User login
As COVID-19 cases increase in children, deaths remain low
according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The cumulative number of pediatric cases reported up to that date was 442,785, or 9.3% of the total COVID-19 case load of more than 4.76 million among all ages. There have been only 92 pediatric deaths, however, which works out to just 0.06% of the 154,279 reported for all ages, the AAP and the CHA said Aug. 24 in their most recent update.
Child hospitalizations also were on the low side, representing 1.7% (4,062) of the cumulative total of 234,810 admissions among all ages as of Aug. 20, based on data from 21 states and New York City.
Nationally, the cumulative number of reported child cases is now up to 583 per 100,000 children, and that figure covers 49 states, Washington, D.C., Guam, New York City, and Puerto Rico.
There is some disagreement among the states, though, about the definition of “child.” Most states use an age range of 0-17, 0-18, or 0-19, but Florida and Utah go with a range of 0-14 years while South Carolina and Tennessee consider humans aged 0-20 years to be children. Other data limitations involve Texas, which has reported age distribution for only 8% of all cases, and New York, which is not reporting the age distribution of statewide cases, the AAP/CHA report noted.
The definition of child isn’t the only thing that varies between the states. The cumulative case rate for Tennessee, the highest in the country at 1,315 per 100,000 children, is 10 times that of Vermont, which is the lowest at 131 per 100,000, the AAP and CHA said. Vermont reports child COVID-19 cases using an age range of 0-19 years.
The other states with rates over 1,000 cases per 100,000 children are Arizona (1,300), which had the highest rate a week ago; South Carolina (1,214); Louisiana (1,127); Mississippi (1,120); and Nevada (1,068). Those with rates below 200 cases per 100,000 children are Maine (150), New Hampshire (175), and Hawaii (188), according to this week’s report.
according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The cumulative number of pediatric cases reported up to that date was 442,785, or 9.3% of the total COVID-19 case load of more than 4.76 million among all ages. There have been only 92 pediatric deaths, however, which works out to just 0.06% of the 154,279 reported for all ages, the AAP and the CHA said Aug. 24 in their most recent update.
Child hospitalizations also were on the low side, representing 1.7% (4,062) of the cumulative total of 234,810 admissions among all ages as of Aug. 20, based on data from 21 states and New York City.
Nationally, the cumulative number of reported child cases is now up to 583 per 100,000 children, and that figure covers 49 states, Washington, D.C., Guam, New York City, and Puerto Rico.
There is some disagreement among the states, though, about the definition of “child.” Most states use an age range of 0-17, 0-18, or 0-19, but Florida and Utah go with a range of 0-14 years while South Carolina and Tennessee consider humans aged 0-20 years to be children. Other data limitations involve Texas, which has reported age distribution for only 8% of all cases, and New York, which is not reporting the age distribution of statewide cases, the AAP/CHA report noted.
The definition of child isn’t the only thing that varies between the states. The cumulative case rate for Tennessee, the highest in the country at 1,315 per 100,000 children, is 10 times that of Vermont, which is the lowest at 131 per 100,000, the AAP and CHA said. Vermont reports child COVID-19 cases using an age range of 0-19 years.
The other states with rates over 1,000 cases per 100,000 children are Arizona (1,300), which had the highest rate a week ago; South Carolina (1,214); Louisiana (1,127); Mississippi (1,120); and Nevada (1,068). Those with rates below 200 cases per 100,000 children are Maine (150), New Hampshire (175), and Hawaii (188), according to this week’s report.
according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The cumulative number of pediatric cases reported up to that date was 442,785, or 9.3% of the total COVID-19 case load of more than 4.76 million among all ages. There have been only 92 pediatric deaths, however, which works out to just 0.06% of the 154,279 reported for all ages, the AAP and the CHA said Aug. 24 in their most recent update.
Child hospitalizations also were on the low side, representing 1.7% (4,062) of the cumulative total of 234,810 admissions among all ages as of Aug. 20, based on data from 21 states and New York City.
Nationally, the cumulative number of reported child cases is now up to 583 per 100,000 children, and that figure covers 49 states, Washington, D.C., Guam, New York City, and Puerto Rico.
There is some disagreement among the states, though, about the definition of “child.” Most states use an age range of 0-17, 0-18, or 0-19, but Florida and Utah go with a range of 0-14 years while South Carolina and Tennessee consider humans aged 0-20 years to be children. Other data limitations involve Texas, which has reported age distribution for only 8% of all cases, and New York, which is not reporting the age distribution of statewide cases, the AAP/CHA report noted.
The definition of child isn’t the only thing that varies between the states. The cumulative case rate for Tennessee, the highest in the country at 1,315 per 100,000 children, is 10 times that of Vermont, which is the lowest at 131 per 100,000, the AAP and CHA said. Vermont reports child COVID-19 cases using an age range of 0-19 years.
The other states with rates over 1,000 cases per 100,000 children are Arizona (1,300), which had the highest rate a week ago; South Carolina (1,214); Louisiana (1,127); Mississippi (1,120); and Nevada (1,068). Those with rates below 200 cases per 100,000 children are Maine (150), New Hampshire (175), and Hawaii (188), according to this week’s report.
First evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in heart cells
SARS-CoV-2 has been found in cardiac tissue of a child from Brazil with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 who presented with myocarditis and died of heart failure.
It’s believed to be the first evidence of direct infection of heart muscle cells by the virus; viral particles were identified in different cell lineages of the heart, including cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, and inflammatory cells.
The case was described in a report published online August 20 in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.
“The presence of the virus in various cell types of cardiac tissue, as evidenced by electron microscopy, shows that myocarditis in this case is likely a direct inflammatory response to the virus infection in the heart,” first author Marisa Dolhnikoff, MD, department of pathology, University of São Paulo, said in an interview.
There have been previous reports in adults with COVID-19 of both SARS-CoV-2 RNA by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral particles by electron microscopy in cardiac tissue from endomyocardial specimens, the researchers noted. One of these reports, published in April by Tavazzi and colleagues, “detected viral particles in cardiac macrophages in an adult patient with acute cardiac injury associated with COVID-19; no viral particles were seen in cardiomyocytes or endothelial cells.
“Our case report is the first to our knowledge to document the presence of viral particles in the cardiac tissue of a child affected by MIS-C,” they added. “Moreover, viral particles were identified in different cell lineages of the heart, including cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, and inflammatory cells.”
‘Concerning’ case report
“This is a concerning report as it shows for the first time that the virus can actually invade the heart muscle cells themselves,” C. Michael Gibson, MD, CEO of the Baim Institute for Clinical Research in Boston, said in an interview.
“Previous reports of COVID-19 and the heart found that the virus was in the area outside the heart muscle cells. We do not know yet the relative contribution of the inflammatory cells invading the heart, the release of blood-borne inflammatory mediators, and the virus inside the heart muscle cells themselves to heart damage,” Dr. Gibson said.
The patient was a previously healthy 11-year-old girl of African descent with MIS-C related to COVID-19. She developed cardiac failure and died after 1 day in the hospital, despite aggressive treatment.
SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected on a postmortem nasopharyngeal swab and in cardiac and pulmonary tissues by RT-PCR.
Postmortem ultrasound examination of the heart showed a “hyperechogenic and diffusely thickened endocardium (mean thickness, 10 mm), a thickened myocardium (18 mm thick in the left ventricle), and a small pericardial effusion,” Dr. Dolhnikoff and colleagues reported.
Histopathologic exam revealed myocarditis, pericarditis, and endocarditis characterized by infiltration of inflammatory cells. Inflammation was mainly interstitial and perivascular, associated with foci of cardiomyocyte necrosis and was mainly composed of CD68+ macrophages, a few CD45+ lymphocytes, and a few neutrophils and eosinophils.
Electron microscopy of cardiac tissue revealed spherical viral particles in shape and size consistent with the Coronaviridae family in the extracellular compartment and within cardiomyocytes, capillary endothelial cells, endocardium endothelial cells, macrophages, neutrophils, and fibroblasts.
Microthrombi in the pulmonary arterioles and renal glomerular capillaries were also seen at autopsy. SARS-CoV-2–associated pneumonia was mild.
Lymphoid depletion and signs of hemophagocytosis were observed in the spleen and lymph nodes. Acute tubular necrosis in the kidneys and hepatic centrilobular necrosis, secondary to shock, were also seen. Brain tissue showed microglial reactivity.
“Fortunately, MIS-C is a rare event and, although it can be severe and life threatening, most children recover,” Dr. Dolhnikoff commented.
“This case report comes at a time when the scientific community around the world calls attention to MIS-C and the need for it to be quickly recognized and treated by the pediatric community. Evidence of a direct relation between the virus and myocarditis confirms that MIS-C is one of the possible forms of presentation of COVID-19 and that the heart may be the target organ. It also alerts clinicians to possible cardiac sequelae in these children,” she added.
Experts weigh in
Scott Aydin, MD, medical director of pediatric cardiac intensive care, Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Hospital in New York City, said that this case report is “unfortunately not all that surprising.
“Since the initial presentations of MIS-C several months ago, we have suspected mechanisms of direct and indirect injury to the myocardium. This important work is just the next step in further understanding the mechanisms of how COVID-19 creates havoc in the human body and the choices of possible therapies we have to treat children with COVID-19 and MIS-C,” said Dr. Aydin, who was not involved with the case report.
Anish Koka, MD, a cardiologist in private practice in Philadelphia, noted that, in these cases, endomyocardial biopsy is “rarely done because it is fairly invasive, but even when it has been done, the pathologic findings are of widespread inflammation rather than virus-induced cell necrosis.”
“While reports like this are sure to spawn viral tweets, it’s vital to understand that it’s not unusual to find widespread organ dissemination of virus in very sick patients. This does not mean that the virus is causing dysfunction of the organ it happens to be found in,” Dr. Koka said in an interview.
He noted that, in the case of the young girl who died, it took high PCR-cycle threshold values to isolate virus from the lung and heart samples.
“This means there was a low viral load in both organs, supporting the theory of SARS-CoV-2 as a potential trigger of a widespread inflammatory response that results in organ damage, rather than the virus itself infecting and destroying organs,” said Dr. Koka, who was also not associated with the case report.
This research had no specific funding. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Aydin disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Koka disclosed financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Jardiance.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SARS-CoV-2 has been found in cardiac tissue of a child from Brazil with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 who presented with myocarditis and died of heart failure.
It’s believed to be the first evidence of direct infection of heart muscle cells by the virus; viral particles were identified in different cell lineages of the heart, including cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, and inflammatory cells.
The case was described in a report published online August 20 in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.
“The presence of the virus in various cell types of cardiac tissue, as evidenced by electron microscopy, shows that myocarditis in this case is likely a direct inflammatory response to the virus infection in the heart,” first author Marisa Dolhnikoff, MD, department of pathology, University of São Paulo, said in an interview.
There have been previous reports in adults with COVID-19 of both SARS-CoV-2 RNA by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral particles by electron microscopy in cardiac tissue from endomyocardial specimens, the researchers noted. One of these reports, published in April by Tavazzi and colleagues, “detected viral particles in cardiac macrophages in an adult patient with acute cardiac injury associated with COVID-19; no viral particles were seen in cardiomyocytes or endothelial cells.
“Our case report is the first to our knowledge to document the presence of viral particles in the cardiac tissue of a child affected by MIS-C,” they added. “Moreover, viral particles were identified in different cell lineages of the heart, including cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, and inflammatory cells.”
‘Concerning’ case report
“This is a concerning report as it shows for the first time that the virus can actually invade the heart muscle cells themselves,” C. Michael Gibson, MD, CEO of the Baim Institute for Clinical Research in Boston, said in an interview.
“Previous reports of COVID-19 and the heart found that the virus was in the area outside the heart muscle cells. We do not know yet the relative contribution of the inflammatory cells invading the heart, the release of blood-borne inflammatory mediators, and the virus inside the heart muscle cells themselves to heart damage,” Dr. Gibson said.
The patient was a previously healthy 11-year-old girl of African descent with MIS-C related to COVID-19. She developed cardiac failure and died after 1 day in the hospital, despite aggressive treatment.
SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected on a postmortem nasopharyngeal swab and in cardiac and pulmonary tissues by RT-PCR.
Postmortem ultrasound examination of the heart showed a “hyperechogenic and diffusely thickened endocardium (mean thickness, 10 mm), a thickened myocardium (18 mm thick in the left ventricle), and a small pericardial effusion,” Dr. Dolhnikoff and colleagues reported.
Histopathologic exam revealed myocarditis, pericarditis, and endocarditis characterized by infiltration of inflammatory cells. Inflammation was mainly interstitial and perivascular, associated with foci of cardiomyocyte necrosis and was mainly composed of CD68+ macrophages, a few CD45+ lymphocytes, and a few neutrophils and eosinophils.
Electron microscopy of cardiac tissue revealed spherical viral particles in shape and size consistent with the Coronaviridae family in the extracellular compartment and within cardiomyocytes, capillary endothelial cells, endocardium endothelial cells, macrophages, neutrophils, and fibroblasts.
Microthrombi in the pulmonary arterioles and renal glomerular capillaries were also seen at autopsy. SARS-CoV-2–associated pneumonia was mild.
Lymphoid depletion and signs of hemophagocytosis were observed in the spleen and lymph nodes. Acute tubular necrosis in the kidneys and hepatic centrilobular necrosis, secondary to shock, were also seen. Brain tissue showed microglial reactivity.
“Fortunately, MIS-C is a rare event and, although it can be severe and life threatening, most children recover,” Dr. Dolhnikoff commented.
“This case report comes at a time when the scientific community around the world calls attention to MIS-C and the need for it to be quickly recognized and treated by the pediatric community. Evidence of a direct relation between the virus and myocarditis confirms that MIS-C is one of the possible forms of presentation of COVID-19 and that the heart may be the target organ. It also alerts clinicians to possible cardiac sequelae in these children,” she added.
Experts weigh in
Scott Aydin, MD, medical director of pediatric cardiac intensive care, Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Hospital in New York City, said that this case report is “unfortunately not all that surprising.
“Since the initial presentations of MIS-C several months ago, we have suspected mechanisms of direct and indirect injury to the myocardium. This important work is just the next step in further understanding the mechanisms of how COVID-19 creates havoc in the human body and the choices of possible therapies we have to treat children with COVID-19 and MIS-C,” said Dr. Aydin, who was not involved with the case report.
Anish Koka, MD, a cardiologist in private practice in Philadelphia, noted that, in these cases, endomyocardial biopsy is “rarely done because it is fairly invasive, but even when it has been done, the pathologic findings are of widespread inflammation rather than virus-induced cell necrosis.”
“While reports like this are sure to spawn viral tweets, it’s vital to understand that it’s not unusual to find widespread organ dissemination of virus in very sick patients. This does not mean that the virus is causing dysfunction of the organ it happens to be found in,” Dr. Koka said in an interview.
He noted that, in the case of the young girl who died, it took high PCR-cycle threshold values to isolate virus from the lung and heart samples.
“This means there was a low viral load in both organs, supporting the theory of SARS-CoV-2 as a potential trigger of a widespread inflammatory response that results in organ damage, rather than the virus itself infecting and destroying organs,” said Dr. Koka, who was also not associated with the case report.
This research had no specific funding. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Aydin disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Koka disclosed financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Jardiance.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SARS-CoV-2 has been found in cardiac tissue of a child from Brazil with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 who presented with myocarditis and died of heart failure.
It’s believed to be the first evidence of direct infection of heart muscle cells by the virus; viral particles were identified in different cell lineages of the heart, including cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, and inflammatory cells.
The case was described in a report published online August 20 in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.
“The presence of the virus in various cell types of cardiac tissue, as evidenced by electron microscopy, shows that myocarditis in this case is likely a direct inflammatory response to the virus infection in the heart,” first author Marisa Dolhnikoff, MD, department of pathology, University of São Paulo, said in an interview.
There have been previous reports in adults with COVID-19 of both SARS-CoV-2 RNA by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral particles by electron microscopy in cardiac tissue from endomyocardial specimens, the researchers noted. One of these reports, published in April by Tavazzi and colleagues, “detected viral particles in cardiac macrophages in an adult patient with acute cardiac injury associated with COVID-19; no viral particles were seen in cardiomyocytes or endothelial cells.
“Our case report is the first to our knowledge to document the presence of viral particles in the cardiac tissue of a child affected by MIS-C,” they added. “Moreover, viral particles were identified in different cell lineages of the heart, including cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, and inflammatory cells.”
‘Concerning’ case report
“This is a concerning report as it shows for the first time that the virus can actually invade the heart muscle cells themselves,” C. Michael Gibson, MD, CEO of the Baim Institute for Clinical Research in Boston, said in an interview.
“Previous reports of COVID-19 and the heart found that the virus was in the area outside the heart muscle cells. We do not know yet the relative contribution of the inflammatory cells invading the heart, the release of blood-borne inflammatory mediators, and the virus inside the heart muscle cells themselves to heart damage,” Dr. Gibson said.
The patient was a previously healthy 11-year-old girl of African descent with MIS-C related to COVID-19. She developed cardiac failure and died after 1 day in the hospital, despite aggressive treatment.
SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected on a postmortem nasopharyngeal swab and in cardiac and pulmonary tissues by RT-PCR.
Postmortem ultrasound examination of the heart showed a “hyperechogenic and diffusely thickened endocardium (mean thickness, 10 mm), a thickened myocardium (18 mm thick in the left ventricle), and a small pericardial effusion,” Dr. Dolhnikoff and colleagues reported.
Histopathologic exam revealed myocarditis, pericarditis, and endocarditis characterized by infiltration of inflammatory cells. Inflammation was mainly interstitial and perivascular, associated with foci of cardiomyocyte necrosis and was mainly composed of CD68+ macrophages, a few CD45+ lymphocytes, and a few neutrophils and eosinophils.
Electron microscopy of cardiac tissue revealed spherical viral particles in shape and size consistent with the Coronaviridae family in the extracellular compartment and within cardiomyocytes, capillary endothelial cells, endocardium endothelial cells, macrophages, neutrophils, and fibroblasts.
Microthrombi in the pulmonary arterioles and renal glomerular capillaries were also seen at autopsy. SARS-CoV-2–associated pneumonia was mild.
Lymphoid depletion and signs of hemophagocytosis were observed in the spleen and lymph nodes. Acute tubular necrosis in the kidneys and hepatic centrilobular necrosis, secondary to shock, were also seen. Brain tissue showed microglial reactivity.
“Fortunately, MIS-C is a rare event and, although it can be severe and life threatening, most children recover,” Dr. Dolhnikoff commented.
“This case report comes at a time when the scientific community around the world calls attention to MIS-C and the need for it to be quickly recognized and treated by the pediatric community. Evidence of a direct relation between the virus and myocarditis confirms that MIS-C is one of the possible forms of presentation of COVID-19 and that the heart may be the target organ. It also alerts clinicians to possible cardiac sequelae in these children,” she added.
Experts weigh in
Scott Aydin, MD, medical director of pediatric cardiac intensive care, Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Hospital in New York City, said that this case report is “unfortunately not all that surprising.
“Since the initial presentations of MIS-C several months ago, we have suspected mechanisms of direct and indirect injury to the myocardium. This important work is just the next step in further understanding the mechanisms of how COVID-19 creates havoc in the human body and the choices of possible therapies we have to treat children with COVID-19 and MIS-C,” said Dr. Aydin, who was not involved with the case report.
Anish Koka, MD, a cardiologist in private practice in Philadelphia, noted that, in these cases, endomyocardial biopsy is “rarely done because it is fairly invasive, but even when it has been done, the pathologic findings are of widespread inflammation rather than virus-induced cell necrosis.”
“While reports like this are sure to spawn viral tweets, it’s vital to understand that it’s not unusual to find widespread organ dissemination of virus in very sick patients. This does not mean that the virus is causing dysfunction of the organ it happens to be found in,” Dr. Koka said in an interview.
He noted that, in the case of the young girl who died, it took high PCR-cycle threshold values to isolate virus from the lung and heart samples.
“This means there was a low viral load in both organs, supporting the theory of SARS-CoV-2 as a potential trigger of a widespread inflammatory response that results in organ damage, rather than the virus itself infecting and destroying organs,” said Dr. Koka, who was also not associated with the case report.
This research had no specific funding. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Aydin disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Koka disclosed financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Jardiance.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Famotidine associated with benefits in hospitalized COVID patients in another trial
It also demonstrated lower levels of serum markers for severe disease.
The findings come from an observational study of 83 hospitalized patients that was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
“The mechanism of exactly how famotidine works has yet to be proven,” lead study author Jeffrey F. Mather, MS, said in an interview. “There’s thought that it works directly on the virus, and there is thought that it works through inactivating certain proteases that are required for the virus infection, but I think the most interesting [hypothesis] is by Malone et al. “They’re looking at the blocking of the histamine-2 receptor causing a decrease in the amount of histamine. It’s all speculative, but it will be interesting if that gets worked out.”
In a study that largely mimicked that of an earlier, larger published observational study on the topic (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053), Mr. Mather and colleagues retrospectively evaluated 878 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and who required admission to Hartford (Conn.) Hospital between Feb. 24, 2020, and May 14, 2020. Patients were classified as receiving famotidine if they were treated with either oral or intravenous drug within 1 week of COVID-19 screening and/or hospital admission. Primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital death as recorded in the discharge of the patients, requirement for mechanical ventilation, and the composite of death or requirement for ventilation. Secondary outcomes of interest were several serum markers of disease activity including white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, and eosinophil count.
Famotidine was administered orally in 83% of the patients and intravenously in the remaining 17%. Mr. Mather, director of data management in the division of research management at Hartford Hospital, and his colleagues reported that 83 of the 878 patients studied (9.5%) received famotidine. Compared with patients not treated with famotidine, those who received the drug were slightly younger (a mean of 64 vs. 68 years, respectively; P = .021); otherwise, there were no differences between the two groups in baseline demographics or in preexisting comorbidities.
The use of famotidine was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.37; P = .021) as well as combined death or intubation (OR, 0.47; P = .040). The outcomes were similar when the researchers performed propensity score matching to adjust for age differences between groups.
In addition, the use of famotidine was associated with lower levels of serum markers for severe disease including lower median peak C-reactive protein levels (9.4 vs. 12.7 mg/dL; P =. 002), lower median procalcitonin levels (0.16 vs. 0.30 ng/mL; P = .004), and a nonsignificant trend to lower median mean ferritin levels (797.5 vs. 964 ng/mL; P = .076).
Logistic regression analysis revealed that use of famotidine was an independent predictor of both lower mortality and combined death/intubation. In addition, predictors of both adverse outcomes included older age, a body mass index of greater than 30 kg/m2, chronic kidney disease, the national early warning score, and a higher neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio.
“This is an important stepping stone, but until we have a randomized, controlled trial, we really can’t speak about causation; we can only speak about association, and that’s okay,” Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, director of health services research at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, who was not affiliated with the study, said in an interview. “There’s nothing wrong with association because finding associations can raise important hypotheses that can then be tested in prospective randomized trials, for example.”
In July 2020, Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues published a separate paper looking at proton pump inhibitors and the risk of COVID-19. “In that study we did look at H2 blockers, and we did find that they were slightly associated with a reduction in COVID-19,” he said. “It was a small effect, but it was a benefit. When we see consistency among studies, it’s a signal in the noise we can try and follow and see if there is something more to it.”
Mr. Mather acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that patients who did and did not receive famotidine were propensity-matched for age. “The risk factors that others have shown for adverse events are equivalent in the groups, but anytime you do a retrospective study like this there is the potential for underlying factors that may play a role in the outcomes that you’re not considering,” Mr. Mather said. “That’s why the gold standard is the randomized trial, to wash those effects out. There’s only an association here, and it supports the need for a randomized trial.”
Famotidine is currently being tested in a double-blind randomized clinical trial in combination with either hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir (NCT 04370262).
“It’s fascinating because famotidine is a safe medicine,” added Dr. Spiegel, who is also co–editor in chief of the American Journal of Gastroenterology. “There are very few side effects; it’s something we’ve been using for decades.”
Mr. Mather and his colleagues reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Spiegel disclosed that he has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Mather J et al. 2020 Aug 14. Am J Gastroenterol.
It also demonstrated lower levels of serum markers for severe disease.
The findings come from an observational study of 83 hospitalized patients that was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
“The mechanism of exactly how famotidine works has yet to be proven,” lead study author Jeffrey F. Mather, MS, said in an interview. “There’s thought that it works directly on the virus, and there is thought that it works through inactivating certain proteases that are required for the virus infection, but I think the most interesting [hypothesis] is by Malone et al. “They’re looking at the blocking of the histamine-2 receptor causing a decrease in the amount of histamine. It’s all speculative, but it will be interesting if that gets worked out.”
In a study that largely mimicked that of an earlier, larger published observational study on the topic (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053), Mr. Mather and colleagues retrospectively evaluated 878 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and who required admission to Hartford (Conn.) Hospital between Feb. 24, 2020, and May 14, 2020. Patients were classified as receiving famotidine if they were treated with either oral or intravenous drug within 1 week of COVID-19 screening and/or hospital admission. Primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital death as recorded in the discharge of the patients, requirement for mechanical ventilation, and the composite of death or requirement for ventilation. Secondary outcomes of interest were several serum markers of disease activity including white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, and eosinophil count.
Famotidine was administered orally in 83% of the patients and intravenously in the remaining 17%. Mr. Mather, director of data management in the division of research management at Hartford Hospital, and his colleagues reported that 83 of the 878 patients studied (9.5%) received famotidine. Compared with patients not treated with famotidine, those who received the drug were slightly younger (a mean of 64 vs. 68 years, respectively; P = .021); otherwise, there were no differences between the two groups in baseline demographics or in preexisting comorbidities.
The use of famotidine was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.37; P = .021) as well as combined death or intubation (OR, 0.47; P = .040). The outcomes were similar when the researchers performed propensity score matching to adjust for age differences between groups.
In addition, the use of famotidine was associated with lower levels of serum markers for severe disease including lower median peak C-reactive protein levels (9.4 vs. 12.7 mg/dL; P =. 002), lower median procalcitonin levels (0.16 vs. 0.30 ng/mL; P = .004), and a nonsignificant trend to lower median mean ferritin levels (797.5 vs. 964 ng/mL; P = .076).
Logistic regression analysis revealed that use of famotidine was an independent predictor of both lower mortality and combined death/intubation. In addition, predictors of both adverse outcomes included older age, a body mass index of greater than 30 kg/m2, chronic kidney disease, the national early warning score, and a higher neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio.
“This is an important stepping stone, but until we have a randomized, controlled trial, we really can’t speak about causation; we can only speak about association, and that’s okay,” Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, director of health services research at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, who was not affiliated with the study, said in an interview. “There’s nothing wrong with association because finding associations can raise important hypotheses that can then be tested in prospective randomized trials, for example.”
In July 2020, Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues published a separate paper looking at proton pump inhibitors and the risk of COVID-19. “In that study we did look at H2 blockers, and we did find that they were slightly associated with a reduction in COVID-19,” he said. “It was a small effect, but it was a benefit. When we see consistency among studies, it’s a signal in the noise we can try and follow and see if there is something more to it.”
Mr. Mather acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that patients who did and did not receive famotidine were propensity-matched for age. “The risk factors that others have shown for adverse events are equivalent in the groups, but anytime you do a retrospective study like this there is the potential for underlying factors that may play a role in the outcomes that you’re not considering,” Mr. Mather said. “That’s why the gold standard is the randomized trial, to wash those effects out. There’s only an association here, and it supports the need for a randomized trial.”
Famotidine is currently being tested in a double-blind randomized clinical trial in combination with either hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir (NCT 04370262).
“It’s fascinating because famotidine is a safe medicine,” added Dr. Spiegel, who is also co–editor in chief of the American Journal of Gastroenterology. “There are very few side effects; it’s something we’ve been using for decades.”
Mr. Mather and his colleagues reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Spiegel disclosed that he has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Mather J et al. 2020 Aug 14. Am J Gastroenterol.
It also demonstrated lower levels of serum markers for severe disease.
The findings come from an observational study of 83 hospitalized patients that was published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
“The mechanism of exactly how famotidine works has yet to be proven,” lead study author Jeffrey F. Mather, MS, said in an interview. “There’s thought that it works directly on the virus, and there is thought that it works through inactivating certain proteases that are required for the virus infection, but I think the most interesting [hypothesis] is by Malone et al. “They’re looking at the blocking of the histamine-2 receptor causing a decrease in the amount of histamine. It’s all speculative, but it will be interesting if that gets worked out.”
In a study that largely mimicked that of an earlier, larger published observational study on the topic (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053), Mr. Mather and colleagues retrospectively evaluated 878 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and who required admission to Hartford (Conn.) Hospital between Feb. 24, 2020, and May 14, 2020. Patients were classified as receiving famotidine if they were treated with either oral or intravenous drug within 1 week of COVID-19 screening and/or hospital admission. Primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital death as recorded in the discharge of the patients, requirement for mechanical ventilation, and the composite of death or requirement for ventilation. Secondary outcomes of interest were several serum markers of disease activity including white blood cell count, lymphocyte count, and eosinophil count.
Famotidine was administered orally in 83% of the patients and intravenously in the remaining 17%. Mr. Mather, director of data management in the division of research management at Hartford Hospital, and his colleagues reported that 83 of the 878 patients studied (9.5%) received famotidine. Compared with patients not treated with famotidine, those who received the drug were slightly younger (a mean of 64 vs. 68 years, respectively; P = .021); otherwise, there were no differences between the two groups in baseline demographics or in preexisting comorbidities.
The use of famotidine was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.37; P = .021) as well as combined death or intubation (OR, 0.47; P = .040). The outcomes were similar when the researchers performed propensity score matching to adjust for age differences between groups.
In addition, the use of famotidine was associated with lower levels of serum markers for severe disease including lower median peak C-reactive protein levels (9.4 vs. 12.7 mg/dL; P =. 002), lower median procalcitonin levels (0.16 vs. 0.30 ng/mL; P = .004), and a nonsignificant trend to lower median mean ferritin levels (797.5 vs. 964 ng/mL; P = .076).
Logistic regression analysis revealed that use of famotidine was an independent predictor of both lower mortality and combined death/intubation. In addition, predictors of both adverse outcomes included older age, a body mass index of greater than 30 kg/m2, chronic kidney disease, the national early warning score, and a higher neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio.
“This is an important stepping stone, but until we have a randomized, controlled trial, we really can’t speak about causation; we can only speak about association, and that’s okay,” Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, director of health services research at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, who was not affiliated with the study, said in an interview. “There’s nothing wrong with association because finding associations can raise important hypotheses that can then be tested in prospective randomized trials, for example.”
In July 2020, Dr. Spiegel and his colleagues published a separate paper looking at proton pump inhibitors and the risk of COVID-19. “In that study we did look at H2 blockers, and we did find that they were slightly associated with a reduction in COVID-19,” he said. “It was a small effect, but it was a benefit. When we see consistency among studies, it’s a signal in the noise we can try and follow and see if there is something more to it.”
Mr. Mather acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that patients who did and did not receive famotidine were propensity-matched for age. “The risk factors that others have shown for adverse events are equivalent in the groups, but anytime you do a retrospective study like this there is the potential for underlying factors that may play a role in the outcomes that you’re not considering,” Mr. Mather said. “That’s why the gold standard is the randomized trial, to wash those effects out. There’s only an association here, and it supports the need for a randomized trial.”
Famotidine is currently being tested in a double-blind randomized clinical trial in combination with either hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir (NCT 04370262).
“It’s fascinating because famotidine is a safe medicine,” added Dr. Spiegel, who is also co–editor in chief of the American Journal of Gastroenterology. “There are very few side effects; it’s something we’ve been using for decades.”
Mr. Mather and his colleagues reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Spiegel disclosed that he has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Synergy Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Mather J et al. 2020 Aug 14. Am J Gastroenterol.
REPORTING FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Key clinical point: Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, famotidine use was associated with a reduction in death and either death or intubation.
Major finding: The use of famotidine was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.37; P = .021), as well as the combined endpoint of death or intubation (OR, 0.47; P = .040).
Study details: A single-center observational study of 83 patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
Disclosures: The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
Source: Mather J et al. 2020 Aug 14. Am J Gastroenterol.
FDA approves clinical trials for cannabinoid drug designed to reduce COVID-19 lung inflammation
The US Food and Drug Administration has approved phase one clinical trials for a synthetic cannabinoid drug designed to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a life-threatening lung condition which may occur in severe cases of the novel coronavirus, Forbes reported.
ARDS can be triggered by over-creation of cytokines, proteins which tell the body to produce more inflammation, Forbes said.
The drug going to clinical trials, ARDS-003, would “dampen the cytokine release” and prevent development of ARDS, Tetra Bio-Pharma company CEO and chief regulatory officer Guy Chamberland, MD, said in a news release.
Consequences of ARDS include scarring of the lungs and organ injury caused by the decrease in blood to the tissue, the release said.
“The FDA repeatedly stated that they want clinical trials for COVID-19 to begin as soon as possible, as long as they meet regulatory requirements,” the news release said. “The medical community is in urgent need of drugs that can reduce the strength and duration of the severe inflammation. It is anticipated that this type of new drug would favorably impact health care and possibly reduce the negative health outcomes post infection.”
ARDS-003 works by binding to CB2 receptors, one of two main receptors in the endocannabinoid system which modulate inflammation and cytokine activity, Forbes said. CB2 receptors don’t bring on a psychoactive high.
Phase one clinical trials would begin enrolling participants in December to determine if the drug is safe, Chamberland said, according to Forbes.
If phase one is successful, phase two would test the drug on a larger group in the second quarter of 2021 to assess safety and tolerability for people who have COVID-19.
If phase two is successful, the company may seek emergency authorization through the FDA, Chamberland said. Phase three would start at the end of 2021.
Tetra Bio-Pharma says it has already contracted with Dalton Pharma Services to manufacture the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), HU-308, and the finished drug product ARDS-003.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration has approved phase one clinical trials for a synthetic cannabinoid drug designed to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a life-threatening lung condition which may occur in severe cases of the novel coronavirus, Forbes reported.
ARDS can be triggered by over-creation of cytokines, proteins which tell the body to produce more inflammation, Forbes said.
The drug going to clinical trials, ARDS-003, would “dampen the cytokine release” and prevent development of ARDS, Tetra Bio-Pharma company CEO and chief regulatory officer Guy Chamberland, MD, said in a news release.
Consequences of ARDS include scarring of the lungs and organ injury caused by the decrease in blood to the tissue, the release said.
“The FDA repeatedly stated that they want clinical trials for COVID-19 to begin as soon as possible, as long as they meet regulatory requirements,” the news release said. “The medical community is in urgent need of drugs that can reduce the strength and duration of the severe inflammation. It is anticipated that this type of new drug would favorably impact health care and possibly reduce the negative health outcomes post infection.”
ARDS-003 works by binding to CB2 receptors, one of two main receptors in the endocannabinoid system which modulate inflammation and cytokine activity, Forbes said. CB2 receptors don’t bring on a psychoactive high.
Phase one clinical trials would begin enrolling participants in December to determine if the drug is safe, Chamberland said, according to Forbes.
If phase one is successful, phase two would test the drug on a larger group in the second quarter of 2021 to assess safety and tolerability for people who have COVID-19.
If phase two is successful, the company may seek emergency authorization through the FDA, Chamberland said. Phase three would start at the end of 2021.
Tetra Bio-Pharma says it has already contracted with Dalton Pharma Services to manufacture the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), HU-308, and the finished drug product ARDS-003.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration has approved phase one clinical trials for a synthetic cannabinoid drug designed to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a life-threatening lung condition which may occur in severe cases of the novel coronavirus, Forbes reported.
ARDS can be triggered by over-creation of cytokines, proteins which tell the body to produce more inflammation, Forbes said.
The drug going to clinical trials, ARDS-003, would “dampen the cytokine release” and prevent development of ARDS, Tetra Bio-Pharma company CEO and chief regulatory officer Guy Chamberland, MD, said in a news release.
Consequences of ARDS include scarring of the lungs and organ injury caused by the decrease in blood to the tissue, the release said.
“The FDA repeatedly stated that they want clinical trials for COVID-19 to begin as soon as possible, as long as they meet regulatory requirements,” the news release said. “The medical community is in urgent need of drugs that can reduce the strength and duration of the severe inflammation. It is anticipated that this type of new drug would favorably impact health care and possibly reduce the negative health outcomes post infection.”
ARDS-003 works by binding to CB2 receptors, one of two main receptors in the endocannabinoid system which modulate inflammation and cytokine activity, Forbes said. CB2 receptors don’t bring on a psychoactive high.
Phase one clinical trials would begin enrolling participants in December to determine if the drug is safe, Chamberland said, according to Forbes.
If phase one is successful, phase two would test the drug on a larger group in the second quarter of 2021 to assess safety and tolerability for people who have COVID-19.
If phase two is successful, the company may seek emergency authorization through the FDA, Chamberland said. Phase three would start at the end of 2021.
Tetra Bio-Pharma says it has already contracted with Dalton Pharma Services to manufacture the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), HU-308, and the finished drug product ARDS-003.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study confirms it’s possible to catch COVID-19 twice
Researchers in Hong Kong say they’ve confirmed that a person can be infected with COVID-19 twice.
The new proof comes from a 33-year-old man in Hong Kong who first caught COVID-19 in March. He was tested for the coronavirus after he developed a cough, sore throat, fever, and a headache for 3 days. He stayed in the hospital until he twice tested negative for the virus in mid-April.
On Aug. 15, the man returned to Hong Kong from a recent trip to Spain and the United Kingdom, areas that have recently seen a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. At the airport, he was screened for COVID-19 with a test that checks saliva for the virus. He tested positive, but this time, had no symptoms. He was taken to the hospital for monitoring. His viral load – the amount of virus he had in his body – went down over time, suggesting that his immune system was taking care of the intrusion on its own.
The special thing about his case is that each time he was hospitalized, doctors sequenced the genome of the virus that infected him. It was slightly different from one infection to the next, suggesting that the virus had mutated – or changed – in the 4 months between his infections. It also proves that it’s possible for this coronavirus to infect the same person twice.
Experts with the World Health Organization responded to the case at a news briefing.
“What we are learning about infection is that people do develop an immune response. What is not completely clear yet is how strong that immune response is and for how long that immune response lasts,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.
A study on the man’s case is being prepared for publication in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Experts say the finding shouldn’t cause alarm, but it does have important implications for the development of herd immunity and efforts to come up with vaccines and treatments.
“This appears to be pretty clear-cut evidence of reinfection because of sequencing and isolation of two different viruses,” said Gregory Poland, MD, an expert on vaccine development and immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “The big unknown is how often is this happening,” he said. More studies are needed to learn whether this was a rare case or something that is happening often.
Past experience guides present
Until we know more, Dr. Poland said, the possibility of getting COVID-19 twice shouldn’t make anyone worry.
This also happens with other kinds of coronaviruses – the ones that cause common colds. Those coronaviruses change slightly each year as they circle the globe, which allows them to keep spreading and causing their more run-of-the-mill kind of misery.
It also happens with seasonal flu. It is the reason people have to get vaccinated against the flu year after year, and why the flu vaccine has to change slightly each year in an effort to keep up with the ever-evolving influenza virus.
“We’ve been making flu vaccines for 80 years, and there are clinical trials happening as we speak to find new and better influenza vaccines,” Dr. Poland said.
There has been other evidence the virus that causes COVID-19 can change this way, too. Researchers at Howard Hughes Medical Center, at Rockefeller University in New York, recently used a key piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – the genetic instructions for its spike protein – to repeatedly infect human cells. Scientists watched as each new generation of the virus went on to infect a new batch of cells. Over time, as it copied itself, some of the copies changed their genes to allow them to survive after scientists attacked them with neutralizing antibodies. Those antibodies are among the main weapons used by the immune system to recognize and disable a virus.
Though that study is still a preprint, which means it hasn’t yet been reviewed by outside experts, the authors wrote that their findings suggest the virus can change in ways that help it evade our immune system. If true, they wrote in mid-July, it means reinfection is possible, especially in people who have a weak immune response to the virus the first time they encounter it.
Good news
That seems to be true in the case of the man from Hong Kong. When doctors tested his blood to look for antibodies to the virus, they didn’t find any. That could mean that he either had a weak immune response to the virus the first time around, or that the antibodies he made during his first infection diminished over time. But during his second infection, he quickly developed more antibodies, suggesting that the second infection acted a little bit like a booster to fire up his immune system. That’s probably the reason he didn’t have any symptoms the second time, too.
That’s good news, Dr. Poland said. It means our bodies can get better at fighting off the COVID-19 virus and that catching it once means the second time might not be so bad.
But the fact that the virus can change quickly this way does have some impact on the effort to come up with a vaccine that works well.
“I think a potential implication of this is that we will have to give booster doses. The question is how frequently,” Dr. Poland said. That will depend on how fast the virus is changing, and how often reinfection is happening in the real world.
“I’m a little surprised at 4½ months,” Dr. Poland said, referencing the time between the Hong Kong man’s infections. “I’m not surprised by, you know, I got infected last winter and I got infected again this winter,” he said.
It also suggests that immune-based therapies such as convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies may be of limited help over time, since the virus might be changing in ways that help it outsmart those treatments.
Convalescent plasma is essentially a concentrated dose of antibodies from people who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection. As the virus changes, the antibodies in that plasma may not work as well for future infections.
Drug companies have learned to harness the power of monoclonal antibodies as powerful treatments against cancer and other diseases. Monoclonal antibodies, which are mass-produced in a lab, mimic the body’s natural defenses against a pathogen. Just like the virus can become resistant to natural immunity, it can change in ways that help it outsmart lab-created treatments. Some drug companies that are developing monoclonal antibodies to fight COVID-19 have already prepared for that possibility by making antibody cocktails that are designed to disable the virus by locking onto it in different places, which may help prevent it from developing resistance to those therapies.
“We have a lot to learn,” Dr. Poland said. “Now that the proof of principle has been established, and I would say it has with this man, and with our knowledge of seasonal coronaviruses, we need to look more aggressively to define how often this occurs.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Researchers in Hong Kong say they’ve confirmed that a person can be infected with COVID-19 twice.
The new proof comes from a 33-year-old man in Hong Kong who first caught COVID-19 in March. He was tested for the coronavirus after he developed a cough, sore throat, fever, and a headache for 3 days. He stayed in the hospital until he twice tested negative for the virus in mid-April.
On Aug. 15, the man returned to Hong Kong from a recent trip to Spain and the United Kingdom, areas that have recently seen a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. At the airport, he was screened for COVID-19 with a test that checks saliva for the virus. He tested positive, but this time, had no symptoms. He was taken to the hospital for monitoring. His viral load – the amount of virus he had in his body – went down over time, suggesting that his immune system was taking care of the intrusion on its own.
The special thing about his case is that each time he was hospitalized, doctors sequenced the genome of the virus that infected him. It was slightly different from one infection to the next, suggesting that the virus had mutated – or changed – in the 4 months between his infections. It also proves that it’s possible for this coronavirus to infect the same person twice.
Experts with the World Health Organization responded to the case at a news briefing.
“What we are learning about infection is that people do develop an immune response. What is not completely clear yet is how strong that immune response is and for how long that immune response lasts,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.
A study on the man’s case is being prepared for publication in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Experts say the finding shouldn’t cause alarm, but it does have important implications for the development of herd immunity and efforts to come up with vaccines and treatments.
“This appears to be pretty clear-cut evidence of reinfection because of sequencing and isolation of two different viruses,” said Gregory Poland, MD, an expert on vaccine development and immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “The big unknown is how often is this happening,” he said. More studies are needed to learn whether this was a rare case or something that is happening often.
Past experience guides present
Until we know more, Dr. Poland said, the possibility of getting COVID-19 twice shouldn’t make anyone worry.
This also happens with other kinds of coronaviruses – the ones that cause common colds. Those coronaviruses change slightly each year as they circle the globe, which allows them to keep spreading and causing their more run-of-the-mill kind of misery.
It also happens with seasonal flu. It is the reason people have to get vaccinated against the flu year after year, and why the flu vaccine has to change slightly each year in an effort to keep up with the ever-evolving influenza virus.
“We’ve been making flu vaccines for 80 years, and there are clinical trials happening as we speak to find new and better influenza vaccines,” Dr. Poland said.
There has been other evidence the virus that causes COVID-19 can change this way, too. Researchers at Howard Hughes Medical Center, at Rockefeller University in New York, recently used a key piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – the genetic instructions for its spike protein – to repeatedly infect human cells. Scientists watched as each new generation of the virus went on to infect a new batch of cells. Over time, as it copied itself, some of the copies changed their genes to allow them to survive after scientists attacked them with neutralizing antibodies. Those antibodies are among the main weapons used by the immune system to recognize and disable a virus.
Though that study is still a preprint, which means it hasn’t yet been reviewed by outside experts, the authors wrote that their findings suggest the virus can change in ways that help it evade our immune system. If true, they wrote in mid-July, it means reinfection is possible, especially in people who have a weak immune response to the virus the first time they encounter it.
Good news
That seems to be true in the case of the man from Hong Kong. When doctors tested his blood to look for antibodies to the virus, they didn’t find any. That could mean that he either had a weak immune response to the virus the first time around, or that the antibodies he made during his first infection diminished over time. But during his second infection, he quickly developed more antibodies, suggesting that the second infection acted a little bit like a booster to fire up his immune system. That’s probably the reason he didn’t have any symptoms the second time, too.
That’s good news, Dr. Poland said. It means our bodies can get better at fighting off the COVID-19 virus and that catching it once means the second time might not be so bad.
But the fact that the virus can change quickly this way does have some impact on the effort to come up with a vaccine that works well.
“I think a potential implication of this is that we will have to give booster doses. The question is how frequently,” Dr. Poland said. That will depend on how fast the virus is changing, and how often reinfection is happening in the real world.
“I’m a little surprised at 4½ months,” Dr. Poland said, referencing the time between the Hong Kong man’s infections. “I’m not surprised by, you know, I got infected last winter and I got infected again this winter,” he said.
It also suggests that immune-based therapies such as convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies may be of limited help over time, since the virus might be changing in ways that help it outsmart those treatments.
Convalescent plasma is essentially a concentrated dose of antibodies from people who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection. As the virus changes, the antibodies in that plasma may not work as well for future infections.
Drug companies have learned to harness the power of monoclonal antibodies as powerful treatments against cancer and other diseases. Monoclonal antibodies, which are mass-produced in a lab, mimic the body’s natural defenses against a pathogen. Just like the virus can become resistant to natural immunity, it can change in ways that help it outsmart lab-created treatments. Some drug companies that are developing monoclonal antibodies to fight COVID-19 have already prepared for that possibility by making antibody cocktails that are designed to disable the virus by locking onto it in different places, which may help prevent it from developing resistance to those therapies.
“We have a lot to learn,” Dr. Poland said. “Now that the proof of principle has been established, and I would say it has with this man, and with our knowledge of seasonal coronaviruses, we need to look more aggressively to define how often this occurs.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Researchers in Hong Kong say they’ve confirmed that a person can be infected with COVID-19 twice.
The new proof comes from a 33-year-old man in Hong Kong who first caught COVID-19 in March. He was tested for the coronavirus after he developed a cough, sore throat, fever, and a headache for 3 days. He stayed in the hospital until he twice tested negative for the virus in mid-April.
On Aug. 15, the man returned to Hong Kong from a recent trip to Spain and the United Kingdom, areas that have recently seen a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. At the airport, he was screened for COVID-19 with a test that checks saliva for the virus. He tested positive, but this time, had no symptoms. He was taken to the hospital for monitoring. His viral load – the amount of virus he had in his body – went down over time, suggesting that his immune system was taking care of the intrusion on its own.
The special thing about his case is that each time he was hospitalized, doctors sequenced the genome of the virus that infected him. It was slightly different from one infection to the next, suggesting that the virus had mutated – or changed – in the 4 months between his infections. It also proves that it’s possible for this coronavirus to infect the same person twice.
Experts with the World Health Organization responded to the case at a news briefing.
“What we are learning about infection is that people do develop an immune response. What is not completely clear yet is how strong that immune response is and for how long that immune response lasts,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.
A study on the man’s case is being prepared for publication in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Experts say the finding shouldn’t cause alarm, but it does have important implications for the development of herd immunity and efforts to come up with vaccines and treatments.
“This appears to be pretty clear-cut evidence of reinfection because of sequencing and isolation of two different viruses,” said Gregory Poland, MD, an expert on vaccine development and immunology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “The big unknown is how often is this happening,” he said. More studies are needed to learn whether this was a rare case or something that is happening often.
Past experience guides present
Until we know more, Dr. Poland said, the possibility of getting COVID-19 twice shouldn’t make anyone worry.
This also happens with other kinds of coronaviruses – the ones that cause common colds. Those coronaviruses change slightly each year as they circle the globe, which allows them to keep spreading and causing their more run-of-the-mill kind of misery.
It also happens with seasonal flu. It is the reason people have to get vaccinated against the flu year after year, and why the flu vaccine has to change slightly each year in an effort to keep up with the ever-evolving influenza virus.
“We’ve been making flu vaccines for 80 years, and there are clinical trials happening as we speak to find new and better influenza vaccines,” Dr. Poland said.
There has been other evidence the virus that causes COVID-19 can change this way, too. Researchers at Howard Hughes Medical Center, at Rockefeller University in New York, recently used a key piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – the genetic instructions for its spike protein – to repeatedly infect human cells. Scientists watched as each new generation of the virus went on to infect a new batch of cells. Over time, as it copied itself, some of the copies changed their genes to allow them to survive after scientists attacked them with neutralizing antibodies. Those antibodies are among the main weapons used by the immune system to recognize and disable a virus.
Though that study is still a preprint, which means it hasn’t yet been reviewed by outside experts, the authors wrote that their findings suggest the virus can change in ways that help it evade our immune system. If true, they wrote in mid-July, it means reinfection is possible, especially in people who have a weak immune response to the virus the first time they encounter it.
Good news
That seems to be true in the case of the man from Hong Kong. When doctors tested his blood to look for antibodies to the virus, they didn’t find any. That could mean that he either had a weak immune response to the virus the first time around, or that the antibodies he made during his first infection diminished over time. But during his second infection, he quickly developed more antibodies, suggesting that the second infection acted a little bit like a booster to fire up his immune system. That’s probably the reason he didn’t have any symptoms the second time, too.
That’s good news, Dr. Poland said. It means our bodies can get better at fighting off the COVID-19 virus and that catching it once means the second time might not be so bad.
But the fact that the virus can change quickly this way does have some impact on the effort to come up with a vaccine that works well.
“I think a potential implication of this is that we will have to give booster doses. The question is how frequently,” Dr. Poland said. That will depend on how fast the virus is changing, and how often reinfection is happening in the real world.
“I’m a little surprised at 4½ months,” Dr. Poland said, referencing the time between the Hong Kong man’s infections. “I’m not surprised by, you know, I got infected last winter and I got infected again this winter,” he said.
It also suggests that immune-based therapies such as convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies may be of limited help over time, since the virus might be changing in ways that help it outsmart those treatments.
Convalescent plasma is essentially a concentrated dose of antibodies from people who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection. As the virus changes, the antibodies in that plasma may not work as well for future infections.
Drug companies have learned to harness the power of monoclonal antibodies as powerful treatments against cancer and other diseases. Monoclonal antibodies, which are mass-produced in a lab, mimic the body’s natural defenses against a pathogen. Just like the virus can become resistant to natural immunity, it can change in ways that help it outsmart lab-created treatments. Some drug companies that are developing monoclonal antibodies to fight COVID-19 have already prepared for that possibility by making antibody cocktails that are designed to disable the virus by locking onto it in different places, which may help prevent it from developing resistance to those therapies.
“We have a lot to learn,” Dr. Poland said. “Now that the proof of principle has been established, and I would say it has with this man, and with our knowledge of seasonal coronaviruses, we need to look more aggressively to define how often this occurs.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Research examines links between ‘long COVID’ and ME/CFS
Some patients who had COVID-19 continue to have symptoms weeks to months later, even after they no longer test positive for the virus. In two recent reports – one published in JAMA in July and another published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in August – chronic fatigue was listed as the top symptom among individuals still feeling unwell beyond 2 weeks after COVID-19 onset.
Although some of the reported persistent symptoms appear specific to SARS-CoV-2 – such as cough, chest pain, and dyspnea – others overlap with the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, which is defined by substantial, profound fatigue for at least 6 months, postexertional malaise, unrefreshing sleep, and one or both of orthostatic intolerance and/or cognitive impairment. Although the etiology of ME/CFS is unclear, the condition commonly arises following a viral illness.
At the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis August 21, the opening session was devoted to research documenting the extent to which COVID-19 survivors subsequently meet ME/CFS criteria, and to exploring underlying mechanisms.
“It offers a lot of opportunities for us to study potentially early ME/CFS and how it develops, but in addition, a lot of the research that has been done on ME/CFS may also provide answers for COVID-19,” IACFS/ME vice president Lily Chu, MD, said in an interview.
A hint from the SARS outbreak
This isn’t the first time researchers have seen a possible link between a coronavirus and ME/CFS, Harvey Moldofsky, MD, told attendees. To illustrate that point, Dr. Moldofsky, of the department of psychiatry (emeritus) at the University of Toronto, reviewed data from a previously published case-controlled study, which included 22 health care workers who had been infected in 2003 with SARS-CoV-1 and continued to report chronic fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and disturbed and unrefreshing sleep with EEG-documented sleep disturbances 1-3 years following the illness. None had been able to return to work by 1 year.
“We’re looking at similar symptoms now” among survivors of COVID-19, Dr. Moldofsky said. “[T]he key issue is that we have no idea of its prevalence. … We need epidemiologic studies.”
Distinguishing ME/CFS from other post–COVID-19 symptoms
Not everyone who has persistent symptoms after COVID-19 will develop ME/CFS, and distinguishing between cases may be important.
Clinically, Dr. Chu said, one way to assess whether a patient with persistent COVID-19 symptoms might be progressing to ME/CFS is to ask him or her specifically about the level of fatigue following physical exertion and the timing of any fatigue. With ME/CFS, postexertional malaise often involves a dramatic exacerbation of symptoms such as fatigue, pain, and cognitive impairment a day or 2 after exertion rather than immediately following it. In contrast, shortness of breath during exertion isn’t typical of ME/CFS.
Objective measures of ME/CFS include low natural killer cell function (the test can be ordered from commercial labs but requires rapid transport of the blood sample), and autonomic dysfunction assessed by a tilt-table test.
While there is currently no cure for ME/CFS, diagnosing it allows for the patient to be taught “pacing” in which the person conserves his or her energy by balancing activity with rest. “That type of behavioral technique is valuable for everyone who suffers from a chronic disease with fatigue. It can help them be more functional,” Dr. Chu said.
If a patient appears to be exhibiting signs of ME/CFS, “don’t wait until they hit the 6-month mark to start helping them manage their symptoms,” she said. “Teaching pacing to COVID-19 patients who have a lot of fatigue isn’t going to harm them. As they get better they’re going to just naturally do more. But if they do have ME/CFS, [pacing] stresses their system less, since the data seem to be pointing to deficiencies in producing energy.”
Will COVID-19 unleash a new wave of ME/CFS patients?
Much of the session at the virtual meeting was devoted to ongoing studies. For example, Leonard Jason, PhD, of the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, Chicago, described a prospective study launched in 2014 that looked at risk factors for developing ME/CFS in college students who contracted infectious mononucleosis as a result of Epstein-Barr virus. Now, his team is also following students from the same cohort who develop COVID-19.
Because the study included collection of baseline biological samples, the results could help reveal predisposing factors associated with long-term illness from either virus.
Another project, funded by the Open Medicine Foundation, will follow patients who are discharged from the ICU following severe COVID-19 illness. Blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid will be collected from those with persistent symptoms at 6 months, along with questionnaire data. At 18-24 months, those who continue to report symptoms will undergo more intensive evaluation using genomics, metabolomics, and proteomics.
“We’re taking advantage of this horrible situation, hoping to understand how a serious viral infection might lead to ME/CFS,” said lead investigator Ronald Tompkins, MD, ScD, chief medical officer at the Open Medicine Foundation and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, Boston. The results, he said, “might give us insight into potential drug targets or biomarkers useful for prevention and treatment strategies.”
Meanwhile, Sadie Whittaker, PhD, head of the Solve ME/CFS initiative, described her organization’s new plan to use their registry to prospectively track the impact of COVID-19 on people with ME/CFS.
She noted that they’ve also teamed up with “long-COVID” communities including Body Politic. “Our goal is to form a coalition to study together or at least harmonize data … and understand what’s going on through the power of bigger sample sizes,” Dr. Whittaker said.
None of the speakers disclosed relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Some patients who had COVID-19 continue to have symptoms weeks to months later, even after they no longer test positive for the virus. In two recent reports – one published in JAMA in July and another published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in August – chronic fatigue was listed as the top symptom among individuals still feeling unwell beyond 2 weeks after COVID-19 onset.
Although some of the reported persistent symptoms appear specific to SARS-CoV-2 – such as cough, chest pain, and dyspnea – others overlap with the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, which is defined by substantial, profound fatigue for at least 6 months, postexertional malaise, unrefreshing sleep, and one or both of orthostatic intolerance and/or cognitive impairment. Although the etiology of ME/CFS is unclear, the condition commonly arises following a viral illness.
At the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis August 21, the opening session was devoted to research documenting the extent to which COVID-19 survivors subsequently meet ME/CFS criteria, and to exploring underlying mechanisms.
“It offers a lot of opportunities for us to study potentially early ME/CFS and how it develops, but in addition, a lot of the research that has been done on ME/CFS may also provide answers for COVID-19,” IACFS/ME vice president Lily Chu, MD, said in an interview.
A hint from the SARS outbreak
This isn’t the first time researchers have seen a possible link between a coronavirus and ME/CFS, Harvey Moldofsky, MD, told attendees. To illustrate that point, Dr. Moldofsky, of the department of psychiatry (emeritus) at the University of Toronto, reviewed data from a previously published case-controlled study, which included 22 health care workers who had been infected in 2003 with SARS-CoV-1 and continued to report chronic fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and disturbed and unrefreshing sleep with EEG-documented sleep disturbances 1-3 years following the illness. None had been able to return to work by 1 year.
“We’re looking at similar symptoms now” among survivors of COVID-19, Dr. Moldofsky said. “[T]he key issue is that we have no idea of its prevalence. … We need epidemiologic studies.”
Distinguishing ME/CFS from other post–COVID-19 symptoms
Not everyone who has persistent symptoms after COVID-19 will develop ME/CFS, and distinguishing between cases may be important.
Clinically, Dr. Chu said, one way to assess whether a patient with persistent COVID-19 symptoms might be progressing to ME/CFS is to ask him or her specifically about the level of fatigue following physical exertion and the timing of any fatigue. With ME/CFS, postexertional malaise often involves a dramatic exacerbation of symptoms such as fatigue, pain, and cognitive impairment a day or 2 after exertion rather than immediately following it. In contrast, shortness of breath during exertion isn’t typical of ME/CFS.
Objective measures of ME/CFS include low natural killer cell function (the test can be ordered from commercial labs but requires rapid transport of the blood sample), and autonomic dysfunction assessed by a tilt-table test.
While there is currently no cure for ME/CFS, diagnosing it allows for the patient to be taught “pacing” in which the person conserves his or her energy by balancing activity with rest. “That type of behavioral technique is valuable for everyone who suffers from a chronic disease with fatigue. It can help them be more functional,” Dr. Chu said.
If a patient appears to be exhibiting signs of ME/CFS, “don’t wait until they hit the 6-month mark to start helping them manage their symptoms,” she said. “Teaching pacing to COVID-19 patients who have a lot of fatigue isn’t going to harm them. As they get better they’re going to just naturally do more. But if they do have ME/CFS, [pacing] stresses their system less, since the data seem to be pointing to deficiencies in producing energy.”
Will COVID-19 unleash a new wave of ME/CFS patients?
Much of the session at the virtual meeting was devoted to ongoing studies. For example, Leonard Jason, PhD, of the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, Chicago, described a prospective study launched in 2014 that looked at risk factors for developing ME/CFS in college students who contracted infectious mononucleosis as a result of Epstein-Barr virus. Now, his team is also following students from the same cohort who develop COVID-19.
Because the study included collection of baseline biological samples, the results could help reveal predisposing factors associated with long-term illness from either virus.
Another project, funded by the Open Medicine Foundation, will follow patients who are discharged from the ICU following severe COVID-19 illness. Blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid will be collected from those with persistent symptoms at 6 months, along with questionnaire data. At 18-24 months, those who continue to report symptoms will undergo more intensive evaluation using genomics, metabolomics, and proteomics.
“We’re taking advantage of this horrible situation, hoping to understand how a serious viral infection might lead to ME/CFS,” said lead investigator Ronald Tompkins, MD, ScD, chief medical officer at the Open Medicine Foundation and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, Boston. The results, he said, “might give us insight into potential drug targets or biomarkers useful for prevention and treatment strategies.”
Meanwhile, Sadie Whittaker, PhD, head of the Solve ME/CFS initiative, described her organization’s new plan to use their registry to prospectively track the impact of COVID-19 on people with ME/CFS.
She noted that they’ve also teamed up with “long-COVID” communities including Body Politic. “Our goal is to form a coalition to study together or at least harmonize data … and understand what’s going on through the power of bigger sample sizes,” Dr. Whittaker said.
None of the speakers disclosed relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Some patients who had COVID-19 continue to have symptoms weeks to months later, even after they no longer test positive for the virus. In two recent reports – one published in JAMA in July and another published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in August – chronic fatigue was listed as the top symptom among individuals still feeling unwell beyond 2 weeks after COVID-19 onset.
Although some of the reported persistent symptoms appear specific to SARS-CoV-2 – such as cough, chest pain, and dyspnea – others overlap with the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, which is defined by substantial, profound fatigue for at least 6 months, postexertional malaise, unrefreshing sleep, and one or both of orthostatic intolerance and/or cognitive impairment. Although the etiology of ME/CFS is unclear, the condition commonly arises following a viral illness.
At the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis August 21, the opening session was devoted to research documenting the extent to which COVID-19 survivors subsequently meet ME/CFS criteria, and to exploring underlying mechanisms.
“It offers a lot of opportunities for us to study potentially early ME/CFS and how it develops, but in addition, a lot of the research that has been done on ME/CFS may also provide answers for COVID-19,” IACFS/ME vice president Lily Chu, MD, said in an interview.
A hint from the SARS outbreak
This isn’t the first time researchers have seen a possible link between a coronavirus and ME/CFS, Harvey Moldofsky, MD, told attendees. To illustrate that point, Dr. Moldofsky, of the department of psychiatry (emeritus) at the University of Toronto, reviewed data from a previously published case-controlled study, which included 22 health care workers who had been infected in 2003 with SARS-CoV-1 and continued to report chronic fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and disturbed and unrefreshing sleep with EEG-documented sleep disturbances 1-3 years following the illness. None had been able to return to work by 1 year.
“We’re looking at similar symptoms now” among survivors of COVID-19, Dr. Moldofsky said. “[T]he key issue is that we have no idea of its prevalence. … We need epidemiologic studies.”
Distinguishing ME/CFS from other post–COVID-19 symptoms
Not everyone who has persistent symptoms after COVID-19 will develop ME/CFS, and distinguishing between cases may be important.
Clinically, Dr. Chu said, one way to assess whether a patient with persistent COVID-19 symptoms might be progressing to ME/CFS is to ask him or her specifically about the level of fatigue following physical exertion and the timing of any fatigue. With ME/CFS, postexertional malaise often involves a dramatic exacerbation of symptoms such as fatigue, pain, and cognitive impairment a day or 2 after exertion rather than immediately following it. In contrast, shortness of breath during exertion isn’t typical of ME/CFS.
Objective measures of ME/CFS include low natural killer cell function (the test can be ordered from commercial labs but requires rapid transport of the blood sample), and autonomic dysfunction assessed by a tilt-table test.
While there is currently no cure for ME/CFS, diagnosing it allows for the patient to be taught “pacing” in which the person conserves his or her energy by balancing activity with rest. “That type of behavioral technique is valuable for everyone who suffers from a chronic disease with fatigue. It can help them be more functional,” Dr. Chu said.
If a patient appears to be exhibiting signs of ME/CFS, “don’t wait until they hit the 6-month mark to start helping them manage their symptoms,” she said. “Teaching pacing to COVID-19 patients who have a lot of fatigue isn’t going to harm them. As they get better they’re going to just naturally do more. But if they do have ME/CFS, [pacing] stresses their system less, since the data seem to be pointing to deficiencies in producing energy.”
Will COVID-19 unleash a new wave of ME/CFS patients?
Much of the session at the virtual meeting was devoted to ongoing studies. For example, Leonard Jason, PhD, of the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, Chicago, described a prospective study launched in 2014 that looked at risk factors for developing ME/CFS in college students who contracted infectious mononucleosis as a result of Epstein-Barr virus. Now, his team is also following students from the same cohort who develop COVID-19.
Because the study included collection of baseline biological samples, the results could help reveal predisposing factors associated with long-term illness from either virus.
Another project, funded by the Open Medicine Foundation, will follow patients who are discharged from the ICU following severe COVID-19 illness. Blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid will be collected from those with persistent symptoms at 6 months, along with questionnaire data. At 18-24 months, those who continue to report symptoms will undergo more intensive evaluation using genomics, metabolomics, and proteomics.
“We’re taking advantage of this horrible situation, hoping to understand how a serious viral infection might lead to ME/CFS,” said lead investigator Ronald Tompkins, MD, ScD, chief medical officer at the Open Medicine Foundation and a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, Boston. The results, he said, “might give us insight into potential drug targets or biomarkers useful for prevention and treatment strategies.”
Meanwhile, Sadie Whittaker, PhD, head of the Solve ME/CFS initiative, described her organization’s new plan to use their registry to prospectively track the impact of COVID-19 on people with ME/CFS.
She noted that they’ve also teamed up with “long-COVID” communities including Body Politic. “Our goal is to form a coalition to study together or at least harmonize data … and understand what’s going on through the power of bigger sample sizes,” Dr. Whittaker said.
None of the speakers disclosed relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA authorizes convalescent plasma for COVID-19
Convalescent plasma contains antibodies from the blood of recovered COVID-19 patients, which can be used to treat people with severe infections. Convalescent plasma has been used to treat patients for other infectious diseases. The authorization allows the plasma to be distributed in the United States and administered by health care providers.
“COVID-19 convalescent plasma is safe and shows promising efficacy,” Stephen Hahn, MD, commissioner of the FDA, said during a press briefing with President Donald Trump.
In April, the FDA approved a program to test convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients at the Mayo Clinic, followed by other institutions. More than 90,000 patients have enrolled in the program, and 70,000 have received the treatment, Dr. Hahn said.
The data indicate that the plasma can reduce mortality in patients by 35%, particularly if patients are treated within 3 days of being diagnosed. Those who have benefited the most were under age 80 and not on artificial respiration, Alex Azar, the secretary for the Department of Health & Human Services, said during the briefing.
“We dream, in drug development, of something like a 35% mortality reduction,” he said.
But top scientists pushed back against the announcement.
Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, professor of molecular medicine, and executive vice president of Scripps Research, said the data the FDA are relying on did not come from the rigorous randomized, double-blind placebo trials that best determine if a treatment is successful.
Still, convalescent plasma is “one more tool added to the arsenal” of combating COVID-19, Mr. Azar said. The FDA will continue to study convalescent plasma as a COVID-19 treatment, Dr. Hahn added.
“We’re waiting for more data. We’re going to continue to gather data,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing, but the current results meet FDA criteria for issuing an emergency use authorization.
Convalescent plasma “may be effective in lessening the severity or shortening the length of COVID-19 illness in some hospitalized patients,” according to the FDA announcement. Potential side effects include allergic reactions, transfusion-transmitted infections, and transfusion-associated lung injury.
“We’ve seen a great deal of demand for this from doctors around the country,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing. “The EUA … allows us to continue that and meet that demand.”
Dr. Topol, however, said it appears Trump and the FDA are playing politics with science.
“There’s no evidence to support any survival benefit,” Dr. Topol said on Twitter. “Two days ago [the] FDA’s website stated there was no evidence for an EUA.”
The American Red Cross and other blood centers put out a national call for blood donors in July, especially for patients who have recovered from COVID-19. Mr. Azar and Dr. Hahn emphasized the need for blood donors during the press briefing.
“If you donate plasma, you could save a life,” Mr. Azar said.
The study has not been peer reviewed and did not include a placebo group for comparison, STAT reported.
Last week several health officials warned that the scientific data were too weak to warrant an emergency authorization, the New York Times reported.
A version of this originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Convalescent plasma contains antibodies from the blood of recovered COVID-19 patients, which can be used to treat people with severe infections. Convalescent plasma has been used to treat patients for other infectious diseases. The authorization allows the plasma to be distributed in the United States and administered by health care providers.
“COVID-19 convalescent plasma is safe and shows promising efficacy,” Stephen Hahn, MD, commissioner of the FDA, said during a press briefing with President Donald Trump.
In April, the FDA approved a program to test convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients at the Mayo Clinic, followed by other institutions. More than 90,000 patients have enrolled in the program, and 70,000 have received the treatment, Dr. Hahn said.
The data indicate that the plasma can reduce mortality in patients by 35%, particularly if patients are treated within 3 days of being diagnosed. Those who have benefited the most were under age 80 and not on artificial respiration, Alex Azar, the secretary for the Department of Health & Human Services, said during the briefing.
“We dream, in drug development, of something like a 35% mortality reduction,” he said.
But top scientists pushed back against the announcement.
Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, professor of molecular medicine, and executive vice president of Scripps Research, said the data the FDA are relying on did not come from the rigorous randomized, double-blind placebo trials that best determine if a treatment is successful.
Still, convalescent plasma is “one more tool added to the arsenal” of combating COVID-19, Mr. Azar said. The FDA will continue to study convalescent plasma as a COVID-19 treatment, Dr. Hahn added.
“We’re waiting for more data. We’re going to continue to gather data,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing, but the current results meet FDA criteria for issuing an emergency use authorization.
Convalescent plasma “may be effective in lessening the severity or shortening the length of COVID-19 illness in some hospitalized patients,” according to the FDA announcement. Potential side effects include allergic reactions, transfusion-transmitted infections, and transfusion-associated lung injury.
“We’ve seen a great deal of demand for this from doctors around the country,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing. “The EUA … allows us to continue that and meet that demand.”
Dr. Topol, however, said it appears Trump and the FDA are playing politics with science.
“There’s no evidence to support any survival benefit,” Dr. Topol said on Twitter. “Two days ago [the] FDA’s website stated there was no evidence for an EUA.”
The American Red Cross and other blood centers put out a national call for blood donors in July, especially for patients who have recovered from COVID-19. Mr. Azar and Dr. Hahn emphasized the need for blood donors during the press briefing.
“If you donate plasma, you could save a life,” Mr. Azar said.
The study has not been peer reviewed and did not include a placebo group for comparison, STAT reported.
Last week several health officials warned that the scientific data were too weak to warrant an emergency authorization, the New York Times reported.
A version of this originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Convalescent plasma contains antibodies from the blood of recovered COVID-19 patients, which can be used to treat people with severe infections. Convalescent plasma has been used to treat patients for other infectious diseases. The authorization allows the plasma to be distributed in the United States and administered by health care providers.
“COVID-19 convalescent plasma is safe and shows promising efficacy,” Stephen Hahn, MD, commissioner of the FDA, said during a press briefing with President Donald Trump.
In April, the FDA approved a program to test convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients at the Mayo Clinic, followed by other institutions. More than 90,000 patients have enrolled in the program, and 70,000 have received the treatment, Dr. Hahn said.
The data indicate that the plasma can reduce mortality in patients by 35%, particularly if patients are treated within 3 days of being diagnosed. Those who have benefited the most were under age 80 and not on artificial respiration, Alex Azar, the secretary for the Department of Health & Human Services, said during the briefing.
“We dream, in drug development, of something like a 35% mortality reduction,” he said.
But top scientists pushed back against the announcement.
Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, professor of molecular medicine, and executive vice president of Scripps Research, said the data the FDA are relying on did not come from the rigorous randomized, double-blind placebo trials that best determine if a treatment is successful.
Still, convalescent plasma is “one more tool added to the arsenal” of combating COVID-19, Mr. Azar said. The FDA will continue to study convalescent plasma as a COVID-19 treatment, Dr. Hahn added.
“We’re waiting for more data. We’re going to continue to gather data,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing, but the current results meet FDA criteria for issuing an emergency use authorization.
Convalescent plasma “may be effective in lessening the severity or shortening the length of COVID-19 illness in some hospitalized patients,” according to the FDA announcement. Potential side effects include allergic reactions, transfusion-transmitted infections, and transfusion-associated lung injury.
“We’ve seen a great deal of demand for this from doctors around the country,” Dr. Hahn said during the briefing. “The EUA … allows us to continue that and meet that demand.”
Dr. Topol, however, said it appears Trump and the FDA are playing politics with science.
“There’s no evidence to support any survival benefit,” Dr. Topol said on Twitter. “Two days ago [the] FDA’s website stated there was no evidence for an EUA.”
The American Red Cross and other blood centers put out a national call for blood donors in July, especially for patients who have recovered from COVID-19. Mr. Azar and Dr. Hahn emphasized the need for blood donors during the press briefing.
“If you donate plasma, you could save a life,” Mr. Azar said.
The study has not been peer reviewed and did not include a placebo group for comparison, STAT reported.
Last week several health officials warned that the scientific data were too weak to warrant an emergency authorization, the New York Times reported.
A version of this originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Serum cortisol testing for suspected adrenal insufficiency
Evaluating the hospitalized adult patient
Case
A 45-year-old female with moderate persistent asthma is admitted for right lower extremity cellulitis. She has hyponatremia with a sodium of 129 mEq/L and reports a history of longstanding fatigue and lightheadedness on standing. An early morning serum cortisol was 10 mcg/dL, normal per the reference range for the laboratory. Has adrenal insufficiency been excluded in this patient?
Overview
Adrenal insufficiency (AI) is a clinical syndrome characterized by a deficiency of cortisol. Presentation may range from nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, weight loss, and gastrointestinal concerns to a fulminant adrenal crisis with severe weakness and hypotension (Table 1). The diagnosis of AI is commonly delayed, negatively impacting patients’ quality of life and risking dangerous complications.1,2
AI can occur due to diseases of the adrenal glands themselves (primary) or impairment of adrenocorticotropin (ACTH) secretion from the pituitary (secondary) or corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) secretion from the hypothalamus (tertiary). In the hospital setting, causes of primary AI may include autoimmune disease, infection, metastatic disease, hemorrhage, and adverse medication effects. Secondary and tertiary AI would be of particular concern for patients with traumatic brain injuries or pituitary surgery, but also are seen commonly as a result of adverse medication effects in the hospitalized patient, notably opioids and corticosteroids through suppression the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and immune checkpoint inhibitors via autoimmune hypophysitis.
Testing for AI in the hospitalized patient presents a host of challenges. Among these are the variability in presentation of different types of AI, high rates of exogenous corticosteroid use, the impact of critical illness on the HPA axis, medical illness altering protein binding of serum cortisol, interfering medications, the variation in assays used by laboratories, and the logistical challenges of obtaining appropriately timed phlebotomy.2,3
Cortisol testing
An intact HPA axis results in ACTH-dependent cortisol release from the adrenal glands. Cortisol secretion exhibits circadian rhythm, with the highest levels in the early morning (6 a.m. to 8 a.m.) and the lowest at night (12 a.m.). It also is pulsatile, which may explain the range of “normal” morning serum cortisol observed in a study of healthy volunteers.3 Note that serum cortisol is equivalent to plasma cortisol in current immunoassays, and will henceforth be called “cortisol” in this paper.3
There are instances when morning cortisol may strongly suggest a diagnosis of AI on its own. A meta-analysis found that morning cortisol of < 5 mcg/dL predicts AI and morning cortisol of > 13 mcg/dL ruled out AI.4 The Endocrine Society of America favors dynamic assessment of adrenal function for most patients.2
Historically, the gold standard for assessing dynamic adrenal function has been the insulin tolerance test (ITT), whereby cortisol is measured after inducing hypoglycemia to a blood glucose < 35 mg/dL. ITT is logistically difficult and poses some risk to the patient. The corticotropin (or cosyntropin) stimulation test (CST), in which a supraphysiologic dose of a synthetic ACTH analog is administered parenterally to a patient and resultant cortisol levels are measured, has been validated against the ITT and is generally preferred.5 CST is used to diagnose primary AI as well as chronic secondary and tertiary AI, given that longstanding lack of ACTH stimulation causes atrophy of the adrenal glands. The sensitivity for secondary and tertiary AI is likely lower than primary AI especially in acute onset of disease.6,7
In performance of the CST a baseline cortisol and ACTH are obtained, with subsequent cortisol testing at 30 and/or 60 minutes after administration of the ACTH analog (Figure 1). Currently, there is no consensus for which time point is preferred, but the 30-minute test is more sensitive for AI and the 60-minute test is more specific.2,7,8
CST is typically performed using a “standard high dose” of 250 mcg of the ACTH analog. There has been interest in the use of a “low-dose” 1 mcg test, which is closer to normal physiologic stimulation of the adrenal glands and may have better sensitivity for early secondary or partial AI. However, the 250-mcg dose is easier to prepare and has fewer technical pitfalls in administration as well as a lower risk for false positive testing. At this point the data do not compellingly favor the use of low-dose CST testing in general practice.2,3,7
Clinical decision making
Diagnostic evaluation should be guided by the likelihood of the disease (i.e., the pretest probability) (Figure 1). Begin with a review of the patient’s signs and symptoms, medical and family history, and medications with special consideration for opioids, exogenous steroids, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (Table 1).
For patients with low pretest probability for AI, morning cortisol and ACTH is a reasonable first test (Figure 1). A cortisol value of 18 mcg/dL or greater does not support AI and no further testing is needed.2 Patients with morning cortisol of 13-18 mcg/dL could be followed clinically or could undergo further testing in the inpatient environment with CST, depending upon the clinical scenario.4 Patients with serum cortisol of <13 mcg/dL warrant CST.
For patients with moderate to high pretest probability for AI, we recommend initial testing with CST. While the results of high-dose CST are not necessarily impacted by time of day, if an a.m. cortisol has not yet been obtained and it is logistically feasible to do so, performing CST in the morning will provide the most useful data for clinical interpretation.
For patients presenting with possible adrenal crisis, it is essential not to delay treatment. In these patients, obtain a cortisol paired with ACTH and initiate treatment immediately. Further testing can be deferred until the time the patient is stable.2
Potential pitfalls
Interpreting cortisol requires awareness of multiple conditions that could directly impact the results.2,3 (Table 2).
Currently available assays measure “total cortisol,” most of which is protein bound (cortisol-binding globulin as well as albumin). Therefore, conditions that lower serum protein (e.g., nephrotic syndrome, liver disease, inflammation) will lower the measured cortisol. Conversely, conditions that increase serum protein (e.g., estrogen excess in pregnancy and oral contraceptive use) will increase the measured cortisol.2,3
It is also important to recognize that existing immunoassay testing techniques informed the established cut-off for exclusion of AI at 18 mcg/dL. With newer immunoassays and emerging liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry, this cut-off may be lowered; thus the assay should be confirmed with the performing laboratory. There is emerging evidence that serum or plasma free cortisol and salivary cortisol testing for AI may be useful in certain cases, but these techniques are not yet widespread or included in clinical practice guidelines.2,3,7
Population focus: Patients on exogenous steroids
Exogenous corticosteroids suppress the HPA axis via negative inhibition of CRH and ACTH release, often resulting in low endogenous cortisol levels which may or may not reflect true loss of adrenal function. In addition, many corticosteroids will be detected by standard serum cortisol tests that rely on immunoassays. For this reason, cortisol measurement and CST should be done at least 18-24 hours after the last dose of exogenous steroids.
Although the focus has been on higher doses and longer courses of steroids (e.g., chronic use of ≥ 5 mg prednisone daily, or ≥ 20 mg prednisone daily for > 3 weeks), there is increasing evidence that lower doses, shorter courses, and alternate routes (e.g., inhaled, intra-articular) can result in biochemical and clinical evidence of AI.9 Thus, a thorough history and exam should be obtained to determine all recent corticosteroid exposure and cushingoid features.
Application of the data to the case
To effectively assess the patient for adrenal insufficiency, we need additional information. First and foremost, is a description of the patient’s current clinical status. If she is demonstrating evidence of adrenal crisis, treatment should not be delayed for additional testing. If she is stable, a thorough history including use of corticosteroids by any route, pregnancy, oral contraceptives, recent surgery, and liver and kidney disease is essential.
Additional evaluation reveals the patient has been using her fluticasone inhaler daily. No other source of hyponatremia or lightheadedness is identified. The patient’s risk factors of corticosteroid use and unexplained hyponatremia with associated lightheadedness increase her pretest probability of AI and a single morning cortisol of 10 mcg/dL is insufficient to exclude adrenal insufficiency. The appropriate follow-up test is a standard high-dose cosyntropin stimulation test at least 18 hours after her last dose of fluticasone. A cortisol level > 18 mcg/dL at 30 minutes in the absence of other conditions that impact cortisol testing would not be suggestive of AI. A serum cortisol level of < 18 mcg/dL at 30 minutes would raise concern for abnormal adrenal reserve due to chronic corticosteroid therapy and would warrant referral to an endocrinologist.
Bottom line
An isolated serum cortisol is often insufficient to exclude adrenal insufficiency. Hospitalists should be aware of the many factors that impact the interpretation of this test.
Dr. Gordon is assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, and a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center, Portland. She is the subspecialty education coordinator of inpatient medicine for the Internal Medicine Residency Program. Dr. Herrle is assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University and a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center. She is the associate director of medical student education for the department of internal medicine at MMC and a medical director for clinical informatics at MaineHealth.
References
1. Bleicken B et al. Delayed diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency is common: A cross-sectional study in 216 patients. Am J Med Sci. 2010;339(6):525-31. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3181db6b7a.
2. Bornstein SR et al. Diagnosis and treatment of primary adrenal insufficiency: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Feb;101(2):364-89.
3. El-Farhan N et al. Measuring cortisol in serum, urine and saliva – Are our assays good enough? Ann Clin Biochem. 2017 May;54(3):308-22. doi: 10.1177/0004563216687335.
4. Kazlauskaite R et al. Corticotropin tests for hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal insufficiency: A metaanalysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93:4245-53.
5. Wood JB et al. A rapid test of adrenocortical function. Lancet. 1965;191:243-5.
6. Singh Ospina N et al. ACTH stimulation tests for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(2):427-34.
7. Burgos N et al. Pitfalls in the interpretation of the cosyntropin stimulation test for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019;26(3):139-45.
8. Odom DC et al. A Single, post-ACTH cortisol measurement to screen for adrenal insufficiency in the hospitalized patient. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(8):526-30. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2928.
9. Broersen LHA et al. Adrenal insufficiency in corticosteroids use: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(6): 2171-80.
Key points
• In general, random cortisol testing is of limited value and should be avoided.
• Serum cortisol testing in the hospitalized patient is impacted by a variety of patient and disease factors and should be interpreted carefully.
• For patients with low pretest probability of adrenal insufficiency, early morning serum cortisol testing may be sufficient to exclude the diagnosis.
• For patients with moderate to high pretest probability of adrenal insufficiency, standard high-dose (250 mcg) corticotropin stimulation testing is preferred.
Additional reading
Bornstein SR et al. Diagnosis and treatment of primary adrenal insufficiency: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Feb;101(2):364-89.
Burgos N et al. Pitfalls in the interpretation of the cosyntropin stimulation test for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019;26(3):139-45.
Quiz
An 82 y.o. woman with depression is admitted from her long-term care facility with worsening weakness and mild hypoglycemia. Her supine vital signs are stable, but she exhibits a drop in systolic blood pressure of 21 mm Hg upon standing. There is no evidence of infection by history, exam, or initial workup. She is not on chronic corticosteroids by any route.
What would be your initial workup for adrenal insufficiency?
A) Morning serum cortisol and ACTH
B) Insulin tolerance test
C) Corticotropin stimulation test
D) Would not test at this point
Answer: C. Although her symptom of weakness is nonspecific, her hypoglycemia and orthostatic hypotension are concerning enough that she would qualify as moderate to high pretest probability for AI. In this setting, one would acquire a basal serum total cortisol and ACTH then administer the standard high-dose corticotropin stimulation test (250 mcg) followed by repeat serum total cortisol at 30 or 60 minutes.
Evaluating the hospitalized adult patient
Evaluating the hospitalized adult patient
Case
A 45-year-old female with moderate persistent asthma is admitted for right lower extremity cellulitis. She has hyponatremia with a sodium of 129 mEq/L and reports a history of longstanding fatigue and lightheadedness on standing. An early morning serum cortisol was 10 mcg/dL, normal per the reference range for the laboratory. Has adrenal insufficiency been excluded in this patient?
Overview
Adrenal insufficiency (AI) is a clinical syndrome characterized by a deficiency of cortisol. Presentation may range from nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, weight loss, and gastrointestinal concerns to a fulminant adrenal crisis with severe weakness and hypotension (Table 1). The diagnosis of AI is commonly delayed, negatively impacting patients’ quality of life and risking dangerous complications.1,2
AI can occur due to diseases of the adrenal glands themselves (primary) or impairment of adrenocorticotropin (ACTH) secretion from the pituitary (secondary) or corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) secretion from the hypothalamus (tertiary). In the hospital setting, causes of primary AI may include autoimmune disease, infection, metastatic disease, hemorrhage, and adverse medication effects. Secondary and tertiary AI would be of particular concern for patients with traumatic brain injuries or pituitary surgery, but also are seen commonly as a result of adverse medication effects in the hospitalized patient, notably opioids and corticosteroids through suppression the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and immune checkpoint inhibitors via autoimmune hypophysitis.
Testing for AI in the hospitalized patient presents a host of challenges. Among these are the variability in presentation of different types of AI, high rates of exogenous corticosteroid use, the impact of critical illness on the HPA axis, medical illness altering protein binding of serum cortisol, interfering medications, the variation in assays used by laboratories, and the logistical challenges of obtaining appropriately timed phlebotomy.2,3
Cortisol testing
An intact HPA axis results in ACTH-dependent cortisol release from the adrenal glands. Cortisol secretion exhibits circadian rhythm, with the highest levels in the early morning (6 a.m. to 8 a.m.) and the lowest at night (12 a.m.). It also is pulsatile, which may explain the range of “normal” morning serum cortisol observed in a study of healthy volunteers.3 Note that serum cortisol is equivalent to plasma cortisol in current immunoassays, and will henceforth be called “cortisol” in this paper.3
There are instances when morning cortisol may strongly suggest a diagnosis of AI on its own. A meta-analysis found that morning cortisol of < 5 mcg/dL predicts AI and morning cortisol of > 13 mcg/dL ruled out AI.4 The Endocrine Society of America favors dynamic assessment of adrenal function for most patients.2
Historically, the gold standard for assessing dynamic adrenal function has been the insulin tolerance test (ITT), whereby cortisol is measured after inducing hypoglycemia to a blood glucose < 35 mg/dL. ITT is logistically difficult and poses some risk to the patient. The corticotropin (or cosyntropin) stimulation test (CST), in which a supraphysiologic dose of a synthetic ACTH analog is administered parenterally to a patient and resultant cortisol levels are measured, has been validated against the ITT and is generally preferred.5 CST is used to diagnose primary AI as well as chronic secondary and tertiary AI, given that longstanding lack of ACTH stimulation causes atrophy of the adrenal glands. The sensitivity for secondary and tertiary AI is likely lower than primary AI especially in acute onset of disease.6,7
In performance of the CST a baseline cortisol and ACTH are obtained, with subsequent cortisol testing at 30 and/or 60 minutes after administration of the ACTH analog (Figure 1). Currently, there is no consensus for which time point is preferred, but the 30-minute test is more sensitive for AI and the 60-minute test is more specific.2,7,8
CST is typically performed using a “standard high dose” of 250 mcg of the ACTH analog. There has been interest in the use of a “low-dose” 1 mcg test, which is closer to normal physiologic stimulation of the adrenal glands and may have better sensitivity for early secondary or partial AI. However, the 250-mcg dose is easier to prepare and has fewer technical pitfalls in administration as well as a lower risk for false positive testing. At this point the data do not compellingly favor the use of low-dose CST testing in general practice.2,3,7
Clinical decision making
Diagnostic evaluation should be guided by the likelihood of the disease (i.e., the pretest probability) (Figure 1). Begin with a review of the patient’s signs and symptoms, medical and family history, and medications with special consideration for opioids, exogenous steroids, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (Table 1).
For patients with low pretest probability for AI, morning cortisol and ACTH is a reasonable first test (Figure 1). A cortisol value of 18 mcg/dL or greater does not support AI and no further testing is needed.2 Patients with morning cortisol of 13-18 mcg/dL could be followed clinically or could undergo further testing in the inpatient environment with CST, depending upon the clinical scenario.4 Patients with serum cortisol of <13 mcg/dL warrant CST.
For patients with moderate to high pretest probability for AI, we recommend initial testing with CST. While the results of high-dose CST are not necessarily impacted by time of day, if an a.m. cortisol has not yet been obtained and it is logistically feasible to do so, performing CST in the morning will provide the most useful data for clinical interpretation.
For patients presenting with possible adrenal crisis, it is essential not to delay treatment. In these patients, obtain a cortisol paired with ACTH and initiate treatment immediately. Further testing can be deferred until the time the patient is stable.2
Potential pitfalls
Interpreting cortisol requires awareness of multiple conditions that could directly impact the results.2,3 (Table 2).
Currently available assays measure “total cortisol,” most of which is protein bound (cortisol-binding globulin as well as albumin). Therefore, conditions that lower serum protein (e.g., nephrotic syndrome, liver disease, inflammation) will lower the measured cortisol. Conversely, conditions that increase serum protein (e.g., estrogen excess in pregnancy and oral contraceptive use) will increase the measured cortisol.2,3
It is also important to recognize that existing immunoassay testing techniques informed the established cut-off for exclusion of AI at 18 mcg/dL. With newer immunoassays and emerging liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry, this cut-off may be lowered; thus the assay should be confirmed with the performing laboratory. There is emerging evidence that serum or plasma free cortisol and salivary cortisol testing for AI may be useful in certain cases, but these techniques are not yet widespread or included in clinical practice guidelines.2,3,7
Population focus: Patients on exogenous steroids
Exogenous corticosteroids suppress the HPA axis via negative inhibition of CRH and ACTH release, often resulting in low endogenous cortisol levels which may or may not reflect true loss of adrenal function. In addition, many corticosteroids will be detected by standard serum cortisol tests that rely on immunoassays. For this reason, cortisol measurement and CST should be done at least 18-24 hours after the last dose of exogenous steroids.
Although the focus has been on higher doses and longer courses of steroids (e.g., chronic use of ≥ 5 mg prednisone daily, or ≥ 20 mg prednisone daily for > 3 weeks), there is increasing evidence that lower doses, shorter courses, and alternate routes (e.g., inhaled, intra-articular) can result in biochemical and clinical evidence of AI.9 Thus, a thorough history and exam should be obtained to determine all recent corticosteroid exposure and cushingoid features.
Application of the data to the case
To effectively assess the patient for adrenal insufficiency, we need additional information. First and foremost, is a description of the patient’s current clinical status. If she is demonstrating evidence of adrenal crisis, treatment should not be delayed for additional testing. If she is stable, a thorough history including use of corticosteroids by any route, pregnancy, oral contraceptives, recent surgery, and liver and kidney disease is essential.
Additional evaluation reveals the patient has been using her fluticasone inhaler daily. No other source of hyponatremia or lightheadedness is identified. The patient’s risk factors of corticosteroid use and unexplained hyponatremia with associated lightheadedness increase her pretest probability of AI and a single morning cortisol of 10 mcg/dL is insufficient to exclude adrenal insufficiency. The appropriate follow-up test is a standard high-dose cosyntropin stimulation test at least 18 hours after her last dose of fluticasone. A cortisol level > 18 mcg/dL at 30 minutes in the absence of other conditions that impact cortisol testing would not be suggestive of AI. A serum cortisol level of < 18 mcg/dL at 30 minutes would raise concern for abnormal adrenal reserve due to chronic corticosteroid therapy and would warrant referral to an endocrinologist.
Bottom line
An isolated serum cortisol is often insufficient to exclude adrenal insufficiency. Hospitalists should be aware of the many factors that impact the interpretation of this test.
Dr. Gordon is assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, and a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center, Portland. She is the subspecialty education coordinator of inpatient medicine for the Internal Medicine Residency Program. Dr. Herrle is assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University and a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center. She is the associate director of medical student education for the department of internal medicine at MMC and a medical director for clinical informatics at MaineHealth.
References
1. Bleicken B et al. Delayed diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency is common: A cross-sectional study in 216 patients. Am J Med Sci. 2010;339(6):525-31. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3181db6b7a.
2. Bornstein SR et al. Diagnosis and treatment of primary adrenal insufficiency: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Feb;101(2):364-89.
3. El-Farhan N et al. Measuring cortisol in serum, urine and saliva – Are our assays good enough? Ann Clin Biochem. 2017 May;54(3):308-22. doi: 10.1177/0004563216687335.
4. Kazlauskaite R et al. Corticotropin tests for hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal insufficiency: A metaanalysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93:4245-53.
5. Wood JB et al. A rapid test of adrenocortical function. Lancet. 1965;191:243-5.
6. Singh Ospina N et al. ACTH stimulation tests for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(2):427-34.
7. Burgos N et al. Pitfalls in the interpretation of the cosyntropin stimulation test for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019;26(3):139-45.
8. Odom DC et al. A Single, post-ACTH cortisol measurement to screen for adrenal insufficiency in the hospitalized patient. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(8):526-30. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2928.
9. Broersen LHA et al. Adrenal insufficiency in corticosteroids use: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(6): 2171-80.
Key points
• In general, random cortisol testing is of limited value and should be avoided.
• Serum cortisol testing in the hospitalized patient is impacted by a variety of patient and disease factors and should be interpreted carefully.
• For patients with low pretest probability of adrenal insufficiency, early morning serum cortisol testing may be sufficient to exclude the diagnosis.
• For patients with moderate to high pretest probability of adrenal insufficiency, standard high-dose (250 mcg) corticotropin stimulation testing is preferred.
Additional reading
Bornstein SR et al. Diagnosis and treatment of primary adrenal insufficiency: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Feb;101(2):364-89.
Burgos N et al. Pitfalls in the interpretation of the cosyntropin stimulation test for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019;26(3):139-45.
Quiz
An 82 y.o. woman with depression is admitted from her long-term care facility with worsening weakness and mild hypoglycemia. Her supine vital signs are stable, but she exhibits a drop in systolic blood pressure of 21 mm Hg upon standing. There is no evidence of infection by history, exam, or initial workup. She is not on chronic corticosteroids by any route.
What would be your initial workup for adrenal insufficiency?
A) Morning serum cortisol and ACTH
B) Insulin tolerance test
C) Corticotropin stimulation test
D) Would not test at this point
Answer: C. Although her symptom of weakness is nonspecific, her hypoglycemia and orthostatic hypotension are concerning enough that she would qualify as moderate to high pretest probability for AI. In this setting, one would acquire a basal serum total cortisol and ACTH then administer the standard high-dose corticotropin stimulation test (250 mcg) followed by repeat serum total cortisol at 30 or 60 minutes.
Case
A 45-year-old female with moderate persistent asthma is admitted for right lower extremity cellulitis. She has hyponatremia with a sodium of 129 mEq/L and reports a history of longstanding fatigue and lightheadedness on standing. An early morning serum cortisol was 10 mcg/dL, normal per the reference range for the laboratory. Has adrenal insufficiency been excluded in this patient?
Overview
Adrenal insufficiency (AI) is a clinical syndrome characterized by a deficiency of cortisol. Presentation may range from nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, weight loss, and gastrointestinal concerns to a fulminant adrenal crisis with severe weakness and hypotension (Table 1). The diagnosis of AI is commonly delayed, negatively impacting patients’ quality of life and risking dangerous complications.1,2
AI can occur due to diseases of the adrenal glands themselves (primary) or impairment of adrenocorticotropin (ACTH) secretion from the pituitary (secondary) or corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) secretion from the hypothalamus (tertiary). In the hospital setting, causes of primary AI may include autoimmune disease, infection, metastatic disease, hemorrhage, and adverse medication effects. Secondary and tertiary AI would be of particular concern for patients with traumatic brain injuries or pituitary surgery, but also are seen commonly as a result of adverse medication effects in the hospitalized patient, notably opioids and corticosteroids through suppression the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and immune checkpoint inhibitors via autoimmune hypophysitis.
Testing for AI in the hospitalized patient presents a host of challenges. Among these are the variability in presentation of different types of AI, high rates of exogenous corticosteroid use, the impact of critical illness on the HPA axis, medical illness altering protein binding of serum cortisol, interfering medications, the variation in assays used by laboratories, and the logistical challenges of obtaining appropriately timed phlebotomy.2,3
Cortisol testing
An intact HPA axis results in ACTH-dependent cortisol release from the adrenal glands. Cortisol secretion exhibits circadian rhythm, with the highest levels in the early morning (6 a.m. to 8 a.m.) and the lowest at night (12 a.m.). It also is pulsatile, which may explain the range of “normal” morning serum cortisol observed in a study of healthy volunteers.3 Note that serum cortisol is equivalent to plasma cortisol in current immunoassays, and will henceforth be called “cortisol” in this paper.3
There are instances when morning cortisol may strongly suggest a diagnosis of AI on its own. A meta-analysis found that morning cortisol of < 5 mcg/dL predicts AI and morning cortisol of > 13 mcg/dL ruled out AI.4 The Endocrine Society of America favors dynamic assessment of adrenal function for most patients.2
Historically, the gold standard for assessing dynamic adrenal function has been the insulin tolerance test (ITT), whereby cortisol is measured after inducing hypoglycemia to a blood glucose < 35 mg/dL. ITT is logistically difficult and poses some risk to the patient. The corticotropin (or cosyntropin) stimulation test (CST), in which a supraphysiologic dose of a synthetic ACTH analog is administered parenterally to a patient and resultant cortisol levels are measured, has been validated against the ITT and is generally preferred.5 CST is used to diagnose primary AI as well as chronic secondary and tertiary AI, given that longstanding lack of ACTH stimulation causes atrophy of the adrenal glands. The sensitivity for secondary and tertiary AI is likely lower than primary AI especially in acute onset of disease.6,7
In performance of the CST a baseline cortisol and ACTH are obtained, with subsequent cortisol testing at 30 and/or 60 minutes after administration of the ACTH analog (Figure 1). Currently, there is no consensus for which time point is preferred, but the 30-minute test is more sensitive for AI and the 60-minute test is more specific.2,7,8
CST is typically performed using a “standard high dose” of 250 mcg of the ACTH analog. There has been interest in the use of a “low-dose” 1 mcg test, which is closer to normal physiologic stimulation of the adrenal glands and may have better sensitivity for early secondary or partial AI. However, the 250-mcg dose is easier to prepare and has fewer technical pitfalls in administration as well as a lower risk for false positive testing. At this point the data do not compellingly favor the use of low-dose CST testing in general practice.2,3,7
Clinical decision making
Diagnostic evaluation should be guided by the likelihood of the disease (i.e., the pretest probability) (Figure 1). Begin with a review of the patient’s signs and symptoms, medical and family history, and medications with special consideration for opioids, exogenous steroids, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (Table 1).
For patients with low pretest probability for AI, morning cortisol and ACTH is a reasonable first test (Figure 1). A cortisol value of 18 mcg/dL or greater does not support AI and no further testing is needed.2 Patients with morning cortisol of 13-18 mcg/dL could be followed clinically or could undergo further testing in the inpatient environment with CST, depending upon the clinical scenario.4 Patients with serum cortisol of <13 mcg/dL warrant CST.
For patients with moderate to high pretest probability for AI, we recommend initial testing with CST. While the results of high-dose CST are not necessarily impacted by time of day, if an a.m. cortisol has not yet been obtained and it is logistically feasible to do so, performing CST in the morning will provide the most useful data for clinical interpretation.
For patients presenting with possible adrenal crisis, it is essential not to delay treatment. In these patients, obtain a cortisol paired with ACTH and initiate treatment immediately. Further testing can be deferred until the time the patient is stable.2
Potential pitfalls
Interpreting cortisol requires awareness of multiple conditions that could directly impact the results.2,3 (Table 2).
Currently available assays measure “total cortisol,” most of which is protein bound (cortisol-binding globulin as well as albumin). Therefore, conditions that lower serum protein (e.g., nephrotic syndrome, liver disease, inflammation) will lower the measured cortisol. Conversely, conditions that increase serum protein (e.g., estrogen excess in pregnancy and oral contraceptive use) will increase the measured cortisol.2,3
It is also important to recognize that existing immunoassay testing techniques informed the established cut-off for exclusion of AI at 18 mcg/dL. With newer immunoassays and emerging liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry, this cut-off may be lowered; thus the assay should be confirmed with the performing laboratory. There is emerging evidence that serum or plasma free cortisol and salivary cortisol testing for AI may be useful in certain cases, but these techniques are not yet widespread or included in clinical practice guidelines.2,3,7
Population focus: Patients on exogenous steroids
Exogenous corticosteroids suppress the HPA axis via negative inhibition of CRH and ACTH release, often resulting in low endogenous cortisol levels which may or may not reflect true loss of adrenal function. In addition, many corticosteroids will be detected by standard serum cortisol tests that rely on immunoassays. For this reason, cortisol measurement and CST should be done at least 18-24 hours after the last dose of exogenous steroids.
Although the focus has been on higher doses and longer courses of steroids (e.g., chronic use of ≥ 5 mg prednisone daily, or ≥ 20 mg prednisone daily for > 3 weeks), there is increasing evidence that lower doses, shorter courses, and alternate routes (e.g., inhaled, intra-articular) can result in biochemical and clinical evidence of AI.9 Thus, a thorough history and exam should be obtained to determine all recent corticosteroid exposure and cushingoid features.
Application of the data to the case
To effectively assess the patient for adrenal insufficiency, we need additional information. First and foremost, is a description of the patient’s current clinical status. If she is demonstrating evidence of adrenal crisis, treatment should not be delayed for additional testing. If she is stable, a thorough history including use of corticosteroids by any route, pregnancy, oral contraceptives, recent surgery, and liver and kidney disease is essential.
Additional evaluation reveals the patient has been using her fluticasone inhaler daily. No other source of hyponatremia or lightheadedness is identified. The patient’s risk factors of corticosteroid use and unexplained hyponatremia with associated lightheadedness increase her pretest probability of AI and a single morning cortisol of 10 mcg/dL is insufficient to exclude adrenal insufficiency. The appropriate follow-up test is a standard high-dose cosyntropin stimulation test at least 18 hours after her last dose of fluticasone. A cortisol level > 18 mcg/dL at 30 minutes in the absence of other conditions that impact cortisol testing would not be suggestive of AI. A serum cortisol level of < 18 mcg/dL at 30 minutes would raise concern for abnormal adrenal reserve due to chronic corticosteroid therapy and would warrant referral to an endocrinologist.
Bottom line
An isolated serum cortisol is often insufficient to exclude adrenal insufficiency. Hospitalists should be aware of the many factors that impact the interpretation of this test.
Dr. Gordon is assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, and a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center, Portland. She is the subspecialty education coordinator of inpatient medicine for the Internal Medicine Residency Program. Dr. Herrle is assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University and a hospitalist at Maine Medical Center. She is the associate director of medical student education for the department of internal medicine at MMC and a medical director for clinical informatics at MaineHealth.
References
1. Bleicken B et al. Delayed diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency is common: A cross-sectional study in 216 patients. Am J Med Sci. 2010;339(6):525-31. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3181db6b7a.
2. Bornstein SR et al. Diagnosis and treatment of primary adrenal insufficiency: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Feb;101(2):364-89.
3. El-Farhan N et al. Measuring cortisol in serum, urine and saliva – Are our assays good enough? Ann Clin Biochem. 2017 May;54(3):308-22. doi: 10.1177/0004563216687335.
4. Kazlauskaite R et al. Corticotropin tests for hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal insufficiency: A metaanalysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93:4245-53.
5. Wood JB et al. A rapid test of adrenocortical function. Lancet. 1965;191:243-5.
6. Singh Ospina N et al. ACTH stimulation tests for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(2):427-34.
7. Burgos N et al. Pitfalls in the interpretation of the cosyntropin stimulation test for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019;26(3):139-45.
8. Odom DC et al. A Single, post-ACTH cortisol measurement to screen for adrenal insufficiency in the hospitalized patient. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(8):526-30. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2928.
9. Broersen LHA et al. Adrenal insufficiency in corticosteroids use: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(6): 2171-80.
Key points
• In general, random cortisol testing is of limited value and should be avoided.
• Serum cortisol testing in the hospitalized patient is impacted by a variety of patient and disease factors and should be interpreted carefully.
• For patients with low pretest probability of adrenal insufficiency, early morning serum cortisol testing may be sufficient to exclude the diagnosis.
• For patients with moderate to high pretest probability of adrenal insufficiency, standard high-dose (250 mcg) corticotropin stimulation testing is preferred.
Additional reading
Bornstein SR et al. Diagnosis and treatment of primary adrenal insufficiency: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Feb;101(2):364-89.
Burgos N et al. Pitfalls in the interpretation of the cosyntropin stimulation test for the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2019;26(3):139-45.
Quiz
An 82 y.o. woman with depression is admitted from her long-term care facility with worsening weakness and mild hypoglycemia. Her supine vital signs are stable, but she exhibits a drop in systolic blood pressure of 21 mm Hg upon standing. There is no evidence of infection by history, exam, or initial workup. She is not on chronic corticosteroids by any route.
What would be your initial workup for adrenal insufficiency?
A) Morning serum cortisol and ACTH
B) Insulin tolerance test
C) Corticotropin stimulation test
D) Would not test at this point
Answer: C. Although her symptom of weakness is nonspecific, her hypoglycemia and orthostatic hypotension are concerning enough that she would qualify as moderate to high pretest probability for AI. In this setting, one would acquire a basal serum total cortisol and ACTH then administer the standard high-dose corticotropin stimulation test (250 mcg) followed by repeat serum total cortisol at 30 or 60 minutes.
‘The pandemic within the pandemic’
The coronavirus has infected millions of Americans and killed over 174,000. But could it be worse? Maybe.
“Racism is the pandemic within the pandemic,” Marc H. Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, said in the 2020 “State of Black America, Unmasked” report.
“Black people with COVID-19 symptoms in February and March were less likely to get tested or treated than white patients,” he wrote.
After less testing and less treatment, the next step seems inevitable. The death rate from COVID-19 is 70 per 100,000 population among Black Americans, compared with 30 per 100,000 for Whites and 34 per 100,000 for Hispanics, the league said based on data from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Equity.
Black and Hispanic patients with COVID-19 are more likely to have preexisting health conditions, but they “tend to receive less aggressive treatment than white patients,” the report noted. The lower death rate among Hispanics may be explained by the Black population’s greater age, although Hispanic Americans have a higher infection rate (73 per 10,000) than Blacks (62 per 10,000) or Whites (23 per 10,000).
Another possible explanation for the differences in infection rates: Blacks and Hispanics are less able to work at home because they “are overrepresented in low-wage jobs that offer the least flexibility and increase their risk of exposure to the coronavirus,” the league said.
Hispanics and Blacks also are more likely to be uninsured than Whites – 19.5% and 11.5%, respectively, vs. 7.5% – so “they tend to delay seeking treatment and are sicker than white patients when they finally do,” the league said. That may account for their much higher COVID-19 hospitalization rates: 213 per 100,000 for Blacks, 205 for Hispanics, and 46 for Whites.
“The silver lining during these dark times is that this pandemic has revealed our shared vulnerability and our interconnectedness. Many people are beginning to see that when others don’t have the opportunity to be healthy, it puts all of us at risk,” Lisa Cooper, MD, James F. Fries Professor of Medicine and Bloomberg Distinguished Professor in Health Equity at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in an essay accompanying the report.
The coronavirus has infected millions of Americans and killed over 174,000. But could it be worse? Maybe.
“Racism is the pandemic within the pandemic,” Marc H. Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, said in the 2020 “State of Black America, Unmasked” report.
“Black people with COVID-19 symptoms in February and March were less likely to get tested or treated than white patients,” he wrote.
After less testing and less treatment, the next step seems inevitable. The death rate from COVID-19 is 70 per 100,000 population among Black Americans, compared with 30 per 100,000 for Whites and 34 per 100,000 for Hispanics, the league said based on data from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Equity.
Black and Hispanic patients with COVID-19 are more likely to have preexisting health conditions, but they “tend to receive less aggressive treatment than white patients,” the report noted. The lower death rate among Hispanics may be explained by the Black population’s greater age, although Hispanic Americans have a higher infection rate (73 per 10,000) than Blacks (62 per 10,000) or Whites (23 per 10,000).
Another possible explanation for the differences in infection rates: Blacks and Hispanics are less able to work at home because they “are overrepresented in low-wage jobs that offer the least flexibility and increase their risk of exposure to the coronavirus,” the league said.
Hispanics and Blacks also are more likely to be uninsured than Whites – 19.5% and 11.5%, respectively, vs. 7.5% – so “they tend to delay seeking treatment and are sicker than white patients when they finally do,” the league said. That may account for their much higher COVID-19 hospitalization rates: 213 per 100,000 for Blacks, 205 for Hispanics, and 46 for Whites.
“The silver lining during these dark times is that this pandemic has revealed our shared vulnerability and our interconnectedness. Many people are beginning to see that when others don’t have the opportunity to be healthy, it puts all of us at risk,” Lisa Cooper, MD, James F. Fries Professor of Medicine and Bloomberg Distinguished Professor in Health Equity at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in an essay accompanying the report.
The coronavirus has infected millions of Americans and killed over 174,000. But could it be worse? Maybe.
“Racism is the pandemic within the pandemic,” Marc H. Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, said in the 2020 “State of Black America, Unmasked” report.
“Black people with COVID-19 symptoms in February and March were less likely to get tested or treated than white patients,” he wrote.
After less testing and less treatment, the next step seems inevitable. The death rate from COVID-19 is 70 per 100,000 population among Black Americans, compared with 30 per 100,000 for Whites and 34 per 100,000 for Hispanics, the league said based on data from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Equity.
Black and Hispanic patients with COVID-19 are more likely to have preexisting health conditions, but they “tend to receive less aggressive treatment than white patients,” the report noted. The lower death rate among Hispanics may be explained by the Black population’s greater age, although Hispanic Americans have a higher infection rate (73 per 10,000) than Blacks (62 per 10,000) or Whites (23 per 10,000).
Another possible explanation for the differences in infection rates: Blacks and Hispanics are less able to work at home because they “are overrepresented in low-wage jobs that offer the least flexibility and increase their risk of exposure to the coronavirus,” the league said.
Hispanics and Blacks also are more likely to be uninsured than Whites – 19.5% and 11.5%, respectively, vs. 7.5% – so “they tend to delay seeking treatment and are sicker than white patients when they finally do,” the league said. That may account for their much higher COVID-19 hospitalization rates: 213 per 100,000 for Blacks, 205 for Hispanics, and 46 for Whites.
“The silver lining during these dark times is that this pandemic has revealed our shared vulnerability and our interconnectedness. Many people are beginning to see that when others don’t have the opportunity to be healthy, it puts all of us at risk,” Lisa Cooper, MD, James F. Fries Professor of Medicine and Bloomberg Distinguished Professor in Health Equity at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in an essay accompanying the report.
Swab, spit, stay home? College coronavirus testing plans are all over the map
Yousuf El-Jayyousi, a junior engineering student at the University of Missouri, wanted guidance and reassurance that it would be safe to go back to school for the fall semester. He tuned into a pair of online town halls organized by the university hoping to find that.
He did not.
What he got instead from those town halls last month was encouragement to return to class at the institution affectionately known as Mizzou. The university, in Columbia, would be testing only people with symptoms, and at that point, the university said people who test positive off campus were under no obligation to inform the school.
“It feels like the university doesn’t really care whether we get sick or not,” said El-Jayyousi, who is scheduled for two in-person classes, and lives at home with his parents and 90-year-old grandmother.
He’s seen the studies from researchers at Yale and Harvard that suggest testing needs to be much more widespread. He asked his instructors if he could join lectures remotely once classes begin Monday. One was considering it; the other rejected it.
“It was kind of very dismissive, like ‘so what?’ ” El-Jayyousi said.
But it’s an enormous “so what?” packed with fear and unknowns for Jayyousi and some 20 million other students enrolled in some level of postsecondary education in America, if they are not already online only.
Policies for reentry onto campuses that were abruptly shut in March are all over the map.
Hundreds Undecided
According to the College Crisis Initiative, or C2i, a project of Davidson College that monitors how higher ed is responding to the pandemic, there is nothing resembling a common approach. Of 2,958 institutions it follows, 151 were planning to open fully online, 729 were mostly online and 433 were taking a hybrid approach. Just 75 schools were insisting on students attending fully in person, and 614 were aiming to be primarily in-person. Some 800 others were still deciding, just weeks before instruction was to start.
The decisions often have little correlation with the public health advisories in the region. Mizzou, which is in an area with recent COVID spikes, is holding some in-person instruction and has nearly 7,000 students signed up to live in dorms and other university-owned housing. Harvard, in a region with extremely low rates of viral spread, has opted to go all online and allowed students to defer a year.
The specific circumstances colleges and universities face are as much determined by local fiscal and political dictates as by medicine and epidemiology. It is often unclear who is making the call. So it’s every student for herself to chart these unknown waters, even as students (or their families) have written tuition checks for tens of thousands of dollars and signed leases for campus and off-campus housing.
And the risks – health, educational and financial – boomerang back on individual students: Two weeks after University of North Carolina students, as instructed, returned to the flagship campus in Chapel Hill with the promise of at least some in-person learning, all classes went online. Early outbreaks surged from a few students to more than 130 in a matter of days. Most undergrads have about a week to clear out of their dorms.
“It’s really tough,” said neuroscience major Luke Lawless, 20. “Chapel Hill is an amazing place, and as a senior it’s tough to know that my time’s running out – and the virus only adds to that.”
Location, location, location
C2i’s creator, Davidson education Assistant Professor Chris Marsicano, said the extreme diversity of approaches comes from the sheer diversity of schools, the penchant of many to follow the leads of more prestigious peers, and local politics.
“Some states have very strong and stringent mask requirements. Some have stronger stay-at-home orders. Others are sort of leaving it up to localities. So the confluence of politics, institutional isomorphism – that imitation – and different needs that the institutions have are driving the differences,” Marsicano said.
Location matters a lot, too, Marsicano said, pointing to schools like George Washington University and Boston University in urban settings where the environment is beyond the control of the school, versus a place like the University of the South in remote, rural Sewanee, Tennessee, where 90% of students will return to campus.
“It’s a lot easier to control an outbreak if you are a fairly isolated college campus than if you are in the middle of a city,” Marsicano said.
Student behavior is another wild card, Marsicano said, since even the best plans will fail if college kids “do something stupid, like have a massive frat party without masks.”
“You’ve got student affairs professionals across the country who are screaming at the top of their lungs, ‘We can’t control student behavior when they go off campus’” Marsicano said.
Another factor is a vacuum at the federal level. Although the Department of Education says Secretary Betsy DeVos has held dozens of calls with governors and state education superintendents, there’s no sign of an attempt to offer unified guidance to colleges beyond a webpage that links to relaxed regulatory requirements and anodyne fact sheets from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on preventing viral spread.
Even the money that the department notes it has dispensed – $30 billion from Congress’ CARES Act – is weighted toward K-12 schools, with about $13 billion for higher education, including student aid.
The U.S. Senate adjourned last week until Sept. 8, having never taken up a House-passed relief package that included some $30 billion for higher education. A trio of Democratic senators, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, is calling for national reporting standards on college campuses.
No benchmarks
Campus communities with very different levels of contagion are making opposite calls about in-person learning. Mizzou’s Boone County has seen more than 1,400 confirmed COVID cases after a spike in mid-July. According to the Harvard Global Health Institute’s COVID risk map, Boone has accelerated spread, with 14 infections per day per 100,000 people. The institute advises stay-at-home orders or rigorous testing and tracing at such rates of infection. Two neighboring counties were in the red zone recently, with more than 25 cases per day per 100,000 people. Mizzou has left it up to deans whether classes will meet in person, making a strong argument for face-to-face instruction.
Meanwhile, Columbia University in New York City opted for all online instruction, even though the rate of infection there is a comparatively low 3.8 cases per day per 100,000 people.
Administrators at Mizzou considered and rejected mandatory testing. “All that does is provide one a snapshot of the situation,” University of Missouri system President Mun Choi said in one of the town halls.
Mizzou has an in-house team that will carry out case investigation and contact tracing with the local health department. This week, following questions from the press and pressure from the public, the university announced students will be required to report any positive COVID test to the school.
Who do you test? When?
CDC guidance for higher education suggests there’s not enough data to know whether testing everyone is effective, but some influential researchers, such as those at Harvard and Yale, disagree.
“This virus is subject to silent spreading and asymptomatic spreading, and it’s very hard to play catch-up,” said Yale professor David Paltiel, who studies public health policy. “And so thinking that you can keep your campus safe by simply waiting until students develop symptoms before acting, I think, is a very dangerous game.”
Simulation models conducted by Paltiel and his colleagues show that, of all the factors university administrators can control – including the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 tests – the frequency of testing is most important.
He’s “painfully aware” that testing everyone on campus every few days sets a very high bar – logistically, financially, behaviorally – that may be beyond what most schools can reach. But he says the consequences of reopening campuses without those measures are severe, not just for students, but for vulnerable populations among school workers and in the surrounding community.
“You really have to ask yourself whether you have any business reopening if you’re not going to commit to an aggressive program of high-frequency testing,” he said.
The fighting – and testing – Illini
Some institutions that desperately want students to return to campus are backing the goal with a maximal approach to safety and testing.
About a 4-hour drive east along the interstates from Mizzou is the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, whose sports teams are known as the Fighting Illini.
Weeks ago, large white tents with signs reading “Walk-Up COVID-19 Testing” have popped up across campus; there students take a simple saliva test.
“This seems to be a lot easier than sticking a cotton swab up your nose,” graduate student Kristen Muñoz said after collecting a bit of her saliva in a plastic tube and sealing it in a bag labeled “Biohazard.”
In just a few hours, she got back her result: negative.
The school plans to offer free tests to the 50,000 students expected to return this month, as well as some 11,000 faculty and staff members.
“The exciting thing is, because we can test up to 10,000 per day, it allows the scientist to do what’s really the best for trying to protect the community as opposed to having to cut corners, because of the limitations of the testing,” said University of Illinois chemist Martin Burke, who helped develop the campus’s saliva test, which received emergency use authorization from the federal Food and Drug Administration this week.
The test is similar to one designed by Yale and funded by the NBA that cleared the FDA hurdle just before the Illinois test. Both Yale and Illinois hope aggressive testing will allow most undergraduate students to live on campus, even though most classes will be online.
University of Illinois epidemiologist Becky Smith said they are following data that suggest campuses need to test everyone every few days because the virus is not detectable in infected people for 3 or 4 days.
“But about two days after that, your infectiousness peaks,” she said. “So, we have a very small window of time in which to catch people before they have done most of the infection that they’re going to be doing.”
Campus officials accepted Smith’s recommendation that all faculty, staffers and students participating in any on-campus activities be required to get tested twice a week.
Illinois can do that because its test is convenient and not invasive, which spares the campus from using as much personal protective equipment as the more invasive tests require, Burke said. And on-site analysis avoids backlogs at public health and commercial labs.
Muddled in the middle
Most other colleges fall somewhere between the approaches of Mizzou and the University of Illinois, and many of their students still are uncertain how their fall semester will go.
At the University of Southern California, a private campus of about 48,500 students in Los Angeles, officials had hoped to have about 20% of classes in person – but the county government scaled that back, insisting on tougher rules for reopening than the statewide standards.
If students eventually are allowed back, they will have to show a recent coronavirus test result that they obtained on their own, said Dr. Sarah Van Orman, chief health officer of USC Student Health.
They will be asked to do daily health assessments, such as fever checks, and those who have been exposed to the virus or show symptoms will receive a rapid test, with about a 24-hour turnaround through the university medical center’s lab. “We believe it is really important to have very rapid access to those results,” Van Orman said.
At California State University – the nation’s largest 4-year system, with 23 campuses and nearly a half-million students – officials decided back in May to move nearly all its fall courses online.
“The first priority was really the health and safety of all of the campus community,” said Mike Uhlenkamp, spokesperson for the CSU Chancellor’s Office. About 10% of CSU students are expected to attend some in-person classes, such as nursing lab courses, fine art and dance classes, and some graduate classes.
Uhlenkamp said testing protocols are being left up to each campus, though all are required to follow local safety guidelines. And without a medical campus in the system, CSU campuses do not have the same capacity to take charge of their own testing, as the University of Illinois is doing.
For students who know they won’t be on campus this fall, there is regret at lost social experiences, networking and hands-on learning so important to college.
But the certainty also brings relief.
“I don’t think I would want to be indoors with a group of, you know, even just a handful of people, even if we have masks on,” said Haley Gray, a 28-year-old graduate student at the University of California-Berkeley starting the second year of her journalism program.
She knows she won’t have access to Berkeley’s advanced media labs or the collaborative sessions students experience there. And she said she realized the other day she probably won’t just sit around the student lounge and strike up unexpected friendships.
“That’s a pretty big bummer but, you know, I think overall we’re all just doing our best, and given the circumstances, I feel pretty OK about it,” she 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. This story is part of a partnership that includes KBIA, Illinois Public Media, Side Effects Public Media, NPR and Kaiser Health News.
Yousuf El-Jayyousi, a junior engineering student at the University of Missouri, wanted guidance and reassurance that it would be safe to go back to school for the fall semester. He tuned into a pair of online town halls organized by the university hoping to find that.
He did not.
What he got instead from those town halls last month was encouragement to return to class at the institution affectionately known as Mizzou. The university, in Columbia, would be testing only people with symptoms, and at that point, the university said people who test positive off campus were under no obligation to inform the school.
“It feels like the university doesn’t really care whether we get sick or not,” said El-Jayyousi, who is scheduled for two in-person classes, and lives at home with his parents and 90-year-old grandmother.
He’s seen the studies from researchers at Yale and Harvard that suggest testing needs to be much more widespread. He asked his instructors if he could join lectures remotely once classes begin Monday. One was considering it; the other rejected it.
“It was kind of very dismissive, like ‘so what?’ ” El-Jayyousi said.
But it’s an enormous “so what?” packed with fear and unknowns for Jayyousi and some 20 million other students enrolled in some level of postsecondary education in America, if they are not already online only.
Policies for reentry onto campuses that were abruptly shut in March are all over the map.
Hundreds Undecided
According to the College Crisis Initiative, or C2i, a project of Davidson College that monitors how higher ed is responding to the pandemic, there is nothing resembling a common approach. Of 2,958 institutions it follows, 151 were planning to open fully online, 729 were mostly online and 433 were taking a hybrid approach. Just 75 schools were insisting on students attending fully in person, and 614 were aiming to be primarily in-person. Some 800 others were still deciding, just weeks before instruction was to start.
The decisions often have little correlation with the public health advisories in the region. Mizzou, which is in an area with recent COVID spikes, is holding some in-person instruction and has nearly 7,000 students signed up to live in dorms and other university-owned housing. Harvard, in a region with extremely low rates of viral spread, has opted to go all online and allowed students to defer a year.
The specific circumstances colleges and universities face are as much determined by local fiscal and political dictates as by medicine and epidemiology. It is often unclear who is making the call. So it’s every student for herself to chart these unknown waters, even as students (or their families) have written tuition checks for tens of thousands of dollars and signed leases for campus and off-campus housing.
And the risks – health, educational and financial – boomerang back on individual students: Two weeks after University of North Carolina students, as instructed, returned to the flagship campus in Chapel Hill with the promise of at least some in-person learning, all classes went online. Early outbreaks surged from a few students to more than 130 in a matter of days. Most undergrads have about a week to clear out of their dorms.
“It’s really tough,” said neuroscience major Luke Lawless, 20. “Chapel Hill is an amazing place, and as a senior it’s tough to know that my time’s running out – and the virus only adds to that.”
Location, location, location
C2i’s creator, Davidson education Assistant Professor Chris Marsicano, said the extreme diversity of approaches comes from the sheer diversity of schools, the penchant of many to follow the leads of more prestigious peers, and local politics.
“Some states have very strong and stringent mask requirements. Some have stronger stay-at-home orders. Others are sort of leaving it up to localities. So the confluence of politics, institutional isomorphism – that imitation – and different needs that the institutions have are driving the differences,” Marsicano said.
Location matters a lot, too, Marsicano said, pointing to schools like George Washington University and Boston University in urban settings where the environment is beyond the control of the school, versus a place like the University of the South in remote, rural Sewanee, Tennessee, where 90% of students will return to campus.
“It’s a lot easier to control an outbreak if you are a fairly isolated college campus than if you are in the middle of a city,” Marsicano said.
Student behavior is another wild card, Marsicano said, since even the best plans will fail if college kids “do something stupid, like have a massive frat party without masks.”
“You’ve got student affairs professionals across the country who are screaming at the top of their lungs, ‘We can’t control student behavior when they go off campus’” Marsicano said.
Another factor is a vacuum at the federal level. Although the Department of Education says Secretary Betsy DeVos has held dozens of calls with governors and state education superintendents, there’s no sign of an attempt to offer unified guidance to colleges beyond a webpage that links to relaxed regulatory requirements and anodyne fact sheets from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on preventing viral spread.
Even the money that the department notes it has dispensed – $30 billion from Congress’ CARES Act – is weighted toward K-12 schools, with about $13 billion for higher education, including student aid.
The U.S. Senate adjourned last week until Sept. 8, having never taken up a House-passed relief package that included some $30 billion for higher education. A trio of Democratic senators, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, is calling for national reporting standards on college campuses.
No benchmarks
Campus communities with very different levels of contagion are making opposite calls about in-person learning. Mizzou’s Boone County has seen more than 1,400 confirmed COVID cases after a spike in mid-July. According to the Harvard Global Health Institute’s COVID risk map, Boone has accelerated spread, with 14 infections per day per 100,000 people. The institute advises stay-at-home orders or rigorous testing and tracing at such rates of infection. Two neighboring counties were in the red zone recently, with more than 25 cases per day per 100,000 people. Mizzou has left it up to deans whether classes will meet in person, making a strong argument for face-to-face instruction.
Meanwhile, Columbia University in New York City opted for all online instruction, even though the rate of infection there is a comparatively low 3.8 cases per day per 100,000 people.
Administrators at Mizzou considered and rejected mandatory testing. “All that does is provide one a snapshot of the situation,” University of Missouri system President Mun Choi said in one of the town halls.
Mizzou has an in-house team that will carry out case investigation and contact tracing with the local health department. This week, following questions from the press and pressure from the public, the university announced students will be required to report any positive COVID test to the school.
Who do you test? When?
CDC guidance for higher education suggests there’s not enough data to know whether testing everyone is effective, but some influential researchers, such as those at Harvard and Yale, disagree.
“This virus is subject to silent spreading and asymptomatic spreading, and it’s very hard to play catch-up,” said Yale professor David Paltiel, who studies public health policy. “And so thinking that you can keep your campus safe by simply waiting until students develop symptoms before acting, I think, is a very dangerous game.”
Simulation models conducted by Paltiel and his colleagues show that, of all the factors university administrators can control – including the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 tests – the frequency of testing is most important.
He’s “painfully aware” that testing everyone on campus every few days sets a very high bar – logistically, financially, behaviorally – that may be beyond what most schools can reach. But he says the consequences of reopening campuses without those measures are severe, not just for students, but for vulnerable populations among school workers and in the surrounding community.
“You really have to ask yourself whether you have any business reopening if you’re not going to commit to an aggressive program of high-frequency testing,” he said.
The fighting – and testing – Illini
Some institutions that desperately want students to return to campus are backing the goal with a maximal approach to safety and testing.
About a 4-hour drive east along the interstates from Mizzou is the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, whose sports teams are known as the Fighting Illini.
Weeks ago, large white tents with signs reading “Walk-Up COVID-19 Testing” have popped up across campus; there students take a simple saliva test.
“This seems to be a lot easier than sticking a cotton swab up your nose,” graduate student Kristen Muñoz said after collecting a bit of her saliva in a plastic tube and sealing it in a bag labeled “Biohazard.”
In just a few hours, she got back her result: negative.
The school plans to offer free tests to the 50,000 students expected to return this month, as well as some 11,000 faculty and staff members.
“The exciting thing is, because we can test up to 10,000 per day, it allows the scientist to do what’s really the best for trying to protect the community as opposed to having to cut corners, because of the limitations of the testing,” said University of Illinois chemist Martin Burke, who helped develop the campus’s saliva test, which received emergency use authorization from the federal Food and Drug Administration this week.
The test is similar to one designed by Yale and funded by the NBA that cleared the FDA hurdle just before the Illinois test. Both Yale and Illinois hope aggressive testing will allow most undergraduate students to live on campus, even though most classes will be online.
University of Illinois epidemiologist Becky Smith said they are following data that suggest campuses need to test everyone every few days because the virus is not detectable in infected people for 3 or 4 days.
“But about two days after that, your infectiousness peaks,” she said. “So, we have a very small window of time in which to catch people before they have done most of the infection that they’re going to be doing.”
Campus officials accepted Smith’s recommendation that all faculty, staffers and students participating in any on-campus activities be required to get tested twice a week.
Illinois can do that because its test is convenient and not invasive, which spares the campus from using as much personal protective equipment as the more invasive tests require, Burke said. And on-site analysis avoids backlogs at public health and commercial labs.
Muddled in the middle
Most other colleges fall somewhere between the approaches of Mizzou and the University of Illinois, and many of their students still are uncertain how their fall semester will go.
At the University of Southern California, a private campus of about 48,500 students in Los Angeles, officials had hoped to have about 20% of classes in person – but the county government scaled that back, insisting on tougher rules for reopening than the statewide standards.
If students eventually are allowed back, they will have to show a recent coronavirus test result that they obtained on their own, said Dr. Sarah Van Orman, chief health officer of USC Student Health.
They will be asked to do daily health assessments, such as fever checks, and those who have been exposed to the virus or show symptoms will receive a rapid test, with about a 24-hour turnaround through the university medical center’s lab. “We believe it is really important to have very rapid access to those results,” Van Orman said.
At California State University – the nation’s largest 4-year system, with 23 campuses and nearly a half-million students – officials decided back in May to move nearly all its fall courses online.
“The first priority was really the health and safety of all of the campus community,” said Mike Uhlenkamp, spokesperson for the CSU Chancellor’s Office. About 10% of CSU students are expected to attend some in-person classes, such as nursing lab courses, fine art and dance classes, and some graduate classes.
Uhlenkamp said testing protocols are being left up to each campus, though all are required to follow local safety guidelines. And without a medical campus in the system, CSU campuses do not have the same capacity to take charge of their own testing, as the University of Illinois is doing.
For students who know they won’t be on campus this fall, there is regret at lost social experiences, networking and hands-on learning so important to college.
But the certainty also brings relief.
“I don’t think I would want to be indoors with a group of, you know, even just a handful of people, even if we have masks on,” said Haley Gray, a 28-year-old graduate student at the University of California-Berkeley starting the second year of her journalism program.
She knows she won’t have access to Berkeley’s advanced media labs or the collaborative sessions students experience there. And she said she realized the other day she probably won’t just sit around the student lounge and strike up unexpected friendships.
“That’s a pretty big bummer but, you know, I think overall we’re all just doing our best, and given the circumstances, I feel pretty OK about it,” she 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. This story is part of a partnership that includes KBIA, Illinois Public Media, Side Effects Public Media, NPR and Kaiser Health News.
Yousuf El-Jayyousi, a junior engineering student at the University of Missouri, wanted guidance and reassurance that it would be safe to go back to school for the fall semester. He tuned into a pair of online town halls organized by the university hoping to find that.
He did not.
What he got instead from those town halls last month was encouragement to return to class at the institution affectionately known as Mizzou. The university, in Columbia, would be testing only people with symptoms, and at that point, the university said people who test positive off campus were under no obligation to inform the school.
“It feels like the university doesn’t really care whether we get sick or not,” said El-Jayyousi, who is scheduled for two in-person classes, and lives at home with his parents and 90-year-old grandmother.
He’s seen the studies from researchers at Yale and Harvard that suggest testing needs to be much more widespread. He asked his instructors if he could join lectures remotely once classes begin Monday. One was considering it; the other rejected it.
“It was kind of very dismissive, like ‘so what?’ ” El-Jayyousi said.
But it’s an enormous “so what?” packed with fear and unknowns for Jayyousi and some 20 million other students enrolled in some level of postsecondary education in America, if they are not already online only.
Policies for reentry onto campuses that were abruptly shut in March are all over the map.
Hundreds Undecided
According to the College Crisis Initiative, or C2i, a project of Davidson College that monitors how higher ed is responding to the pandemic, there is nothing resembling a common approach. Of 2,958 institutions it follows, 151 were planning to open fully online, 729 were mostly online and 433 were taking a hybrid approach. Just 75 schools were insisting on students attending fully in person, and 614 were aiming to be primarily in-person. Some 800 others were still deciding, just weeks before instruction was to start.
The decisions often have little correlation with the public health advisories in the region. Mizzou, which is in an area with recent COVID spikes, is holding some in-person instruction and has nearly 7,000 students signed up to live in dorms and other university-owned housing. Harvard, in a region with extremely low rates of viral spread, has opted to go all online and allowed students to defer a year.
The specific circumstances colleges and universities face are as much determined by local fiscal and political dictates as by medicine and epidemiology. It is often unclear who is making the call. So it’s every student for herself to chart these unknown waters, even as students (or their families) have written tuition checks for tens of thousands of dollars and signed leases for campus and off-campus housing.
And the risks – health, educational and financial – boomerang back on individual students: Two weeks after University of North Carolina students, as instructed, returned to the flagship campus in Chapel Hill with the promise of at least some in-person learning, all classes went online. Early outbreaks surged from a few students to more than 130 in a matter of days. Most undergrads have about a week to clear out of their dorms.
“It’s really tough,” said neuroscience major Luke Lawless, 20. “Chapel Hill is an amazing place, and as a senior it’s tough to know that my time’s running out – and the virus only adds to that.”
Location, location, location
C2i’s creator, Davidson education Assistant Professor Chris Marsicano, said the extreme diversity of approaches comes from the sheer diversity of schools, the penchant of many to follow the leads of more prestigious peers, and local politics.
“Some states have very strong and stringent mask requirements. Some have stronger stay-at-home orders. Others are sort of leaving it up to localities. So the confluence of politics, institutional isomorphism – that imitation – and different needs that the institutions have are driving the differences,” Marsicano said.
Location matters a lot, too, Marsicano said, pointing to schools like George Washington University and Boston University in urban settings where the environment is beyond the control of the school, versus a place like the University of the South in remote, rural Sewanee, Tennessee, where 90% of students will return to campus.
“It’s a lot easier to control an outbreak if you are a fairly isolated college campus than if you are in the middle of a city,” Marsicano said.
Student behavior is another wild card, Marsicano said, since even the best plans will fail if college kids “do something stupid, like have a massive frat party without masks.”
“You’ve got student affairs professionals across the country who are screaming at the top of their lungs, ‘We can’t control student behavior when they go off campus’” Marsicano said.
Another factor is a vacuum at the federal level. Although the Department of Education says Secretary Betsy DeVos has held dozens of calls with governors and state education superintendents, there’s no sign of an attempt to offer unified guidance to colleges beyond a webpage that links to relaxed regulatory requirements and anodyne fact sheets from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on preventing viral spread.
Even the money that the department notes it has dispensed – $30 billion from Congress’ CARES Act – is weighted toward K-12 schools, with about $13 billion for higher education, including student aid.
The U.S. Senate adjourned last week until Sept. 8, having never taken up a House-passed relief package that included some $30 billion for higher education. A trio of Democratic senators, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, is calling for national reporting standards on college campuses.
No benchmarks
Campus communities with very different levels of contagion are making opposite calls about in-person learning. Mizzou’s Boone County has seen more than 1,400 confirmed COVID cases after a spike in mid-July. According to the Harvard Global Health Institute’s COVID risk map, Boone has accelerated spread, with 14 infections per day per 100,000 people. The institute advises stay-at-home orders or rigorous testing and tracing at such rates of infection. Two neighboring counties were in the red zone recently, with more than 25 cases per day per 100,000 people. Mizzou has left it up to deans whether classes will meet in person, making a strong argument for face-to-face instruction.
Meanwhile, Columbia University in New York City opted for all online instruction, even though the rate of infection there is a comparatively low 3.8 cases per day per 100,000 people.
Administrators at Mizzou considered and rejected mandatory testing. “All that does is provide one a snapshot of the situation,” University of Missouri system President Mun Choi said in one of the town halls.
Mizzou has an in-house team that will carry out case investigation and contact tracing with the local health department. This week, following questions from the press and pressure from the public, the university announced students will be required to report any positive COVID test to the school.
Who do you test? When?
CDC guidance for higher education suggests there’s not enough data to know whether testing everyone is effective, but some influential researchers, such as those at Harvard and Yale, disagree.
“This virus is subject to silent spreading and asymptomatic spreading, and it’s very hard to play catch-up,” said Yale professor David Paltiel, who studies public health policy. “And so thinking that you can keep your campus safe by simply waiting until students develop symptoms before acting, I think, is a very dangerous game.”
Simulation models conducted by Paltiel and his colleagues show that, of all the factors university administrators can control – including the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 tests – the frequency of testing is most important.
He’s “painfully aware” that testing everyone on campus every few days sets a very high bar – logistically, financially, behaviorally – that may be beyond what most schools can reach. But he says the consequences of reopening campuses without those measures are severe, not just for students, but for vulnerable populations among school workers and in the surrounding community.
“You really have to ask yourself whether you have any business reopening if you’re not going to commit to an aggressive program of high-frequency testing,” he said.
The fighting – and testing – Illini
Some institutions that desperately want students to return to campus are backing the goal with a maximal approach to safety and testing.
About a 4-hour drive east along the interstates from Mizzou is the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, whose sports teams are known as the Fighting Illini.
Weeks ago, large white tents with signs reading “Walk-Up COVID-19 Testing” have popped up across campus; there students take a simple saliva test.
“This seems to be a lot easier than sticking a cotton swab up your nose,” graduate student Kristen Muñoz said after collecting a bit of her saliva in a plastic tube and sealing it in a bag labeled “Biohazard.”
In just a few hours, she got back her result: negative.
The school plans to offer free tests to the 50,000 students expected to return this month, as well as some 11,000 faculty and staff members.
“The exciting thing is, because we can test up to 10,000 per day, it allows the scientist to do what’s really the best for trying to protect the community as opposed to having to cut corners, because of the limitations of the testing,” said University of Illinois chemist Martin Burke, who helped develop the campus’s saliva test, which received emergency use authorization from the federal Food and Drug Administration this week.
The test is similar to one designed by Yale and funded by the NBA that cleared the FDA hurdle just before the Illinois test. Both Yale and Illinois hope aggressive testing will allow most undergraduate students to live on campus, even though most classes will be online.
University of Illinois epidemiologist Becky Smith said they are following data that suggest campuses need to test everyone every few days because the virus is not detectable in infected people for 3 or 4 days.
“But about two days after that, your infectiousness peaks,” she said. “So, we have a very small window of time in which to catch people before they have done most of the infection that they’re going to be doing.”
Campus officials accepted Smith’s recommendation that all faculty, staffers and students participating in any on-campus activities be required to get tested twice a week.
Illinois can do that because its test is convenient and not invasive, which spares the campus from using as much personal protective equipment as the more invasive tests require, Burke said. And on-site analysis avoids backlogs at public health and commercial labs.
Muddled in the middle
Most other colleges fall somewhere between the approaches of Mizzou and the University of Illinois, and many of their students still are uncertain how their fall semester will go.
At the University of Southern California, a private campus of about 48,500 students in Los Angeles, officials had hoped to have about 20% of classes in person – but the county government scaled that back, insisting on tougher rules for reopening than the statewide standards.
If students eventually are allowed back, they will have to show a recent coronavirus test result that they obtained on their own, said Dr. Sarah Van Orman, chief health officer of USC Student Health.
They will be asked to do daily health assessments, such as fever checks, and those who have been exposed to the virus or show symptoms will receive a rapid test, with about a 24-hour turnaround through the university medical center’s lab. “We believe it is really important to have very rapid access to those results,” Van Orman said.
At California State University – the nation’s largest 4-year system, with 23 campuses and nearly a half-million students – officials decided back in May to move nearly all its fall courses online.
“The first priority was really the health and safety of all of the campus community,” said Mike Uhlenkamp, spokesperson for the CSU Chancellor’s Office. About 10% of CSU students are expected to attend some in-person classes, such as nursing lab courses, fine art and dance classes, and some graduate classes.
Uhlenkamp said testing protocols are being left up to each campus, though all are required to follow local safety guidelines. And without a medical campus in the system, CSU campuses do not have the same capacity to take charge of their own testing, as the University of Illinois is doing.
For students who know they won’t be on campus this fall, there is regret at lost social experiences, networking and hands-on learning so important to college.
But the certainty also brings relief.
“I don’t think I would want to be indoors with a group of, you know, even just a handful of people, even if we have masks on,” said Haley Gray, a 28-year-old graduate student at the University of California-Berkeley starting the second year of her journalism program.
She knows she won’t have access to Berkeley’s advanced media labs or the collaborative sessions students experience there. And she said she realized the other day she probably won’t just sit around the student lounge and strike up unexpected friendships.
“That’s a pretty big bummer but, you know, I think overall we’re all just doing our best, and given the circumstances, I feel pretty OK about it,” she 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. This story is part of a partnership that includes KBIA, Illinois Public Media, Side Effects Public Media, NPR and Kaiser Health News.