatology.

The CDC recommends adults aged at least 50 years receive two doses of Shingrix to help prevent reoccurrence of herpes zoster, or Zostavax (zoster vaccine live) if adults are allergic to components of the Shingrix vaccine or have tested negative for varicella zoster virus immunity.

Dr. Dagnew and colleagues evaluated Shingrix in 983 patients who received two doses of Shingrix and 960 patients who received placebo from the ZOE-50 and ZOE-70 trials, where each dose was administered at least 2 months apart. The mean age of patients in both groups was 68.8 years in the Shingrix group and 69.4 years in the placebo group, and more than half of patients in both Shingrix (59.9%) and placebo groups (60.8%) were women. About 7% of the patients in two clinical trial had a pIMD.

At enrollment, the most common preexisting immune-mediated disorders (pIMDs) were psoriasis (215 patients taking Shingrix vs. 239 patients on placebo), spondyloarthropathy (109 patients taking Shingrix vs. 89 patients on placebo), rheumatoid arthritis (96 patients taking Shingrix vs. 94 patients on placebo), and celiac disease (41 patients taking Shingrix vs. 34 patients on placebo). Dr. Dagnew and colleagues examined the subgroup of patients with pIMDs for safety and vaccine efficacy, which was defined as not developing herpes zoster before the second dose.

Overall, the efficacy of Shingrix was 90.5% across all age groups (95% confidence interval, 73.5%-97.5%), with the group aged between 70-79 years having the lowest rate of effectiveness (95% CI, 30.8%-98.3%). The rate of severe adverse events was 14.6% in the Shingrix group and 11.7% in the placebo group between the first Shingrix dose and for up to 1 year after the second dose. The most common adverse events were infections and infestations as well as cardiac disorders. “Our data show a balance between study groups in the frequency and nature of SAEs, confirming the favorable safety profile of [Shingrix] in populations with pIMDs,” Dr. Dagnew and colleagues wrote.

The researchers acknowledged that the ZOE-50/70 studies were underpowered to detect the efficacy and safety of Shingrix in individuals with pIMDs but said that the large number of participants in the studies let them estimate efficacy and adverse events for this subgroup. They also noted there was no randomization of pIMDs at enrollment, even though pIMDs occurred at similar rates between Shingrix and placebo groups.

This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline; the company helped with conducting and analyzing the study and also provided the costs associated with publishing it. Five authors reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline during the time the work was conducted, and four of the five own stock in the company. One author is now an employee of UCB. One author reported having served on the advisory boards for Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Curevo.

SOURCE: Dagnew AF et al. Rheumatology. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa424.

Patients aged 2 years and older now have intravenous golimumab (Simponi Aria) as an option to treat active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) after the Food and Drug Administration approved the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for these indications on Sept. 30, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Results from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3, GO-VIVA clinical trial formed the basis for the agency’s approval of IV golimumab. GO-VIVA was conducted in 127 patients aged 2-17 years with JIA with arthritis in five or more joints (despite receiving treatment with methotrexate for at least 2 months) as part of a postmarketing requirement under the Pediatric Research Equity Act after the intravenous formulation of the biologic was approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in 2013. It demonstrated that pediatric patients had a level of pharmacokinetic exposure to golimumab that was similar to what was observed in two pivotal phase 3 trials in adults with moderately to severely active RA and active PsA, as well as efficacy that was generally consistent with responses seen in adult patients with RA, the manufacturer said.

Besides RA, intravenous golimumab was previously approved for adults with PsA and ankylosing spondylitis. As opposed to the IV dosing for adults with RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis at 2 mg/kg infused over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter, dosing for pediatric patients with pJIA and PsA is based on body surface area at 80 mg/m², also given as an IV infusion over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter.

The adverse reactions observed in GO-VIVA were consistent with the established safety profile of intravenous golimumab in adult patients with RA and PsA, according to Janssen.

The full prescribing information for intravenous golimumab can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Patients aged 2 years and older now have intravenous golimumab (Simponi Aria) as an option to treat active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) after the Food and Drug Administration approved the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for these indications on Sept. 30, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Results from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3, GO-VIVA clinical trial formed the basis for the agency’s approval of IV golimumab. GO-VIVA was conducted in 127 patients aged 2-17 years with JIA with arthritis in five or more joints (despite receiving treatment with methotrexate for at least 2 months) as part of a postmarketing requirement under the Pediatric Research Equity Act after the intravenous formulation of the biologic was approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in 2013. It demonstrated that pediatric patients had a level of pharmacokinetic exposure to golimumab that was similar to what was observed in two pivotal phase 3 trials in adults with moderately to severely active RA and active PsA, as well as efficacy that was generally consistent with responses seen in adult patients with RA, the manufacturer said.

Besides RA, intravenous golimumab was previously approved for adults with PsA and ankylosing spondylitis. As opposed to the IV dosing for adults with RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis at 2 mg/kg infused over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter, dosing for pediatric patients with pJIA and PsA is based on body surface area at 80 mg/m², also given as an IV infusion over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter.

The adverse reactions observed in GO-VIVA were consistent with the established safety profile of intravenous golimumab in adult patients with RA and PsA, according to Janssen.

The full prescribing information for intravenous golimumab can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Patients aged 2 years and older now have intravenous golimumab (Simponi Aria) as an option to treat active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) after the Food and Drug Administration approved the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for these indications on Sept. 30, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Results from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3, GO-VIVA clinical trial formed the basis for the agency’s approval of IV golimumab. GO-VIVA was conducted in 127 patients aged 2-17 years with JIA with arthritis in five or more joints (despite receiving treatment with methotrexate for at least 2 months) as part of a postmarketing requirement under the Pediatric Research Equity Act after the intravenous formulation of the biologic was approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in 2013. It demonstrated that pediatric patients had a level of pharmacokinetic exposure to golimumab that was similar to what was observed in two pivotal phase 3 trials in adults with moderately to severely active RA and active PsA, as well as efficacy that was generally consistent with responses seen in adult patients with RA, the manufacturer said.

Besides RA, intravenous golimumab was previously approved for adults with PsA and ankylosing spondylitis. As opposed to the IV dosing for adults with RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis at 2 mg/kg infused over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter, dosing for pediatric patients with pJIA and PsA is based on body surface area at 80 mg/m², also given as an IV infusion over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter.

The adverse reactions observed in GO-VIVA were consistent with the established safety profile of intravenous golimumab in adult patients with RA and PsA, according to Janssen.

The full prescribing information for intravenous golimumab can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

U.S. regulators eventually could safely approve vaccines for COVID-19 if the process is kept free of political pressure regarding time lines, study protocols, and safety standards, expert witnesses told a House panel investigating the process on Wednesday.

The career staff of the Food and Drug Administration can be counted on to appropriately weigh whether a vaccine should be cleared for use in preventing COVID-19, witnesses, including Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations panel.

FDA staffers would object to attempts by the Trump administration to rush a vaccine to the public without proper vetting, as would veteran federal researchers, including National Institutes of Health Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, and Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Offit said.

“If COVID-19 vaccines are released before they’re ready to be released, you will hear from these people, and you will also hear from people like Dr. Francis Collins and Tony Fauci, both of whom are trusted by the American public, as well as many other academicians and researchers who wouldn’t stand for this,” he said.

“The public is already nervous about these vaccines,” said Offit, who serves on key FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committees overseeing vaccine policy. “If trusted health officials stand up and decry a premature release, the celebration by the administration will be short-lived.”

Overly optimistic estimates about a potential approval can only serve to erode the public’s trust in these crucial vaccines, said another witness, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, the dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, in Providence, Rhode Island.

“All political leaders need to stop talking about things like time lines,” Jha told the lawmakers.

President Donald Trump has several times suggested that a COVID vaccine might be approved ahead of the November 3 election, where he faces a significant challenge from his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

In a Tuesday night debate with Biden, Trump again raised the idea of a quick approval. “Now we’re weeks away from a vaccine,” Trump said during the debate.

Trump’s estimates, though, are not in line with those offered by most firms involved with making vaccines. The most optimistic projections have come from Pfizer Inc. The drugmaker’s chief executive, Albert Bourla, has spoken about his company possibly having data to present to the FDA as early as late October about the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine.

In a September 8 interview with the Today show, Bourla said there was a 60% chance his company would meet that goal. In response to a question, he made it clear his comments applied to a potential Pfizer application, not an approval or release of a vaccine by that time.

In response to concerns about political pressures, the FDA in June issued guidance outlining what its staff would require for approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
 

Pushback on politics

Another witness at the Wednesday hearing, Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, a former FDA commissioner (2002 – 2004), pushed back on objections to a potential release of further guidance from the agency.

“Some recent statements from the White House have implied that FDA’s plan to release additional written guidance on its expectations for emergency use authorization of a vaccine is unnecessarily raising the bar on regulatory standards for authorization,” said McClellan in his testimony for the House panel. “That is not the case.”

Instead, further FDA guidance would be a welcome form of feedback for the firms trying to develop COVID-19 vaccines, according to McClellan, who also serves on the board of directors for Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson is among the firms that have advanced a COVID-19 vaccine candidate to phase 3 testing. In his role as a director, he serves on the board’s regulatory compliance committee.

Along with politics, recent stumbles at FDA with emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of treatments for COVID-19 have eroded the public’s confidence in the agency, Jha told the House panel. The FDA approved hydroxychloroquine, a medicine promoted by Trump for use in COVID, under an EUA in March and then revoked this clearance in June.

Jha said the FDA’s most serious misstep was its handling of convalescent plasma, which was approved through an EUA on August 23 “in a highly advertised and widely televised announcement including the president.

“The announcement solidified in the public conversation the impression that, increasingly with this administration, politics are taking over trusted, nonpartisan scientific institutions,” he said in his testimony.

Approving a COVID-19 vaccine on the limited evidence through an EUA would mark a serious departure from FDA policy, according to Jha.

“While we sometimes accept a certain level of potential harm in experimental treatments for those who are severely ill, vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore need to have a substantially higher measure of safety and effectiveness,” he explained.

Jha said the FDA has only once before used this EUA approach for a vaccine. That was for a vaccine against inhaled anthrax and was mostly distributed to high-risk soldiers and civilians in war zones.

COVID-19, in contrast, is an infection that has changed lives around the world. The virus has contributed to more than 1 million deaths, including more than 200,000 in the United States, according to the World Health Organization.

Scientists are hoping vaccines will help curb this infection, although much of the future success of vaccines depends on how widely they are used, witnesses told the House panel.
 

Debate on approaches for vaccine effectiveness

In his testimony, Jha also noted concerns about COVID-19 vaccine trials. He included a reference to a Sept. 22 opinion article titled, “These Coronavirus Trials Don›t Answer the One Question We Need to Know,” which was written by Peter Doshi, PhD, of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, in Baltimore, and Eric Topol, MD, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.

Topol and Doshi questioned why the firms Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca structured their competing trials such that “a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”

“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick,” Topol and Doshi wrote. “That’s not what these trials will determine.”

There was disagreement about this point at the hearing. U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) read the section of the Doshi-Topol article quoted above and asked one witness, Offit, to weigh in.

“Do you agree with those concerns? And either way, tell me why,” Griffith asked.

“I don’t agree,” Offit responded.

“I think it’s actually much harder to prevent asymptomatic infection or mildly symptomatic infection,” he said. “If you can prevent that, you are much more likely to prevent moderate to severe disease. So I think they have it backwards.”

But other researchers also question the approaches used with the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines.

“With the current protocols, it is conceivable that a vaccine might be considered effective – and eventually approved – based primarily on its ability to prevent mild cases alone,” wrote William Haseltine, PhD, president of the nonprofit ACCESS Health International, in a September 22 opinion article in the Washington Post titled: “Beware of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Designed to Succeed From the Start.”
In an interview with Medscape Medical News on Wednesday, Haseltine said he maintains these concerns about the tests. Earlier in his career, he was a leader in HIV research through his lab at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and he subsequently led a biotech company, Human Genome Sciences.

He fears consumers will not get what they might expect from the vaccines being tested.

“What people care about is if this is going to keep them out of the hospital and will it keep them alive. And that’s not even part of this protocol,” Haseltine said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. regulators eventually could safely approve vaccines for COVID-19 if the process is kept free of political pressure regarding time lines, study protocols, and safety standards, expert witnesses told a House panel investigating the process on Wednesday.

The career staff of the Food and Drug Administration can be counted on to appropriately weigh whether a vaccine should be cleared for use in preventing COVID-19, witnesses, including Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations panel.

FDA staffers would object to attempts by the Trump administration to rush a vaccine to the public without proper vetting, as would veteran federal researchers, including National Institutes of Health Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, and Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Offit said.

“If COVID-19 vaccines are released before they’re ready to be released, you will hear from these people, and you will also hear from people like Dr. Francis Collins and Tony Fauci, both of whom are trusted by the American public, as well as many other academicians and researchers who wouldn’t stand for this,” he said.

“The public is already nervous about these vaccines,” said Offit, who serves on key FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committees overseeing vaccine policy. “If trusted health officials stand up and decry a premature release, the celebration by the administration will be short-lived.”

Overly optimistic estimates about a potential approval can only serve to erode the public’s trust in these crucial vaccines, said another witness, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, the dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, in Providence, Rhode Island.

“All political leaders need to stop talking about things like time lines,” Jha told the lawmakers.

President Donald Trump has several times suggested that a COVID vaccine might be approved ahead of the November 3 election, where he faces a significant challenge from his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

In a Tuesday night debate with Biden, Trump again raised the idea of a quick approval. “Now we’re weeks away from a vaccine,” Trump said during the debate.

Trump’s estimates, though, are not in line with those offered by most firms involved with making vaccines. The most optimistic projections have come from Pfizer Inc. The drugmaker’s chief executive, Albert Bourla, has spoken about his company possibly having data to present to the FDA as early as late October about the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine.

In a September 8 interview with the Today show, Bourla said there was a 60% chance his company would meet that goal. In response to a question, he made it clear his comments applied to a potential Pfizer application, not an approval or release of a vaccine by that time.

In response to concerns about political pressures, the FDA in June issued guidance outlining what its staff would require for approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
 

Pushback on politics

Another witness at the Wednesday hearing, Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, a former FDA commissioner (2002 – 2004), pushed back on objections to a potential release of further guidance from the agency.

“Some recent statements from the White House have implied that FDA’s plan to release additional written guidance on its expectations for emergency use authorization of a vaccine is unnecessarily raising the bar on regulatory standards for authorization,” said McClellan in his testimony for the House panel. “That is not the case.”

Instead, further FDA guidance would be a welcome form of feedback for the firms trying to develop COVID-19 vaccines, according to McClellan, who also serves on the board of directors for Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson is among the firms that have advanced a COVID-19 vaccine candidate to phase 3 testing. In his role as a director, he serves on the board’s regulatory compliance committee.

Along with politics, recent stumbles at FDA with emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of treatments for COVID-19 have eroded the public’s confidence in the agency, Jha told the House panel. The FDA approved hydroxychloroquine, a medicine promoted by Trump for use in COVID, under an EUA in March and then revoked this clearance in June.

Jha said the FDA’s most serious misstep was its handling of convalescent plasma, which was approved through an EUA on August 23 “in a highly advertised and widely televised announcement including the president.

“The announcement solidified in the public conversation the impression that, increasingly with this administration, politics are taking over trusted, nonpartisan scientific institutions,” he said in his testimony.

Approving a COVID-19 vaccine on the limited evidence through an EUA would mark a serious departure from FDA policy, according to Jha.

“While we sometimes accept a certain level of potential harm in experimental treatments for those who are severely ill, vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore need to have a substantially higher measure of safety and effectiveness,” he explained.

Jha said the FDA has only once before used this EUA approach for a vaccine. That was for a vaccine against inhaled anthrax and was mostly distributed to high-risk soldiers and civilians in war zones.

COVID-19, in contrast, is an infection that has changed lives around the world. The virus has contributed to more than 1 million deaths, including more than 200,000 in the United States, according to the World Health Organization.

Scientists are hoping vaccines will help curb this infection, although much of the future success of vaccines depends on how widely they are used, witnesses told the House panel.
 

Debate on approaches for vaccine effectiveness

In his testimony, Jha also noted concerns about COVID-19 vaccine trials. He included a reference to a Sept. 22 opinion article titled, “These Coronavirus Trials Don›t Answer the One Question We Need to Know,” which was written by Peter Doshi, PhD, of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, in Baltimore, and Eric Topol, MD, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.

Topol and Doshi questioned why the firms Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca structured their competing trials such that “a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”

“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick,” Topol and Doshi wrote. “That’s not what these trials will determine.”

There was disagreement about this point at the hearing. U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) read the section of the Doshi-Topol article quoted above and asked one witness, Offit, to weigh in.

“Do you agree with those concerns? And either way, tell me why,” Griffith asked.

“I don’t agree,” Offit responded.

“I think it’s actually much harder to prevent asymptomatic infection or mildly symptomatic infection,” he said. “If you can prevent that, you are much more likely to prevent moderate to severe disease. So I think they have it backwards.”

But other researchers also question the approaches used with the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines.

“With the current protocols, it is conceivable that a vaccine might be considered effective – and eventually approved – based primarily on its ability to prevent mild cases alone,” wrote William Haseltine, PhD, president of the nonprofit ACCESS Health International, in a September 22 opinion article in the Washington Post titled: “Beware of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Designed to Succeed From the Start.”
In an interview with Medscape Medical News on Wednesday, Haseltine said he maintains these concerns about the tests. Earlier in his career, he was a leader in HIV research through his lab at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and he subsequently led a biotech company, Human Genome Sciences.

He fears consumers will not get what they might expect from the vaccines being tested.

“What people care about is if this is going to keep them out of the hospital and will it keep them alive. And that’s not even part of this protocol,” Haseltine said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. regulators eventually could safely approve vaccines for COVID-19 if the process is kept free of political pressure regarding time lines, study protocols, and safety standards, expert witnesses told a House panel investigating the process on Wednesday.

The career staff of the Food and Drug Administration can be counted on to appropriately weigh whether a vaccine should be cleared for use in preventing COVID-19, witnesses, including Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight and investigations panel.

FDA staffers would object to attempts by the Trump administration to rush a vaccine to the public without proper vetting, as would veteran federal researchers, including National Institutes of Health Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, and Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Offit said.

“If COVID-19 vaccines are released before they’re ready to be released, you will hear from these people, and you will also hear from people like Dr. Francis Collins and Tony Fauci, both of whom are trusted by the American public, as well as many other academicians and researchers who wouldn’t stand for this,” he said.

“The public is already nervous about these vaccines,” said Offit, who serves on key FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committees overseeing vaccine policy. “If trusted health officials stand up and decry a premature release, the celebration by the administration will be short-lived.”

Overly optimistic estimates about a potential approval can only serve to erode the public’s trust in these crucial vaccines, said another witness, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, the dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, in Providence, Rhode Island.

“All political leaders need to stop talking about things like time lines,” Jha told the lawmakers.

President Donald Trump has several times suggested that a COVID vaccine might be approved ahead of the November 3 election, where he faces a significant challenge from his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

In a Tuesday night debate with Biden, Trump again raised the idea of a quick approval. “Now we’re weeks away from a vaccine,” Trump said during the debate.

Trump’s estimates, though, are not in line with those offered by most firms involved with making vaccines. The most optimistic projections have come from Pfizer Inc. The drugmaker’s chief executive, Albert Bourla, has spoken about his company possibly having data to present to the FDA as early as late October about the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine.

In a September 8 interview with the Today show, Bourla said there was a 60% chance his company would meet that goal. In response to a question, he made it clear his comments applied to a potential Pfizer application, not an approval or release of a vaccine by that time.

In response to concerns about political pressures, the FDA in June issued guidance outlining what its staff would require for approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.
 

Pushback on politics

Another witness at the Wednesday hearing, Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, a former FDA commissioner (2002 – 2004), pushed back on objections to a potential release of further guidance from the agency.

“Some recent statements from the White House have implied that FDA’s plan to release additional written guidance on its expectations for emergency use authorization of a vaccine is unnecessarily raising the bar on regulatory standards for authorization,” said McClellan in his testimony for the House panel. “That is not the case.”

Instead, further FDA guidance would be a welcome form of feedback for the firms trying to develop COVID-19 vaccines, according to McClellan, who also serves on the board of directors for Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson is among the firms that have advanced a COVID-19 vaccine candidate to phase 3 testing. In his role as a director, he serves on the board’s regulatory compliance committee.

Along with politics, recent stumbles at FDA with emergency use authorizations (EUAs) of treatments for COVID-19 have eroded the public’s confidence in the agency, Jha told the House panel. The FDA approved hydroxychloroquine, a medicine promoted by Trump for use in COVID, under an EUA in March and then revoked this clearance in June.

Jha said the FDA’s most serious misstep was its handling of convalescent plasma, which was approved through an EUA on August 23 “in a highly advertised and widely televised announcement including the president.

“The announcement solidified in the public conversation the impression that, increasingly with this administration, politics are taking over trusted, nonpartisan scientific institutions,” he said in his testimony.

Approving a COVID-19 vaccine on the limited evidence through an EUA would mark a serious departure from FDA policy, according to Jha.

“While we sometimes accept a certain level of potential harm in experimental treatments for those who are severely ill, vaccines are given to healthy people and therefore need to have a substantially higher measure of safety and effectiveness,” he explained.

Jha said the FDA has only once before used this EUA approach for a vaccine. That was for a vaccine against inhaled anthrax and was mostly distributed to high-risk soldiers and civilians in war zones.

COVID-19, in contrast, is an infection that has changed lives around the world. The virus has contributed to more than 1 million deaths, including more than 200,000 in the United States, according to the World Health Organization.

Scientists are hoping vaccines will help curb this infection, although much of the future success of vaccines depends on how widely they are used, witnesses told the House panel.
 

Debate on approaches for vaccine effectiveness

In his testimony, Jha also noted concerns about COVID-19 vaccine trials. He included a reference to a Sept. 22 opinion article titled, “These Coronavirus Trials Don›t Answer the One Question We Need to Know,” which was written by Peter Doshi, PhD, of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, in Baltimore, and Eric Topol, MD, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.

Topol and Doshi questioned why the firms Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca structured their competing trials such that “a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild Covid-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalization, admissions to the intensive care unit or death.”

“To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick,” Topol and Doshi wrote. “That’s not what these trials will determine.”

There was disagreement about this point at the hearing. U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) read the section of the Doshi-Topol article quoted above and asked one witness, Offit, to weigh in.

“Do you agree with those concerns? And either way, tell me why,” Griffith asked.

“I don’t agree,” Offit responded.

“I think it’s actually much harder to prevent asymptomatic infection or mildly symptomatic infection,” he said. “If you can prevent that, you are much more likely to prevent moderate to severe disease. So I think they have it backwards.”

But other researchers also question the approaches used with the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines.

“With the current protocols, it is conceivable that a vaccine might be considered effective – and eventually approved – based primarily on its ability to prevent mild cases alone,” wrote William Haseltine, PhD, president of the nonprofit ACCESS Health International, in a September 22 opinion article in the Washington Post titled: “Beware of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Designed to Succeed From the Start.”
In an interview with Medscape Medical News on Wednesday, Haseltine said he maintains these concerns about the tests. Earlier in his career, he was a leader in HIV research through his lab at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and he subsequently led a biotech company, Human Genome Sciences.

He fears consumers will not get what they might expect from the vaccines being tested.

“What people care about is if this is going to keep them out of the hospital and will it keep them alive. And that’s not even part of this protocol,” Haseltine said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clarence Troutman survived a 2-month hospital stay with COVID-19, then went home in early June. But he’s far from over the disease, still suffering from limited endurance, shortness of breath and hands that can be stiff and swollen.

“Before COVID, I was a 59-year-old, relatively healthy man,” said the broadband technician from Denver. “If I had to say where I’m at now, I’d say about 50% of where I was, but when I first went home, I was at 20%.”

He credits much of his progress to the “motivation and education” gleaned from a new program for post-COVID patients at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, one of a small but growing number of clinics aimed at treating and studying those who have had the unpredictable coronavirus.

As the election nears, much attention is focused on daily infection numbers or the climbing death toll, but another measure matters: Patients who survive but continue to wrestle with a range of physical or mental effects, including lung damage, heart or neurologic concerns, anxiety, and depression.

“We need to think about how we’re going to provide care for patients who may be recovering for years after the virus,” said Sarah Jolley, MD, a pulmonologist with UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital and director of UCHealth’s Post-Covid Clinic, where Mr. Troutman is seen.

That need has jump-started post-COVID clinics, which bring together a range of specialists into a one-stop shop.

One of the first and largest such clinics is at Mount Sinai in New York City, but programs have also launched at the University of California,San Francisco; Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center; and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. The Cleveland Clinic plans to open one early next year. And it’s not just academic medical centers: St. John’s Well Child and Family Center, part of a network of community clinics in south central Los Angeles, said this month it aims to test thousands of its patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 since March for long-term effects.

The general idea is to bring together medical professionals across a broad spectrum, including physicians who specialize in lung disorders, heart issues, and brain and spinal cord problems. Mental health specialists are also involved, along with social workers and pharmacists. Many of the centers also do research studies, aiming to better understand why the virus hits certain patients so hard.

“Some of our patients, even those on a ventilator on death’s door, will come out remarkably unscathed,” said Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, an assistant professor of pulmonary critical care and a leader of the post-COVID program at UCSF, called the OPTIMAL clinic. “Others, even those who were never hospitalized, have disabling fatigue, ongoing chest pain, and shortness of breath, and there’s a whole spectrum in between.”
 

‘Staggering’ medical need

It’s too early to know how long the persistent medical effects and symptoms will linger, or to make accurate estimates on the percentage of patients affected.

Some early studies are sobering. An Austrian report released this month found that 76 of the first 86 patients studied had evidence of lung damage 6 weeks after hospital discharge, but that dropped to 48 patients at 12 weeks.

Some researchers and clinics say about 10% of U.S. COVID patients they see may have longer-running effects, said Zijian Chen, MD, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai, which has enrolled 400 patients so far.

If that estimate is correct – and Dr. Chen emphasized that more research is needed to make sure – it translates to patients entering the medical system in droves, often with multiple issues.

How health systems and insurers respond will be key, he said. More than 6.5 million U.S. residents have tested positive for the disease. If fewer than 10% – say 500,000 – already have long-lasting symptoms, “that number is staggering,” Dr. Chen said. “How much medical care will be needed for that?”

Though start-up costs could be a hurdle, the clinics themselves may eventually draw much-needed revenue to medical centers by attracting patients, many of whom have insurance to cover some or all of the cost of repeated visits.

Dr. Chen said the specialized centers can help lower health spending by providing more cost effective, coordinated care that avoids duplicative testing a patient might otherwise undergo.

“We’ve seen patients that when they come in, they’ve already had four MRI or CT scans and a stack of bloodwork,” he said.

The program consolidates those earlier results and determines if any additional testing is needed. Sometimes the answer to what’s causing patients’ long-lasting symptoms remains elusive. One problem for patients seeking help outside of dedicated clinics is that when there is no clear cause for their condition, they may be told the symptoms are imagined.

“I believe in the patients,” said Dr. Chen.

About half the clinic’s patients have received test results showing damage, said Dr. Chen, an endocrinologist and internal medicine physician. For those patients, the clinic can develop a treatment plan. But, frustratingly, the other half have inconclusive test results yet exhibit a range of symptoms.

“That makes it more difficult to treat,” said Dr. Chen.

Experts see parallels to a push in the past decade to establish special clinics to treat patients released from ICU wards, who may have problems related to long-term bed rest or the delirium many experience while hospitalized. Some of the current post-COVID clinics are modeled after the post-ICU clinics or are expanded versions of them.

The ICU Recovery Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., for instance, which opened in 2012, is accepting post-COVID patients.

There are about a dozen post-ICU clinics nationally, some of which are also now working with COVID patients, said James Jackson, director of long-term outcomes at the Vanderbilt center. In addition, he’s heard of at least another dozen post-COVID centers in development.

The centers generally do an initial assessment a few weeks after a patient is diagnosed or discharged from the hospital, often by video call. Check-in and repeat visits are scheduled every month or so after that.

“In an ideal world, with these post-COVID clinics, you can identify the patients and get them into rehab,” he said. “Even if the primary thing these clinics did was to say to patients: ‘This is real, it is not all in your head,’ that impact would be important.”
 

A question of feasibility

Financing is the largest obstacle, program proponents said. Many hospitals lost substantial revenue to canceled elective procedures during stay-at-home periods.

“So, it’s not a great time to be pitching a new activity that requires a start-up subsidy,” said Glenn Melnick, PhD, a professor of health economics at the University of Southern California.

At UCSF, a select group of faculty members staff the post-COVID clinics and some mental health professionals volunteer their time, said Dr. Santhosh.

Dr. Chen said he was able to recruit team members and support staff from the ranks of those whose elective patient caseload had dropped.

Dr. Jackson said unfortunately there’s not been enough research into the cost-and-clinical effectiveness of post-ICU centers.

“In the early days, there may have been questions about how much value does this add,” he noted. “Now, the question is not so much is it a good idea, but is it feasible?”

Right now, the post-COVID centers are foremost a research effort, said Len Nichols, an economist and nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute. “If these guys get good at treating long-term symptoms, that’s good for all of us. There’s not enough patients to make it a business model yet, but if they become the place to go when you get it, it could become a business model for some of the elite institutions.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Clarence Troutman survived a 2-month hospital stay with COVID-19, then went home in early June. But he’s far from over the disease, still suffering from limited endurance, shortness of breath and hands that can be stiff and swollen.

“Before COVID, I was a 59-year-old, relatively healthy man,” said the broadband technician from Denver. “If I had to say where I’m at now, I’d say about 50% of where I was, but when I first went home, I was at 20%.”

He credits much of his progress to the “motivation and education” gleaned from a new program for post-COVID patients at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, one of a small but growing number of clinics aimed at treating and studying those who have had the unpredictable coronavirus.

As the election nears, much attention is focused on daily infection numbers or the climbing death toll, but another measure matters: Patients who survive but continue to wrestle with a range of physical or mental effects, including lung damage, heart or neurologic concerns, anxiety, and depression.

“We need to think about how we’re going to provide care for patients who may be recovering for years after the virus,” said Sarah Jolley, MD, a pulmonologist with UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital and director of UCHealth’s Post-Covid Clinic, where Mr. Troutman is seen.

That need has jump-started post-COVID clinics, which bring together a range of specialists into a one-stop shop.

One of the first and largest such clinics is at Mount Sinai in New York City, but programs have also launched at the University of California,San Francisco; Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center; and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. The Cleveland Clinic plans to open one early next year. And it’s not just academic medical centers: St. John’s Well Child and Family Center, part of a network of community clinics in south central Los Angeles, said this month it aims to test thousands of its patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 since March for long-term effects.

The general idea is to bring together medical professionals across a broad spectrum, including physicians who specialize in lung disorders, heart issues, and brain and spinal cord problems. Mental health specialists are also involved, along with social workers and pharmacists. Many of the centers also do research studies, aiming to better understand why the virus hits certain patients so hard.

“Some of our patients, even those on a ventilator on death’s door, will come out remarkably unscathed,” said Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, an assistant professor of pulmonary critical care and a leader of the post-COVID program at UCSF, called the OPTIMAL clinic. “Others, even those who were never hospitalized, have disabling fatigue, ongoing chest pain, and shortness of breath, and there’s a whole spectrum in between.”
 

‘Staggering’ medical need

It’s too early to know how long the persistent medical effects and symptoms will linger, or to make accurate estimates on the percentage of patients affected.

Some early studies are sobering. An Austrian report released this month found that 76 of the first 86 patients studied had evidence of lung damage 6 weeks after hospital discharge, but that dropped to 48 patients at 12 weeks.

Some researchers and clinics say about 10% of U.S. COVID patients they see may have longer-running effects, said Zijian Chen, MD, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai, which has enrolled 400 patients so far.

If that estimate is correct – and Dr. Chen emphasized that more research is needed to make sure – it translates to patients entering the medical system in droves, often with multiple issues.

How health systems and insurers respond will be key, he said. More than 6.5 million U.S. residents have tested positive for the disease. If fewer than 10% – say 500,000 – already have long-lasting symptoms, “that number is staggering,” Dr. Chen said. “How much medical care will be needed for that?”

Though start-up costs could be a hurdle, the clinics themselves may eventually draw much-needed revenue to medical centers by attracting patients, many of whom have insurance to cover some or all of the cost of repeated visits.

Dr. Chen said the specialized centers can help lower health spending by providing more cost effective, coordinated care that avoids duplicative testing a patient might otherwise undergo.

“We’ve seen patients that when they come in, they’ve already had four MRI or CT scans and a stack of bloodwork,” he said.

The program consolidates those earlier results and determines if any additional testing is needed. Sometimes the answer to what’s causing patients’ long-lasting symptoms remains elusive. One problem for patients seeking help outside of dedicated clinics is that when there is no clear cause for their condition, they may be told the symptoms are imagined.

“I believe in the patients,” said Dr. Chen.

About half the clinic’s patients have received test results showing damage, said Dr. Chen, an endocrinologist and internal medicine physician. For those patients, the clinic can develop a treatment plan. But, frustratingly, the other half have inconclusive test results yet exhibit a range of symptoms.

“That makes it more difficult to treat,” said Dr. Chen.

Experts see parallels to a push in the past decade to establish special clinics to treat patients released from ICU wards, who may have problems related to long-term bed rest or the delirium many experience while hospitalized. Some of the current post-COVID clinics are modeled after the post-ICU clinics or are expanded versions of them.

The ICU Recovery Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., for instance, which opened in 2012, is accepting post-COVID patients.

There are about a dozen post-ICU clinics nationally, some of which are also now working with COVID patients, said James Jackson, director of long-term outcomes at the Vanderbilt center. In addition, he’s heard of at least another dozen post-COVID centers in development.

The centers generally do an initial assessment a few weeks after a patient is diagnosed or discharged from the hospital, often by video call. Check-in and repeat visits are scheduled every month or so after that.

“In an ideal world, with these post-COVID clinics, you can identify the patients and get them into rehab,” he said. “Even if the primary thing these clinics did was to say to patients: ‘This is real, it is not all in your head,’ that impact would be important.”
 

A question of feasibility

Financing is the largest obstacle, program proponents said. Many hospitals lost substantial revenue to canceled elective procedures during stay-at-home periods.

“So, it’s not a great time to be pitching a new activity that requires a start-up subsidy,” said Glenn Melnick, PhD, a professor of health economics at the University of Southern California.

At UCSF, a select group of faculty members staff the post-COVID clinics and some mental health professionals volunteer their time, said Dr. Santhosh.

Dr. Chen said he was able to recruit team members and support staff from the ranks of those whose elective patient caseload had dropped.

Dr. Jackson said unfortunately there’s not been enough research into the cost-and-clinical effectiveness of post-ICU centers.

“In the early days, there may have been questions about how much value does this add,” he noted. “Now, the question is not so much is it a good idea, but is it feasible?”

Right now, the post-COVID centers are foremost a research effort, said Len Nichols, an economist and nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute. “If these guys get good at treating long-term symptoms, that’s good for all of us. There’s not enough patients to make it a business model yet, but if they become the place to go when you get it, it could become a business model for some of the elite institutions.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Clarence Troutman survived a 2-month hospital stay with COVID-19, then went home in early June. But he’s far from over the disease, still suffering from limited endurance, shortness of breath and hands that can be stiff and swollen.

“Before COVID, I was a 59-year-old, relatively healthy man,” said the broadband technician from Denver. “If I had to say where I’m at now, I’d say about 50% of where I was, but when I first went home, I was at 20%.”

He credits much of his progress to the “motivation and education” gleaned from a new program for post-COVID patients at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, one of a small but growing number of clinics aimed at treating and studying those who have had the unpredictable coronavirus.

As the election nears, much attention is focused on daily infection numbers or the climbing death toll, but another measure matters: Patients who survive but continue to wrestle with a range of physical or mental effects, including lung damage, heart or neurologic concerns, anxiety, and depression.

“We need to think about how we’re going to provide care for patients who may be recovering for years after the virus,” said Sarah Jolley, MD, a pulmonologist with UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital and director of UCHealth’s Post-Covid Clinic, where Mr. Troutman is seen.

That need has jump-started post-COVID clinics, which bring together a range of specialists into a one-stop shop.

One of the first and largest such clinics is at Mount Sinai in New York City, but programs have also launched at the University of California,San Francisco; Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center; and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. The Cleveland Clinic plans to open one early next year. And it’s not just academic medical centers: St. John’s Well Child and Family Center, part of a network of community clinics in south central Los Angeles, said this month it aims to test thousands of its patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 since March for long-term effects.

The general idea is to bring together medical professionals across a broad spectrum, including physicians who specialize in lung disorders, heart issues, and brain and spinal cord problems. Mental health specialists are also involved, along with social workers and pharmacists. Many of the centers also do research studies, aiming to better understand why the virus hits certain patients so hard.

“Some of our patients, even those on a ventilator on death’s door, will come out remarkably unscathed,” said Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, an assistant professor of pulmonary critical care and a leader of the post-COVID program at UCSF, called the OPTIMAL clinic. “Others, even those who were never hospitalized, have disabling fatigue, ongoing chest pain, and shortness of breath, and there’s a whole spectrum in between.”
 

‘Staggering’ medical need

It’s too early to know how long the persistent medical effects and symptoms will linger, or to make accurate estimates on the percentage of patients affected.

Some early studies are sobering. An Austrian report released this month found that 76 of the first 86 patients studied had evidence of lung damage 6 weeks after hospital discharge, but that dropped to 48 patients at 12 weeks.

Some researchers and clinics say about 10% of U.S. COVID patients they see may have longer-running effects, said Zijian Chen, MD, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai, which has enrolled 400 patients so far.

If that estimate is correct – and Dr. Chen emphasized that more research is needed to make sure – it translates to patients entering the medical system in droves, often with multiple issues.

How health systems and insurers respond will be key, he said. More than 6.5 million U.S. residents have tested positive for the disease. If fewer than 10% – say 500,000 – already have long-lasting symptoms, “that number is staggering,” Dr. Chen said. “How much medical care will be needed for that?”

Though start-up costs could be a hurdle, the clinics themselves may eventually draw much-needed revenue to medical centers by attracting patients, many of whom have insurance to cover some or all of the cost of repeated visits.

Dr. Chen said the specialized centers can help lower health spending by providing more cost effective, coordinated care that avoids duplicative testing a patient might otherwise undergo.

“We’ve seen patients that when they come in, they’ve already had four MRI or CT scans and a stack of bloodwork,” he said.

The program consolidates those earlier results and determines if any additional testing is needed. Sometimes the answer to what’s causing patients’ long-lasting symptoms remains elusive. One problem for patients seeking help outside of dedicated clinics is that when there is no clear cause for their condition, they may be told the symptoms are imagined.

“I believe in the patients,” said Dr. Chen.

About half the clinic’s patients have received test results showing damage, said Dr. Chen, an endocrinologist and internal medicine physician. For those patients, the clinic can develop a treatment plan. But, frustratingly, the other half have inconclusive test results yet exhibit a range of symptoms.

“That makes it more difficult to treat,” said Dr. Chen.

Experts see parallels to a push in the past decade to establish special clinics to treat patients released from ICU wards, who may have problems related to long-term bed rest or the delirium many experience while hospitalized. Some of the current post-COVID clinics are modeled after the post-ICU clinics or are expanded versions of them.

The ICU Recovery Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., for instance, which opened in 2012, is accepting post-COVID patients.

There are about a dozen post-ICU clinics nationally, some of which are also now working with COVID patients, said James Jackson, director of long-term outcomes at the Vanderbilt center. In addition, he’s heard of at least another dozen post-COVID centers in development.

The centers generally do an initial assessment a few weeks after a patient is diagnosed or discharged from the hospital, often by video call. Check-in and repeat visits are scheduled every month or so after that.

“In an ideal world, with these post-COVID clinics, you can identify the patients and get them into rehab,” he said. “Even if the primary thing these clinics did was to say to patients: ‘This is real, it is not all in your head,’ that impact would be important.”
 

A question of feasibility

Financing is the largest obstacle, program proponents said. Many hospitals lost substantial revenue to canceled elective procedures during stay-at-home periods.

“So, it’s not a great time to be pitching a new activity that requires a start-up subsidy,” said Glenn Melnick, PhD, a professor of health economics at the University of Southern California.

At UCSF, a select group of faculty members staff the post-COVID clinics and some mental health professionals volunteer their time, said Dr. Santhosh.

Dr. Chen said he was able to recruit team members and support staff from the ranks of those whose elective patient caseload had dropped.

Dr. Jackson said unfortunately there’s not been enough research into the cost-and-clinical effectiveness of post-ICU centers.

“In the early days, there may have been questions about how much value does this add,” he noted. “Now, the question is not so much is it a good idea, but is it feasible?”

Right now, the post-COVID centers are foremost a research effort, said Len Nichols, an economist and nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute. “If these guys get good at treating long-term symptoms, that’s good for all of us. There’s not enough patients to make it a business model yet, but if they become the place to go when you get it, it could become a business model for some of the elite institutions.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Among COVID-19 patients who undergo mechanical ventilation, lying in the prone position has been associated with lasting nerve damage. A new case series describes peripheral nerve injuries associated with this type of positioning and suggests ways to minimize the potential damage.

“Physicians should remain aware of increased susceptibility to peripheral nerve damage in patients with severe COVID-19 after prone positioning, since it is surprisingly common among these patients, and should refine standard protocols accordingly to reduce that risk,” said senior author Colin Franz, MD, PhD, director of the Electrodiagnostic Laboratory, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago.

The article was published online Sept. 4 in the British Journal of Anaesthesiology.
 

Unique type of nerve injury

Many patients who are admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 undergo invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Clinical guidelines recommend that such patients lie in the prone position 12-16 hours per day.

“Prone positioning for up to 16 hours is a therapy we use for patients with more severe forms of ARDS, and high-level evidence points to mortality benefit in patients with moderate to severe ARDS if [mechanical] ventilation occurs,” said study coauthor James McCauley Walter, MD, of the pulmonary division at Northwestern University, Chicago.

With a “significant number of COVID-19 patients flooding the ICU, we quickly started to prone a lot of them, but if you are in a specific position for multiple hours a day, coupled with the neurotoxic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, you may be exposed to a unique type of nerve injury,” he said.

Dr. Walter said that the “incidence of asymmetric neuropathies seems out of proportion to what has been reported in non–COVID-19 settings, which is what caught our attention.”

Many of these patients are discharged to rehabilitation hospitals, and “what we noticed, which was unique about COVID-19 patients coming to our rehab hospital, was that, compared with other patients who had been critically ill with a long hospital stay, there was a significantly higher percentage of COVID-19 patients who had peripheral nerve damage,” Dr. Franz said.

The authors described 12 of these patients who were admitted between April 24 and June 30, 2020 (mean age, 60.3 years; range, 23-80 years). The sample included White, Black, and Hispanic individuals. Eleven of the 12 post–COVID-19 patients with peripheral nerve damage had experienced prone positioning during acute management.

The average number of days patients received mechanical ventilation was 33.6 (range, 12-62 days). The average number of proning sessions was 4.5 (range, 1-16) with an average of 81.2 hours (range, 16-252 hours) spent prone.
 

A major contributor

Dr. Franz suggested that prone positioning is likely not the only cause of peripheral nerve damage but “may play a big role in these patients who are vulnerable because of viral infection and the critical illness that causes damage and nerve injuries.”

“The first component of lifesaving care for the critically ill in the ICU is intravenous fluids, mechanical ventilation, steroids, and antibiotics for infection,” said Dr. Walter.

“We are trying to come up with ways to place patients in prone position in safer ways, to pay attention to pressure points and areas of injury that we have seen and try to offload them, to see if we can decrease the rate of these injuries,” he added.

The researchers’ article includes a heat map diagram as a “template for where to focus the most efforts, in terms of decreasing pressure,” Dr. Walter said.

“The nerves are accepting too much force for gravely ill COVID-19 patients to handle, so we suggest using the template to determine where extra padding might be needed, or a protocol that might include changes in positioning,” he added.

Dr. Franz described the interventions used for COVID-19 patients with prone positioning–related peripheral nerve damage. “The first step is trying to address the problems one by one, either trying to solve them through exercise or teaching new skills, new ways to compensate, beginning with basic activities, such as getting out of bed and self-care,” he said.

Long-term recovery of nerve injuries depends on how severe the injuries are. Some nerves can slowly regenerate – possibly at the rate of 1 inch per month – which can be a long process, taking between a year and 18 months.

Dr. Franz said that therapies for this condition are “extrapolated from clinical trial work” on promoting nerve regeneration after surgery using electrical stimulation to enable nerves to regrow at a faster rate.

“Regeneration is not only slow, but it may not happen completely, leaving the patient with permanent nerve damage – in fact, based on our experience and what has been reported, the percentage of patients with full recovery is only 10%,” he said.

The most common symptomatic complaint other than lack of movement or feeling is neuropathic pain, “which may require medication to take the edge off the pain,” Dr. Franz added.
 

Irreversible damage?

Commenting on the study, Tae Chung, MD, of the departments of physical medicine, rehabilitation, and neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the study “provides one of the first and the largest description of peripheral nerve injury associated with prone positioning for management of ARDS from COVID-19.”

Dr. Chung, who was not involved in the research, noted that “various neurological complications from COVID-19 have been reported, and some of them may result in irreversible neurological damage or delay the recovery from COVID-19 infection,” so “accurate and timely diagnosis of such neurological complications is critical for rehabilitation of the COVID-19 survivors.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Franz, Dr. Walter, study coauthors, and Dr. Chung report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among COVID-19 patients who undergo mechanical ventilation, lying in the prone position has been associated with lasting nerve damage. A new case series describes peripheral nerve injuries associated with this type of positioning and suggests ways to minimize the potential damage.

“Physicians should remain aware of increased susceptibility to peripheral nerve damage in patients with severe COVID-19 after prone positioning, since it is surprisingly common among these patients, and should refine standard protocols accordingly to reduce that risk,” said senior author Colin Franz, MD, PhD, director of the Electrodiagnostic Laboratory, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago.

The article was published online Sept. 4 in the British Journal of Anaesthesiology.
 

Unique type of nerve injury

Many patients who are admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 undergo invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Clinical guidelines recommend that such patients lie in the prone position 12-16 hours per day.

“Prone positioning for up to 16 hours is a therapy we use for patients with more severe forms of ARDS, and high-level evidence points to mortality benefit in patients with moderate to severe ARDS if [mechanical] ventilation occurs,” said study coauthor James McCauley Walter, MD, of the pulmonary division at Northwestern University, Chicago.

With a “significant number of COVID-19 patients flooding the ICU, we quickly started to prone a lot of them, but if you are in a specific position for multiple hours a day, coupled with the neurotoxic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, you may be exposed to a unique type of nerve injury,” he said.

Dr. Walter said that the “incidence of asymmetric neuropathies seems out of proportion to what has been reported in non–COVID-19 settings, which is what caught our attention.”

Many of these patients are discharged to rehabilitation hospitals, and “what we noticed, which was unique about COVID-19 patients coming to our rehab hospital, was that, compared with other patients who had been critically ill with a long hospital stay, there was a significantly higher percentage of COVID-19 patients who had peripheral nerve damage,” Dr. Franz said.

The authors described 12 of these patients who were admitted between April 24 and June 30, 2020 (mean age, 60.3 years; range, 23-80 years). The sample included White, Black, and Hispanic individuals. Eleven of the 12 post–COVID-19 patients with peripheral nerve damage had experienced prone positioning during acute management.

The average number of days patients received mechanical ventilation was 33.6 (range, 12-62 days). The average number of proning sessions was 4.5 (range, 1-16) with an average of 81.2 hours (range, 16-252 hours) spent prone.
 

A major contributor

Dr. Franz suggested that prone positioning is likely not the only cause of peripheral nerve damage but “may play a big role in these patients who are vulnerable because of viral infection and the critical illness that causes damage and nerve injuries.”

“The first component of lifesaving care for the critically ill in the ICU is intravenous fluids, mechanical ventilation, steroids, and antibiotics for infection,” said Dr. Walter.

“We are trying to come up with ways to place patients in prone position in safer ways, to pay attention to pressure points and areas of injury that we have seen and try to offload them, to see if we can decrease the rate of these injuries,” he added.

The researchers’ article includes a heat map diagram as a “template for where to focus the most efforts, in terms of decreasing pressure,” Dr. Walter said.

“The nerves are accepting too much force for gravely ill COVID-19 patients to handle, so we suggest using the template to determine where extra padding might be needed, or a protocol that might include changes in positioning,” he added.

Dr. Franz described the interventions used for COVID-19 patients with prone positioning–related peripheral nerve damage. “The first step is trying to address the problems one by one, either trying to solve them through exercise or teaching new skills, new ways to compensate, beginning with basic activities, such as getting out of bed and self-care,” he said.

Long-term recovery of nerve injuries depends on how severe the injuries are. Some nerves can slowly regenerate – possibly at the rate of 1 inch per month – which can be a long process, taking between a year and 18 months.

Dr. Franz said that therapies for this condition are “extrapolated from clinical trial work” on promoting nerve regeneration after surgery using electrical stimulation to enable nerves to regrow at a faster rate.

“Regeneration is not only slow, but it may not happen completely, leaving the patient with permanent nerve damage – in fact, based on our experience and what has been reported, the percentage of patients with full recovery is only 10%,” he said.

The most common symptomatic complaint other than lack of movement or feeling is neuropathic pain, “which may require medication to take the edge off the pain,” Dr. Franz added.
 

Irreversible damage?

Commenting on the study, Tae Chung, MD, of the departments of physical medicine, rehabilitation, and neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the study “provides one of the first and the largest description of peripheral nerve injury associated with prone positioning for management of ARDS from COVID-19.”

Dr. Chung, who was not involved in the research, noted that “various neurological complications from COVID-19 have been reported, and some of them may result in irreversible neurological damage or delay the recovery from COVID-19 infection,” so “accurate and timely diagnosis of such neurological complications is critical for rehabilitation of the COVID-19 survivors.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Franz, Dr. Walter, study coauthors, and Dr. Chung report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among COVID-19 patients who undergo mechanical ventilation, lying in the prone position has been associated with lasting nerve damage. A new case series describes peripheral nerve injuries associated with this type of positioning and suggests ways to minimize the potential damage.

“Physicians should remain aware of increased susceptibility to peripheral nerve damage in patients with severe COVID-19 after prone positioning, since it is surprisingly common among these patients, and should refine standard protocols accordingly to reduce that risk,” said senior author Colin Franz, MD, PhD, director of the Electrodiagnostic Laboratory, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago.

The article was published online Sept. 4 in the British Journal of Anaesthesiology.
 

Unique type of nerve injury

Many patients who are admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 undergo invasive mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Clinical guidelines recommend that such patients lie in the prone position 12-16 hours per day.

“Prone positioning for up to 16 hours is a therapy we use for patients with more severe forms of ARDS, and high-level evidence points to mortality benefit in patients with moderate to severe ARDS if [mechanical] ventilation occurs,” said study coauthor James McCauley Walter, MD, of the pulmonary division at Northwestern University, Chicago.

With a “significant number of COVID-19 patients flooding the ICU, we quickly started to prone a lot of them, but if you are in a specific position for multiple hours a day, coupled with the neurotoxic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, you may be exposed to a unique type of nerve injury,” he said.

Dr. Walter said that the “incidence of asymmetric neuropathies seems out of proportion to what has been reported in non–COVID-19 settings, which is what caught our attention.”

Many of these patients are discharged to rehabilitation hospitals, and “what we noticed, which was unique about COVID-19 patients coming to our rehab hospital, was that, compared with other patients who had been critically ill with a long hospital stay, there was a significantly higher percentage of COVID-19 patients who had peripheral nerve damage,” Dr. Franz said.

The authors described 12 of these patients who were admitted between April 24 and June 30, 2020 (mean age, 60.3 years; range, 23-80 years). The sample included White, Black, and Hispanic individuals. Eleven of the 12 post–COVID-19 patients with peripheral nerve damage had experienced prone positioning during acute management.

The average number of days patients received mechanical ventilation was 33.6 (range, 12-62 days). The average number of proning sessions was 4.5 (range, 1-16) with an average of 81.2 hours (range, 16-252 hours) spent prone.
 

A major contributor

Dr. Franz suggested that prone positioning is likely not the only cause of peripheral nerve damage but “may play a big role in these patients who are vulnerable because of viral infection and the critical illness that causes damage and nerve injuries.”

“The first component of lifesaving care for the critically ill in the ICU is intravenous fluids, mechanical ventilation, steroids, and antibiotics for infection,” said Dr. Walter.

“We are trying to come up with ways to place patients in prone position in safer ways, to pay attention to pressure points and areas of injury that we have seen and try to offload them, to see if we can decrease the rate of these injuries,” he added.

The researchers’ article includes a heat map diagram as a “template for where to focus the most efforts, in terms of decreasing pressure,” Dr. Walter said.

“The nerves are accepting too much force for gravely ill COVID-19 patients to handle, so we suggest using the template to determine where extra padding might be needed, or a protocol that might include changes in positioning,” he added.

Dr. Franz described the interventions used for COVID-19 patients with prone positioning–related peripheral nerve damage. “The first step is trying to address the problems one by one, either trying to solve them through exercise or teaching new skills, new ways to compensate, beginning with basic activities, such as getting out of bed and self-care,” he said.

Long-term recovery of nerve injuries depends on how severe the injuries are. Some nerves can slowly regenerate – possibly at the rate of 1 inch per month – which can be a long process, taking between a year and 18 months.

Dr. Franz said that therapies for this condition are “extrapolated from clinical trial work” on promoting nerve regeneration after surgery using electrical stimulation to enable nerves to regrow at a faster rate.

“Regeneration is not only slow, but it may not happen completely, leaving the patient with permanent nerve damage – in fact, based on our experience and what has been reported, the percentage of patients with full recovery is only 10%,” he said.

The most common symptomatic complaint other than lack of movement or feeling is neuropathic pain, “which may require medication to take the edge off the pain,” Dr. Franz added.
 

Irreversible damage?

Commenting on the study, Tae Chung, MD, of the departments of physical medicine, rehabilitation, and neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the study “provides one of the first and the largest description of peripheral nerve injury associated with prone positioning for management of ARDS from COVID-19.”

Dr. Chung, who was not involved in the research, noted that “various neurological complications from COVID-19 have been reported, and some of them may result in irreversible neurological damage or delay the recovery from COVID-19 infection,” so “accurate and timely diagnosis of such neurological complications is critical for rehabilitation of the COVID-19 survivors.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Franz, Dr. Walter, study coauthors, and Dr. Chung report no relevant financial relationships.

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

President Trump on Oct. 1 signed a bill to keep the federal government running through December 11. This “continuing resolution” (CR), which was approved by the Senate Wednesday on an 84-10 vote, according to The New York Times, includes provisions to delay repayment by physicians of pandemic-related Medicare loans and to reduce the loans’ interest rate.

In an earlier news release, the American Medical Association reported that Congress and the White House had agreed to include the provisions on Medicare loans in the CR.

Under the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments (AAP) program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services advanced money to physicians who were financially impacted by the pandemic. The program, created in March, was suspended in late April.

Physicians who received the Medicare loans were supposed to start paying them back 120 days after they were made. CMS planned to recoup the advances by offsetting them against Medicare claims payments due to physicians. Practices had up to 210 days (7 months) to repay the loans through this process before being asked to repay them directly with interest of 10.25%.

For the practices that received these advances, that meant their Medicare cash flow was scheduled to dry up, starting in August. However, CMS quietly abstained from collecting these payments when they came due, according to Modern Healthcare.
 

New terms

Under the new loan repayment terms in the CR, recoupment of the disbursed funds is postponed until 365 days after the date on which a practice received the money. The balance is due by September 2022.

The amount to be recouped from each claim is reduced from 100% to 25% of the claim for the first 11 months and to 50% of claims withheld for an additional 6 months. If the loan is not repaid in full by then, the provider must pay the balance with interest of 4%.

More than 80% of the $100 billion that CMS loaned to healthcare providers through May 2 went to hospitals, Modern Healthcare calculated. Of the remainder, specialty or multispecialty practices received $3.5 billion, internal medicine specialists got $24 million, family physicians were loaned $15 million, and federally qualified health centers received $20 million.

In the AMA’s news release, AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, who assumed the post in June, called the original loan repayment plan an “economic sword hanging over physician practices.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Trump on Oct. 1 signed a bill to keep the federal government running through December 11. This “continuing resolution” (CR), which was approved by the Senate Wednesday on an 84-10 vote, according to The New York Times, includes provisions to delay repayment by physicians of pandemic-related Medicare loans and to reduce the loans’ interest rate.

In an earlier news release, the American Medical Association reported that Congress and the White House had agreed to include the provisions on Medicare loans in the CR.

Under the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments (AAP) program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services advanced money to physicians who were financially impacted by the pandemic. The program, created in March, was suspended in late April.

Physicians who received the Medicare loans were supposed to start paying them back 120 days after they were made. CMS planned to recoup the advances by offsetting them against Medicare claims payments due to physicians. Practices had up to 210 days (7 months) to repay the loans through this process before being asked to repay them directly with interest of 10.25%.

For the practices that received these advances, that meant their Medicare cash flow was scheduled to dry up, starting in August. However, CMS quietly abstained from collecting these payments when they came due, according to Modern Healthcare.
 

New terms

Under the new loan repayment terms in the CR, recoupment of the disbursed funds is postponed until 365 days after the date on which a practice received the money. The balance is due by September 2022.

The amount to be recouped from each claim is reduced from 100% to 25% of the claim for the first 11 months and to 50% of claims withheld for an additional 6 months. If the loan is not repaid in full by then, the provider must pay the balance with interest of 4%.

More than 80% of the $100 billion that CMS loaned to healthcare providers through May 2 went to hospitals, Modern Healthcare calculated. Of the remainder, specialty or multispecialty practices received $3.5 billion, internal medicine specialists got $24 million, family physicians were loaned $15 million, and federally qualified health centers received $20 million.

In the AMA’s news release, AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, who assumed the post in June, called the original loan repayment plan an “economic sword hanging over physician practices.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Trump on Oct. 1 signed a bill to keep the federal government running through December 11. This “continuing resolution” (CR), which was approved by the Senate Wednesday on an 84-10 vote, according to The New York Times, includes provisions to delay repayment by physicians of pandemic-related Medicare loans and to reduce the loans’ interest rate.

In an earlier news release, the American Medical Association reported that Congress and the White House had agreed to include the provisions on Medicare loans in the CR.

Under the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments (AAP) program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services advanced money to physicians who were financially impacted by the pandemic. The program, created in March, was suspended in late April.

Physicians who received the Medicare loans were supposed to start paying them back 120 days after they were made. CMS planned to recoup the advances by offsetting them against Medicare claims payments due to physicians. Practices had up to 210 days (7 months) to repay the loans through this process before being asked to repay them directly with interest of 10.25%.

For the practices that received these advances, that meant their Medicare cash flow was scheduled to dry up, starting in August. However, CMS quietly abstained from collecting these payments when they came due, according to Modern Healthcare.
 

New terms

Under the new loan repayment terms in the CR, recoupment of the disbursed funds is postponed until 365 days after the date on which a practice received the money. The balance is due by September 2022.

The amount to be recouped from each claim is reduced from 100% to 25% of the claim for the first 11 months and to 50% of claims withheld for an additional 6 months. If the loan is not repaid in full by then, the provider must pay the balance with interest of 4%.

More than 80% of the $100 billion that CMS loaned to healthcare providers through May 2 went to hospitals, Modern Healthcare calculated. Of the remainder, specialty or multispecialty practices received $3.5 billion, internal medicine specialists got $24 million, family physicians were loaned $15 million, and federally qualified health centers received $20 million.

In the AMA’s news release, AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, who assumed the post in June, called the original loan repayment plan an “economic sword hanging over physician practices.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.